Why would you not register your children's birth?

[IMBER]

It might be that ScotlandsPeople just doesn't have those particular Free Church registers yet. The following link seems to suggest that adding them is an ongoing process. There's also a useful list of registers held for churches other than the Established and Roman Catholic Churches:

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/guides/church-registers

Imber

[andrewalston]

It seems likely that James was baptised in the Kendal area. Burneside is close enough to Kendal to refer to as "Kendal" by the time you are as far away as Fife.

Very few church records from Westmorland (or Cumberland) are available online. Cumbria Archives don't seem to have wanted to do a deal with either of the big players.

I had to visit the record office in Kendal to follow up a couple of families I was interested in. They too were non-conformists, and used Kendal parish church for marriages and their own chapels for baptisms & burials.

[greenvalley]

Thanks for all your replies and suggestions.

My question arose because it struck me as strange that none of the children were registered until it became compulsory in Scotland and that that time the family was living in Dundee and had been there for a while.

Explanations as church not registered yet, documents lost in flood, no chapel available are all possibilities. But his relatives managed to have their children registered in the same area.

If it had been the one child I would have thought nothing of it, but 5 children?? In different towns? They had been in Perth since 1841, so ample time to register the 1843 birth at some chapel. Same for the 2 born in Auchterarder, one in 1846 and one in 1848, again enough time to find a chapel. One child born in Newburgh in 1854, family was living there as early as 1851.

But discussing all the possibilities with you guys and looking at the facts has helped me to conclude that Alexander simmply chose not to register the births for whatever reason.

Thanks to everybody for your advice

Greenvalley

[coombs]

I have 2 ancestors whose births were never registered, and one of them had a brother whose birth was never registered, and I have checked all variants under the sun, including the County Durham own index of BMD's. 1856 and 1857 the births were.

The other one was born c1852 in Essex. Such incidences must be why in 1874 they toughened up and made it the parents (or anyone present at the birth) to register the birth. I think that 1874 enactment came into force in January 1875.

[KGarrad]

But discussing all the possibilities with you guys and looking at the facts has helped me to conclude that Alexander simmply chose not to register the births for whatever reason.

You seem very keen to blame the husband, and never mention the wife?
This might be construed as sexist thinking!

[greenvalley]

Kgarrad

You are so right 😂

However, since it was usually the man who registered the birth (woman maybe still a bit knackered) I blamed him. My bad.

So I apologise and for everybody out there: "I  wonder why they, Alexander and Sarah, did not register the births of their children. My best guess is that they weren't religious or just couldn't be bothered for some obscure reason."

Better? 😉

Greenvalley

[Skoosh]

Scottish Registrars apparently accepted a three month delay in registering a birth to allow a marriage to take place first. Useful for men at sea etc!

Skoosh.

[Deirdre784]

Both my husband’s and my tree have a number of families all over England and Wales where the children born in the early days of registration were not registered. Most luckily have baptisms to confirm the parents, but not all sadly.

We have many births registered by the mother (even with a father at home).

[Rosinish]

Scottish Registrars apparently accepted a three month delay in registering a birth to allow a marriage to take place first. Useful for men at sea etc!

Skoosh.

Skoosh, not 1841 - 1854 which are the dates the OP mentioned 

Annie