RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Milliepede on Monday 29 October 18 11:42 GMT (UK)
-
Just wondering how often it was the mother of the child that registered the birth?
Say was it the mother 90% of the time, how unusual would it be for the father or someone else to have done it.
Talking about the mid to late 1800's.
Thanks for any insight :)
-
Not unusual for someone who is going to the town where the Registry Office was to register the Birth whilst there.
-
The wording of the 1874 Act is:
1, In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1874/88/pdfs/ukpga_18740088_en.pdf
Stan
-
Thanks very much.
-
When my great uncle was born in 1900 his father was in the army and his birth was registered by his maternal grandfather.
Dorrie
-
My great grandfather was illiterate so it was left to his wife, 6 times.
Martin
-
In my family it was the mother, father was working. I'm talking 1858 to 1883. My greatgrandmother was illiterate so made her mark. Odd, her father was literate and so was her grandfather.
-
One of my gt.uncles had his birth registered by a neighbour (1878) and she got the surname wrong so he took some finding! ::)
-
The only requirement is that they were a qualified informant - i.e. they fell within one of the legal categories that allows them to give the information about the birth.
Which qualification they fall under will be shown in column 7 beneath how they signed.
-
The only requirement is that they were a qualified informant - i.e. they fell within one of the legal categories that allows them to give the information about the birth.
Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953
(2)The following persons shall be qualified to give information concerning a birth, that is to say—
(a)the father and mother of the child;
(b)the occupier of the house in which the child was to the knowledge of that occupier born;
(c)any person present at the birth;
(d)any person having charge of the child.
Which is more or less what is in the 1874 Act reply #2
Stan
-
My great uncle was born 20th May 1915 and his birth registered on the 1st July 1915. Born in Grays Inn Buildings, Holborn and the informant was a I. Fisher "present at birth" and her address was given as a street in Holloway, Islington. Not yet traced her but I assume she was the midwife.
-
Remember that in the earlier years of registration it was the responsibility of the Registrar to locate the births.
I have a registration for a child born on 2 March 1843 to a "Travelling Gipsey & Tinker". He was registered on 26 April by a woman who was "present at the birth". This was eight weeks later and the family had doubtless moved on by then. He's the only one of the children of these parents for whom I've found a registration.
I suspect this lady was the local midwife and known to the Registrar, and that he might regularly approach her for news of local births.
-
That is probably a big reason why many births went unregistered until the laws were tightened up in 1874. If the registrar and his deputies had to tour the district getting notes on new births then it is a no brainer that some were missed, or some parents did not want the baby registered so kept it hush hush, may not have been easy as people did tend to know everyone's business back then. They only had to provide the info to the registrar if they found out and wanted info on the birth until 1875.
-
Not unusual for someone who is going to the town where the Registry Office was to register the Birth whilst there.
One of my Irish great-grandfathers registered the birth of his godson shortly after civil registration of births began in 1864. The father of the child was probably my GGM's brother, living on the same plot of land. The father may have been working away at the time of his son's birth. My GGF's qualification as informant was "sponsor".
-
The 1836 Registration Act stated;
" every Registrar shall be authorized and is hereby required to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District after the said First Day of March, and to learn and register soon after the Event as conveniently may be done, without Fee or Reward save as herein-after mentioned,"
It was left to his discretion to employ such lawful means of informing himself as appeared to be best, but he had to employ some means. He would most likely have referred to people such as doctors, midwives, undertakers etc. that would have knowledge of any birth or death in his district.
If the birth was not registered within forty-two days there was also a fee of two Shillings and Sixpence entitlement for the Superintendent Registrar, and five shillings for the registrar, Section XXII. So there was an incentive to register the birth, but also not to register it after 42 days, to avoid the payment.
Stan
-
My 3x GGM registered births of her twin grand-daughters, in capacity of occupier of the house where they were born. Her surname was different to theirs because she was married to her 2nd husband at the time. The babies were premature and died within 24 hours of birth. A family friend was informant of their deaths. Same date on all 4 certificates so I assume the two women went together.
-
My grt grt grandpa registered his sister's twins at the same time he registered my grt grt Aunt's birth. They had been born within a couple of days of each other.
-
I've just done a quick tally of the certs in my collection:
England & Wales =
Mother: 43
Father: 14
Present: 2 (one is also the householder)
Scotland =
Mother: 6
Father: 14
Present: 1
Australia =
Mother: 3
Father: 17
Other: 2
Number on the Scottish and Australian births are boosted by others on the pages, so still relevant to this post.
The Australian registrations were mostly done by letter, and of course it was mostly the man in the house who wrote "business" letters! One of the "others" was an aunt of the mother, and the other was the local Constable.
-
I have an ancestor born in 1856 and one in 1852/1853 where I cannot for the life of me find a birth reg but have their baptisms. The 1856 one was born around the same time as a namesake cousin. Their father's were brothers. Also they were both born in the same village in Co Durham. One got registered and one didn't, so somehow the registrar missed one of the births of the 2 namesake cousins. I sent off for the birth cert of the registered one thinking it was my ancestor but it was his namesake cousin who died as a child in January 1860 aged 3. Both were baptised in April 1856 on the same day.
Some of the other children born to the 2 brothers never had their birth registered either. Some births just went unregistered, simple.
-
The first Statistician of the GRO Dr. William Farr (1807–1883) estimated a 5% non-registration rate for births 1837-76, declining from 6.9% in 1841-50 to 1.8% in 1861-70.
Stan
-
This is a mini random survey of people registering births in 2 districts in Mayo on the same pages as some of my relatives. There were between 7 and 10 births per page Many babies were children of farmers. Civil registrations of births began in Ireland in 1864.
1864 Castlebar:
Mother - 0
Father - 3
Grandfather - 2
Grandmother - 2
1864 Swinford:
Mother - 2
Father - 4
Aunt - 1
Sponsor - 1*
*Was also uncle by marriage.
1867 Castlebar:
Mother - 3
Father - 4
Present at birth - 2*
Occupier - 1*
*Surnames same as mother's maiden name so possibly relatives.
1869 Castlebar:
Mother - 3
Father - 6
Present at birth - 1*
*Possibly female relative.
1881 Swinford:
Mother - 5
Father - 0
Present at birth 5*
2 had same surname as a parent so possibly a relative.
1906 Swinford:
Mother - 5
Father - 1
Present at birth - 4**
1911 Swinford:
Mother - 5
Father - 1
Present at birth - 4**
** I don't know if any were relatives.