NSW Australia, 1992 certified copy of 1857 certificate.
Posted on 08/05/2009 6:59:30 AM PDT by naturalman1975
I have spent way too much time today looking at these.
I thought other people might find it useful to see them in one place.
NSW Australia, 1992 certified copy of 1857 certificate.
Queensland Australia, 1959 certified copy of 1936 certificate.
NSW Australia, 1999 certificate.
Victoria, Australia, 1955 certified copy of 1855 certificate.
Victoria, Australia, 2000 certified copy of 1901 certificate.
Great Britain, 2007 certified copy of 1894 certificate.
Rhodesia, 1963 certificate.
Canada, 1967 certificate.
New Zealand birth certificate
Now is it impossible, Kenya might have adopted a format very similar to Australia? No, it's not impossible. And maybe somebody somewhere can find a Kenyan certificate of unimpeachable provenance which will show that they did.
But speaking as somebody whose seen a lot of Australian birth certificates, that was my first reaction when I saw the alleged Obama certificate - that that looks very familiar.
Totally unrelated to your post......
FR back on?
Sorry, but I couldn’t trust anything coming from Kenya as “authentic”...so OWEbumma gets a pass from me. Because of a longstanding “Kenyan-Comes-Into-Fortune-if-One-Just-Agrees-to-Depositing-His-Check” e-mail campaign I’ll have to accept his legitimacy from the Hawaiian sources.
>> But speaking as somebody whose seen a lot of Australian birth certificates, that was my first reaction when I saw the alleged Obama certificate - that that looks very familiar.
But none of the samples you posted look similar to the Kenya and Austalia ones in question.
Do you have any that look similar that you can post?
So far, I’m sticking with the Kenya one is real and the Austalia one is a fake, made to look like the Kenya one on purpose and uploaded just to throw everyone offtrack.
These are very helpful. I assume that you have seen and made your photographs from original paper copies in each case?
The limitation of your sample is that it spans a wide range chronologically. The ones in your sample that are closest in time to the alleged 1964 Kenya Certification are closest in form to that certification. But there’s tremendous variation among the Australian certificates over time.
And that’s not surprising. Styles/forms vary over time. They will vary over geographical distribution within the same time period depending on the degree of interconnection between the issuing countries.
It would not be surprising if some general similarity in forms, within a given time era, is found across the British empire/Commonwealth. You only have one certificate from Africa.
We really need a much greater sampling from various British colonies from the 1950s and early 1960s including some from Kenya. Only then can one say that similarity to 1950s era Australian BCs suggests the Taitz BC was forged from an Australian model rather than that it resembles Australian BCs from that era because colonial offices used similar forms across the globe.
I have no idea which is true. But the chronological disparity within the Australian examples you offer is a red flag against concluding that the Taitz BC was faked from an Australian model.
The Australian birth certificates look very similar to the New Zealand certificate — which probably isn’t at all surprising given the nature of our CER agreement. I’m not necessarily looking at physical format (tho’ even there they are similar in many ways) but rather in content.
I’m looking at my British Columbia Birth Certificate (full) and it looks similar to the Manitoba Birth Certificate — not at all surprising. Mine dates from 1963.
Like you, I see an eerie similarity between the Australian certificates and the “Kenyan” one presented the other day. Less of a similarity with the New Zealand certificate and the “Kenyan” one. Not much similarity with either the Manitoba or the British Columbia certificates and the “Kenyan” one.
Interesting...
I have a friend from Zambia that I could ask to see his certificate. Granted, that’s not Kenya. And I have several South African friends whose certificates I could also sight. However, again not “Kenya”.
Good work! I admit, however, it will probably be glossed over by some who don’t want it to get in the way of their viewpoint.
The other thing that I can add is that the New Zealand BC (computer generated) changed in format between 1996 and 1999, so that has happened at least once. I don’t know why this happened, but it did — my son’s certificate is different to my daughter’s.
By extrapolation then we should expect that this could happen with Kenyan certificates, too. Over the years the format may have changed several times.
Another curiosity regarding the Australian and the Kenyan one is the folds.
The vertical folds in the Australian one are almost equidistant as if it was folded in half and half again. The folds in the Kenyan one are not equidistant. The rightmost quarter is not equal to the other quarters.
I was trying to figure out that if the Australian one was used as the template would some photo shop process possibly shrink the Australian requiring the lines on the left to be extended rightwards (accounting for the top right 53XX number to be within the lines) rather than hanging in the margin and also cause the right side to be cut as extra causing the shorter section right of the rightmost fold.
I understand there are other differences in the folds.
The other curiosity I saw is that these older versions show that someone had to draw the lines within which the data was typed. The result is that some vertical lines meet the horizontal ones and some do not. Both the Kenyan one and the Australian one have the same gap in the bottom of the section labeled Mother.
Something to really chew on after a bit of a hiatus from FR. I think they were down for about an hour or so. Yes, you have the bottom line about the authenticity of the Obama certificate. The three groups of numbers do hold the answer one way or another. To whit. 494. 44b and 5733. These on the Aussie cert and the Kenyan cert.
Good work on your efforts on the behalf of those of us still struggling with the situation.
excerpt from Defend our Freedoms Blog ...
Kenya was part of the British Empire in 1961, and as such, used English Common Law for any type of records and registration.
Australia joined the British Commonwealth of Nations in December, 1931 (see Wikipedia nation members’ list) and also uses English Common Law.
