• Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

No birth registration!

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,664
Likes
182
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#1
I have in my tree the Sewell family who had 10 children from 1836 to 1855 but official records only have the last 3.
The other seven all have baptism records - so I assume that officially recording births was not always carried out:confused:

Peter
 

DaveHam9

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
77,873
Likes
1,172
Location
Sydney
#3
Difficult at times Peter.

My great grandfather was baptised in Liverpool but no sign of a birth reg. Birth reg exist for younger siblings born same place.

Baptism: 5 Oct 1856 St Peter, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
Thomas Blakeley - [Child] of Thomas Blakeley & Janet
Abode: Eldon Place
Occupation: Iron Moulder
Baptised by: J. W. Welsh Asst. Curate
Register: Baptisms 1856 - 1857, Page 80, Entry 639
Source: LDS Film 93887

Family name is actually Blackley.

Hard to know if there was no reg or if there was one but it's been lost or destroyed or it exists but is unreadable.

Dave
 
Posts
10
Likes
0
#4
I have come across the same thing. The son of a Vicar wasn't registered when born around 1850, but I found his baptism record. I think quite a few births were not registered in those days. On the other hand, I have also come across a woman whose birth was registered twice with several years between. This is because she was given away by her family in 1917 to a couple who had no children ... which was normal procedure in those days as there was no adoption law. The new parents were scared that the birth parents might come back years later when the girl was old enough to work, and to claim her back. For this reason they registered her birth in 1917 to get their own birth certificate, even if the lass was by then 3 years old. Who would ever tell?

Oddly enough, the woman in question married in 1946 ... twice. She had two birth certificates and didn't know which name to marry under, and so the marriage was registered twice on the same day. Nice to be safe isn't it.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,289
Likes
117
Location
Norwich
#5
I have an ancestor baptised in 1856 but no sign of his birth cert. The same for his first cousin in 1857, born in Co Durham. I even looked at their local indexes on their Durham County Council website but to no avail.
 
Posts
10
Likes
0
#6
I believe the problem goes back to the 1836 Act for Registering Births, Deaths and Marriages in England. This was the act that replaced Parish registers with the GRO system. The Act has wishy-washy wording, and says people 'may' notify the Registrar of a birth within 42 days of it occurring, but also required the registrar to 'inform himself carefully of every birth and every death that should occur in his district'. Most probably, people thought it was the Registrar's job to find out, and not their duty to report.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,289
Likes
117
Location
Norwich
#7
Until 1875 it did seem to be the registrar's job to find out. Probably through word of mouth from midwives, doctors etc. Even then, not all babies in the early years of civil reg necessarily had a midwife deliver them, some were done by family members as best they could. So no wonder loads were missed.
 

Similar threads

Top