Missing entries in the civil marriage index for ABBOTT 1839

[avm228]

The abode stated at the time of Eliza’s baptism is Colchester St, which was within the registration district of Whitechapel.  There are not all that many Eliza birth registrations with no middle name in Whitechapel in Jun qtr 1840.  You may be able to rule some of them out to find a prime candidate or two and take a chance with a £6 pdf birth record that one of them was born in Colchester St to a mother named Eliza.

Surnames for the Jun qtr 1840 Eliza births in Whitechapel are:

Ballard (mmn Thompson)
Caffyn (baptism shows dau of John - shoemaker - & Eliza, of York St)
Collett (mmn Willis)
Cummins (mmn Johnson)
Edwards (mmn Scouse)
Everett (mmn Drew)
Hall (mmn Corr)
Lynch (mmn Warner)
Neal (no mmn)
Stubbs (mmn Keys)
Thompson (mmn Collins)
Vile (mmn Howells)

Not yet traced Eliza Neal, but it’s looking like the others were all born to married couples

[clontarf]

Thank you avm228.  That is a most interesting list. 

On the face of it Eliza Neal could be a prime candidate if all the others are born to married couples, assuming my Eliza Abbott was actually registered.

I have seen lots of baptisms for base born children, but never a civil certificate.  Would an illegitimate child always be registered under the mothers surname?  If the father was prepare to acknowledge the child, as it appears Jabez Abbott may have done, would it be permissible for him to choose to register her under his name?

[Annette7]

It couldn't have been Eliza Neal birth Jun.1840 Whitechapel - she appears to have died in Jun.1840 Whitechapel (age 0).

Annette

[jonw65]

Hi
On those LDS microfilms, you can't order them any more, they have stopped doing that. So it may be a case of waiting for that one to be digitized, and then viewing it on a computer at the family history centre. Unless you can find a centre that has the film.
They say that all films should have been digitized by the end of 2020
https://www.familysearch.org/ask/faq#overview

On the birth registration of Eliza, remember that not all births were registered in those first years.
John

[avm228]

It couldn't have been Eliza Neal birth Jun.1840 Whitechapel - she appears to have died in Jun.1840 Whitechapel (age 0).

Do we know that “our” Eliza did not die in infancy, though? 

[clontarf]

We don't.  In fact, if Eliza is a legitimate Abbott or an illegitimate Eliza Neal, she almost certainly did die in infancy.  I have been unable to find an Eliza Abbott or Eliza Neal of the right age and birthplace in the 1841 or 1851 census.  A third option - that she is an unregistered illegitimate child of another surname who did not die in infancy - is a dead end as far as investigation is concerned, unless sometime in the future the civil death register is re-indexed to allow searches on the father's name.

There are two Eliza Neals in the census born about 1840 in London, but both have married parents.  I found the baptism of the daughter of John and Elizabeth in Whitechapel in 1841 (born 21 Sep), and the daughter of William and Jane was born 1839/40 in Brompton.

I have found a couple of Eliza Neals buried as infants 1840/41.  One that just might be relevant is Eliza Ann Neal, buried on 30 May 1840 at Christ Church Spitalfields, aged 9 weeks, residence Blossom Street.  There is no Eliza Ann Neal(e) birth or death in the civil register - just the Eliza Neal death registered Jun qtr 1840 at Whitechapel.   Exactly 9 weeks gives a birth date of 28/29 March, so she could only be Eliza Abbott if the minister or parent(s) have got the month wrong at her baptism; or (less likely) the burying minister has written 9 in error for 4.

[avm228]

Blossom St was in Whitechapel registration district so there is a good chance that Eliza Neal and Eliza Ann Neal are one and the same, and can therefore be ruled out (a month or so too old, and not a match on the home address).

[avm228]

Re your question about surnames for illegitimate children, bear in mind that a civil birth certificate in the 19th century (and well into the 20th) did not specify a surname for the child at all.  The surname is imputed from the parent(s).

A good explanation of the situation regarding unmarried fathers at various dates is given here:

http://www.dixons.clara.co.uk/Certificates/births.htm  (See under heading “Column 4”).

[avm228]

Bear in mind also that the fact that the baptism record appears to show the child as legitimate does not tell you, reliably, that Jabez acknowledged the child as his.  He may well have done, and they may well have lived as a family unit, but a baptism record does not tell you who presented the child for baptism or who was there at the baptism.  It just tells you what information was given to the minister at the time about the child and its parent(s). It would have been perfectly possible for an unmarried mother to take a child for baptism and present it as legitimate, naming the father as though he were her husband.