Adoption Records

[mygirlbill]

I will ask her. Some weeks ago I found on the Gov. site that altogether there were 17 Charles Henry's born in Qld in 1875. But it really doesn't mean anything until it can be confirmed that he was adopted.... or not. I think our best bet is to start with the church records. Hopefully that may give us a few answers. Cause otherwise it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. 

[majm]

Formal adoption commenced in Queensland in around 1928.    He would have been aged in his 50s. 

In 1875 it was compulsory to register births in Queensland.  However, I am aware of many instances where it seems that a birth has perhaps not been registered, or an entry missed from the online indexes, or the name recorded is not a name that 21st century eyes would expect.

JM

[mygirlbill]

Yes there was the possibility that his birth wasn't registered but if that had a been the case, he still would have known the names of his parents. My friend did apply to purchase his birth certificate only to be told that there was no birth recorded for him between the years 1870 and 1880 in Qld. So he was either born interstate or he wasn't born a Wakefield although he claimed to have been born in Queensland. The search continues.......

[majm]

Yes there was the possibility that his birth wasn't registered but if that had a been the case, he still would have known the names of his parents. My friend did apply to purchase his birth certificate only to be told that there was no birth recorded for him between the years 1870 and 1880 in Qld. So he was either born interstate or he wasn't born a Wakefield although he claimed to have been born in Queensland. The search continues.......

So Qld BDM do not have a birth registration for a Charles Henry WAKEFIELD between 1870 and 1880.  Please don't expand that to mean anything other than Qld BDM did not find a birth in those names between those years.   It could have been registered at the local office but not received at the Head office, it could be that the longhand writing was in a scribble and the surname has been 'mis-read' or it could be that the birth was registered in another surname or the given names were reversed, or that Charles was raised as Charles, but registered under a different name.   There are many explanations.  Simply put, to my way of thinking, when looking at 19th Century record keeping procedures, Adoption should not be the paramount explanation for lack of details about a person's parentage. 

The information recorded on a marriage certificate in Queensland was based on the information transmitted to the Registrar General by the clergy.  I find it very unusual for the clergyman to have conducted a marriage in 1900 without noting on the civil registration the name of the parents of the groom.   It had been the practice of Anglican clergy to record these details for decades and decades.   In fact, it is possible to make the argument that the clergyman was not permitted to proceed with a marriage contract without first obtaining these details, or at least noting that those details were 'unknown' after making enquiries.   

I think it is a flawed decision to decide that simply because the details are not listed on the marriage certificate issued by the Queensland BDM that the person was adopted and/or that he did not know ANY of the names of his parents.

Have you looked for WAKEFIELD as a surname in Rockhampton in 1875?      Or on Queensland Electoral Rolls from say 1896 (when Charles Henry may have turned 21 years of age, and therefore become eligible to enrol to vote) ...
   
JM   

[mygirlbill]

I agree with you 100% and then some! However, my friend will insist that he was adopted and I am not at all 100% convinced that he is. From what I can gather from school records there was one other Wakefield family living here in Rockhampton who had a son who attended school here. However, he (John) was born 27/7/77. My friend has a document in her possession in which Charles claimed his birthdate to have been 16/9/1875. Yes, he has been found on electoral roles etc. but no clue there. Also no clue on his death certificate as the informant (a son) apparently did not know the existence of any grandparents which kind of confirms that they did not figure in their father's live. But anyhow, I will see what we can find out regarding what the clergy man may or may not have recorded in his register. If what you say is correct that a clergyman was not allowed to proceed with a marriage without all these details than the chances of getting to the bottom of this mystery are probably looking positive.

[majm]

When and where was he first sighted on an electoral roll?   

ADD
I have looked back through posts I have made to help others.   Here's one that should be helpful here too.

From a 1893 Qld marriage cert, so I would expect similar info on a 1901 Qld mc. 

When and where married
Names and surnames of the parties (the groom then the bride)
Condition of the parties (Bachelor or Spinster or Widow, no mention of Divorcee)
Birthplace (the cert I am looking at while typing this up, is for a couple who were both born outside of Australia. So, this document gives the town, the county and then the country [in the UK,]  groom then the bride)
Married in the/at (the street address, a private residence in a rural district in Qld)
According to the rites of (the denomination)  (Also, if either party was under 21 years, here was sufficient space for the clergy to write the details of the person giving consent, and their relationship to the bride or the groom)
The Rank or Profession of the groom and then the bride (in this instance the bride was recorded as “Private Life”)
Ages (groom, then bride)
Usual place of Residence (their respective addresses in rural Qld)
Father’s name and surname,  Mother’s Name and maiden surname.
Father’s rank or profession

The signatures of the groom and bride
The witnesses
The Officiating Minister/Registrar

ADD
I am not sure when Qld required the clergy/registrar to ask if any of the parents were known to be deceased, but in NSW that requirement dates from 1899, and the clergy often abbreviated it to a small notation, sometimes "dec" other times a simple † near the parent's name

Cheers,  JM

JM

[wivenhoe]

What causes you to believe that Charles Henry WAKEFIELD was born anywhere in Australia?

A birth certificate for one of his children would ask for age and birthplace of parents.

You need to see a birth certificate for one of the children.

I am reading your post to mean that Charles Henry WAKEFIELD is the author of the document with birth date, not someone else giving information about him.

And during his lifetime Charles Henry WAKEFIELD recorded his birth date as 16 Sep 1875.

FreeBDM   birth
WAKEFIELD Charles Henry     Sep Q 1875       Tetbury    6a / 353

It would be useful to know what the document is, and if Charles Henry is definitely giving information about himself.........or possibly something an earlier researcher has found, and looks promising, but not confirmed?

[majm]

perhaps this baptism would be for the civil birth registration found by Wivenhoe
C of E Baptisms, Kingscote, Gloucestershire
8 August 1875
Entry no. 499
Charles Henry, son of Charles & Louisa WAKEFIELD,  of Kingscote, a shepherd.

Here he is in the 1881 English census
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QKXH-Z2HY

JM

[mygirlbill]

According to documents my friend has in her possession it claims that Charles was born in Queensland on the 16/9/1875. I'm not sure what these documents are but will look further into it. Electoral roll perhaps?? On his children's birth certificates it also claims that he was Qld born and I am not 100% certain but I think she said that he claimed to have been born in Rockhampton. However a thorough research here hasn't turned up anything. His age on these certificates coincides with a birth in 1875.
Yes, he was definitely giving information about himself.
Regarding the Tetbury birth of a Charles Henry Wakefield. The fact that he was born in England or anywhere else other than Australia is a possibility too except for that there is no record of him coming to Australia.
If I remember correctly (so please don't quote me! lol) Charles and Mary had about 10 children altogether and none of these children knew of their father's parents existence.
If for arguments sake he was born illegitimate and was given up for adoption at birth, who would have registered the birth and who's Christian name would he have been given? The mother's or the father's?