So, i’ve (blogger at Defend our Freedoms) established that both countries use English Common Law. One country, Kenya, when it was part of the British empire in 1961, and the other country, Australia, after it joined the Commonwealth of Nations (and was formly part of the British empire).
Because both countries use English Common Law (or did as members of the Commonwealth and British Empire), they were subject to the provisions of the English Common Law of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.
end excerpt ...
An analysis from Defend our Freedoms blogs states, “The number “495” on each certificate appearing after the cost is the form number.”
Interesting link! Thanks.
I might be able to get my hands on one from England, early 1950’s.
Wrong. The significance of the 1931 Statute of Westminster was that it recognised legislative independence if the Commonwealth Member States. Any subsequent change to English Law would have no effect on Australian Law.
Try harder next time.
>>>Serious question - what are the odds that a Kenyan birth certificate would be of similar format to Australian birth certificates, but different from those of other Commonwealth countries?<<<
IMO it would depend on which of those ordered the plates from the probably London firm that etched the BC plates used.
Back then, commercially acid etched printing plates for forms were very very common. They would order the standard plate with inserts for the logo and other localizing data. This was much cheaper than having them custom designed and your own original plates made.
Just like the seals for documents are ordered and they use their standard formats with distinctive personalizing inserts.
Different companies had different designs.
Thanks for posting the images.
In looking at the two images from 1955 and 1959 (since those forms should be most similar to a form from 1964) a few things pop out at me:
1. Each has the following information at the top of the form:
- BIRTH in the District of ___ (Bomford doesn’t have this at the top)
- Registered by __ (Bomford doesn’t have this at the top)
2. Each section of the form is numbered (Bomford’s isn’t)
3. Neither have any indication of a price at the top (e.g. 7s. 6d. from Bomford)
4. Verbiage at the bottom near seal is similar on 1955 and 1959 certs but very different on Bomford.
- 1955 says: I, ___ Assistant Government Statist of the State of Victoria, in the Commonwealth of Australia, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Entry in a Register of Births kept in this office.
- 1959 says: I, ___ Deputy Registrar General, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Entry in a Register of Births kept in the General Registry office...
- 1964 says: I, ___ Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the State of South Australia, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the entry recorded in the Birth Register of this State, Book 44B, Page 5733.
5. Neither the 1955 nor the 1959 copies make any reference to a Book or Page. Both of those documents call it a ‘Register of Births’ while Bomford’s says, ‘Birth Register’
6. Section 10 on both the 1955 and 1959 certs (and Section 7 on the 1999 and 2000 certs) has information pertinent to the Registrar but none have a section for ‘Entered at the District Registry Office’ like Bomford’s does.
Obviously I have no way of knowing if any of these differences mean anything but I had some time to kill at work today.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R61CHP3
III REGISTRY OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES
A. Structure
3.10 Until 1975 the Registry was part of the Registrar General’s Department. It is now administered within the Attorney General’s Department, having been briefly a part of the Department of Services. The office of Principal Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages was created in 1975 and was held by the respective departmental heads. In 1984 the current Principal Registrar was appointed, the first to have a separate position and be located within the Registry.
3.11 The Central Registry is located in Sydney, and consists of four divisions, namely:
* Registration Division which compiles the registers and indexes, and makes amendments and corrections to the registers where appropriate. This Division is responsible for external, (ie, local and regional) registries.
* Certificates Division which maintains all the registers and indexes, and produces the certified copies of registered particulars when requested or authorised. The Family History Advisory Service assists users of the genealogical resources of the Registry.
* Administrative Services Division which is responsible for the data entry of all registrations in the computerised registers, and for general administration of the Registry.
* Client Services Division which attends to all postal, telephone, and personal enquiries and requests for Registry services, and is responsible for performing civil marriages.
3.12 Until 1974 the State was divided into several districts, each with a registrar who maintained the district registers, with duplicates centralised in the Sydney office. Administration was altered by the Registration Act 1973 which abolished the districts and created local registrars at several country centres and regional registries at Newcastle and Wollongong.
3.13 Local registrars (who are usually the local clerks of the court) act as receiving agents for information lodged for registration, and maintain duplicate registers for local production of certified copies of registered particulars. They are authorised marriage celebrants. Regional offices process birth and death registrations from different parts of the State. All other registrations are effected, and central registers and indexes maintained, at the Sydney registry, which now employs computer technology for these purposes.
B. Functions of Principal Registrar
3.14 As head of the Registry, the Principal Registrar is responsible for a variety of functions. They are:
* Establishment and maintenance of the registers and indexes, including effecting amendments where necessary.
* Registration of all births, deaths, marriages, legitimations, stillbirths, memoranda of adoptions, and parentage information lodged with the Registry.
* Issue of certified copies and extracts of registered particulars to applicants entitled to receive them, on payment of the prescribed fee.
* Supply of information to government departments and agencies.
* Civil administration of marriages, including solemnisation and related services.
* Preservation of all original records relating to births, deaths and marriages in New South Wales.
3.10 Until 1975 the Registry was part of the Registrar General’s Department. It is now administered within the Attorney General’s Department, having been briefly a part of the Department of Services. The office of Principal Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages was created in 1975 and was held by the respective departmental heads. In 1984 the current Principal Registrar was appointed, the first to have a separate position and be located within the Registry.
_________________________________________________________
Well, this says a lot.
On Bomford’s cert at the bottom is says: Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and it is dated 1964.
How could Douglas Gordon Young work for this office in 1964 when it wasn’t created until 1975.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.