Comments

As the informant could be any person present at the birth other than the parents it would seem that one parent could do the registration on their own. It was only if the child was illegitimate that in order for the real father to be named he had to be present and then I think you will find the child registered with both surnames and indexed twice.

I have an example in the 1880s of the husband of the informant being named as the father but he had died 4 years before! The same woman registered another child in the 1890s and still named her (dead) husband as the father. I can see no reason why this couldn't have happened in the 1920s. 

You asked for a definitive answer - the nearest I can get to one would be this site but here again a lot depends of the individual's interpretation of the rules

Thanks, Graham. That's great. As a consequence I have managed to push that particular line back another 4 generations.

Dave

You have probably seen this but there was an interesting account of his life while in Weston, published in the Weston Mercury reprinted in 2010.  He was a controversial figure!

I would agree with your reasoning that this Christopher was the son of Edward SADBURIE.

The surname KEENE and variants can be found in Banwell and neighbouring parishes in the early 1600s and I agree with Graham that our transcription is correct.

Nicola we have also transcribed Judith's surname as KEENE. Looking at the original on Ancestry I believe this is correct.

Graham

Yes David you are correct Harry's surname should read BATT and not BALL as we have transcribed.

This entry has now been corrected.

Graham