I believe part of the fuss and run-around with birth certificates is that #1 its a charter document or evidence of a charter #2 the real issue is the significance of a charter or royal warrant. I'm not sure what is fraudulent about the birth certificate. The MOTHER ENTITY and the FATHER ENTITY created a joint venture or spinoff in such and such a jurisdiction called "{NAME OF CHILD} and presumingly knowingly and willingly introduced the information into a specific register. If you try to claim copyright to a name on a birth certificate in say Australia or New Zealand they will likely tell you quite frankly that the name is their property. That its their property is informative.
Note that the registrar is the registrar of births, deaths *and* marriages. A birth certificate is most always testimony of the record keeper of an entry's existence. The consequence or significance of the entry is a separate matter from which going on and about birth certificate itself might be a distraction. The certificate is *evidence of* something.
P.S. It is more likely that they created the office (or berth) entered into by the 'child' with help of 'parents'. Also being a subject of a king or queen might be a type of servitude. If someone enters into a type of servitude that leads to say, 'civil death' then perhaps the event is a birth (or entry into a berth) and a death at the same time? Minus the extreme emotionalism it might be easier to see.
I suspect that if all the particulars of a birth certificate and such were known, it might not be all that useful apart from knowing oneself.cursive (adj.) 1784, from French cursif (18c.), from Medieval Latin cursivus "running," from Latin cursus "a running," from past participle of currere "to run" (see current (adj.)). The notion is of "written with a running hand" (without raising the pen), originally as opposed to the older uncial hand.