10
The Lighter Side / Re: A rather unusual birth certificate
« on: Sunday 26 May 24 12:32 BST (UK) »
These are not original records, but info that has been copied (possibly more than once) Almost certainly a transcription error.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
11
The Common Room / Re: Adoption and birth certificate query.
« on: Thursday 23 May 24 17:33 BST (UK) »
Sounds quite normal.... the new certificate is taken from the Adopted Children Register. If it is the short version (which is what was nornally given to use as a "birth"certificate) it wont have the word "adopted" anywhere.
12
The Common Room / Re: Marriage Index Question
« on: Wednesday 22 May 24 22:55 BST (UK) »
(In E/W), being married, or in a civil partnership, can have a significant impact on inheritance tax liabilities and to some occupational pension entitlements so it is something that many couples who may have been cohabiting for years are often advised to consider.
As far as names go - a person is required to marry in the name they "use or are known by" at the time. Other surnames can be shown, as "otherwise" or "formerly known as", but don't have to be.
The entry will be indexed under whatever surnames appear on the register.
As far as names go - a person is required to marry in the name they "use or are known by" at the time. Other surnames can be shown, as "otherwise" or "formerly known as", but don't have to be.
The entry will be indexed under whatever surnames appear on the register.
13
The Common Room / Re: Cause of Death "Uknown"
« on: Tuesday 21 May 24 09:53 BST (UK) »
The relevant law at the time of this entry would be the B&D Act of 1874 which introduced the procedure for a medical practitioner to provide a "certificate stating to the best of his knowledge and belief the cause of death..". It also required the details of the certifying doctor to be recorded on the register entry, which wasn't previously the case even when a cause had been certified.
However - this new requirement to certify a cause only applied where the person had "been attended during his last illness by a registered medical practitioner" which many people wouldn't have been. So a death could still be "uncertified" and the cause be recorded as whatever the informant gave, or as in this case none at all.
So even though the death took place in the workhouse, it suggests that he had not seen a doctor in his time there (which may have been very brief).
Deaths can (or could a few years ago when I was working as a registrar) still be uncertified in some rare cases and the cause could be recorded as unknown (with the agreement of the coroner).
How the changes now being introduced by the introduction of a new Medical Examiner role in the process, apart from apparently causing quite a few delays, I don't know.
As a doctor once told me when I rang him about a cause of death certificate he had produced "well working out any cause of death for some patients is about half from their medical history and the other half pure guesswork anyway".
However - this new requirement to certify a cause only applied where the person had "been attended during his last illness by a registered medical practitioner" which many people wouldn't have been. So a death could still be "uncertified" and the cause be recorded as whatever the informant gave, or as in this case none at all.
So even though the death took place in the workhouse, it suggests that he had not seen a doctor in his time there (which may have been very brief).
Deaths can (or could a few years ago when I was working as a registrar) still be uncertified in some rare cases and the cause could be recorded as unknown (with the agreement of the coroner).
How the changes now being introduced by the introduction of a new Medical Examiner role in the process, apart from apparently causing quite a few delays, I don't know.
As a doctor once told me when I rang him about a cause of death certificate he had produced "well working out any cause of death for some patients is about half from their medical history and the other half pure guesswork anyway".
14
The Common Room / Re: Double Marriage?
« on: Tuesday 14 May 24 14:26 BST (UK) »It's not exclusively a Roman Catholic thing, either. I've come across a couple who married in a register office in the first quarter of 1859, with a daughter born that April. Then in July the following year they had a church ceremony - but I can only speculate as to whose decision this might have been.
It's been written up on what looks like a quarterly return form in the manner of a marriage, and inserted in the marriage register, but it includes the words "After having been previously married in the presence of the Registrar....", and the wife's name is given as "(married surname) late (maiden surname)". This ceremony doesn't appear in the GRO indexes, and I only found out about it because the website it's on decided to include it in their index.
Sounds like a vicar knew what he was doing and got things right (which is unusual).
Marriage in a religious ceremony after a previous marriage in a register office is quite common and specifically allowed for in the legislation ( from the Marriage Act 1856 onwards I think)
The second, religious, marriages shouldn't be registered in the civil register and so shouldn't appear in the GRO indexes, but often are and do...thereby causing much confusion and speculation for future researchers.
The church itself can of course keep any record it wants for its own purposes..
15
The Common Room / Re: uk birth certificates
« on: Saturday 11 May 24 09:38 BST (UK) »Have you checked freebmd /GRO online to confirm there is a birth registration? Failure to register a birth in England & Wales only became a fineable offence in 1874.
There are many unregistered births prior to 1874
If you find a registration - use GRO online to check for mothers maiden name
www.freebmd.org.uk
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp
Thank you for this, it explains a lot why I have missing birth records for my ancestors illegitimate children, have so far only found 1 registered birth out of 5 known children. I didn't realise it only became fineable in 1874.
Registrars have never been able to fine anyone.
There was a FEE payable for a late registration - from 1837 it was 7s 6d and became payable at 6 weeks, but after the 1874 Act it was reduced to 5s and was only payable at 3 months after the birth.
Fines could only be issued by a court after conviction - people were fined for failing/refusing to register births right from the start in 1837 - but the offences were only committed if the parent(s) had been issued with a notice by the registrar requiring them to register.
16
The Common Room / Re: Birth registration rules in 1901 UK
« on: Thursday 09 May 24 22:21 BST (UK) »
Perfectly possible, but you should make really sure you have covered all the other options before deciding there is no registration.
17
The Common Room / Re: Birth registration rules in 1901 UK
« on: Wednesday 08 May 24 09:18 BST (UK) »So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?
GRO issued notices in the press when registration was launched. The issue, and all the discussion since, really revolves around the use of the word "may" rather than "must" in the 1836 B&D Act, and how that would have been defined at the time. It was certainly the intention of parliament, and the Registrar General, that this was a compulsory system being introduced.
The press notice said ..."all births and deaths which occur after June 1837 may be registered by the registrar of the district within which they occur.." it then confirms that registration is free but then warns of the fee that becomes payable for registering births after the required 6 weeks ( which was 7s 6d), and goes on to say therefore that "All persons therefore should have the births of their children registered without delay".
The 1874 Act clarified things a little and instead of saying parents "may" register a birth it became "shall be the duty of " - it also extended the period of free registration to 3 months and reduced the fee for late registration slightly (to 5s).
Registrars had no ability to issues fines, and could only levy the statutory fees. Fines could only come from a court after prosecution. What is clear is that some parents were prosecuted for failing to register or refusing to regsiter births right from the start in 1837, but failing/refusal only became an offence once the registrar had issued a notice requiring the parents to register which they then ignored.
18
The Common Room / Re: British Army Family Births Abroad
« on: Wednesday 08 May 24 08:20 BST (UK) »
The overseas indexes are also available on microfiche at the designated libraries, along with a number of other GRO indexes not available online ( e.g. recent BMD indexes, the Adopted Children Register, Civil Partnership Register and a few others).