No GRO birth record-1856-Is that possible?

[Alison55]

I have been seeking the 1856 GRO birth record for Mary Ann Powell without success for several years.  I have found and purchased the parents' marriage and the birth records for her five siblings without any problem from the GRO.  Do you know if some births or marriages were never recorded with the GRO? Has anyone run into this situation?

I have found her baptism on FindMyPast. That gives her birth date as 26 October 1856 and the baptism as 17 November 1856.  This was at St Mary's RC Church in Chelsea.  She had to be born in 1856 as the children came quickly and there was no other time span she could fit into.

I have bought several possible records from the GRO but they were not the right Mary Ann.  The parents were James Powell, a shoemaker, and Catherine Howard.  I have tried every way I can think of to find this record--wild cards, reversing the parents' names etc. 

So is it possible the record is just not there?  Thanks for your thoughts.

[groom]

Very possible that it isn't there and that she wasn't registered. In the early days of registration people believed that baptism was the same as registration. Civil registration was introduced in 1837, it was not until 1874 that the registration of a birth became compulsory.

This explains it

http://www.sog.org.uk/learn/help-getting-started-with-genealogy/guide-three

[Gadget]

As groom says. it was quite possible that the birth was not registered. One set of my great greatgrandparents didn't register any of their children until the ones born in the  1860s.  They were baptised though, as your Mary Ann was.

Gadget

Added - checked on both local and national indexes.

[LizzieW]

I couldn't find my maternal gran's baptism, I knew her date of birth and I found the baptisms of her 5 siblings, 3 older and 2 younger.  For ages I was puzzled, then I looked at the baptism of the sibling before her and the one after her and from their records deduced at which church she was probably baptised.  I then searched those parish records - on Ancestry - by date and eventually found her baptism.  The only problem was the parish clerk had written her father's name Seth down instead of my gran's, Mary Hannah!  Everything else on the record was correct.  Fortunately, as my gran lived with my parents and me until her death when I was 8 1/2, I knew I had found the correct baptism.  So now when I can't find an ancestor I just look for someone by surname and approx date of birth.

[Guy Etchells]

Sorry but the SoG site insists on pedalling another genealogical myth the birth registration was not compulsory until 1874; it was!

The SoG base their erroneous claim on Section XIX of the 1836 Act and the word 'may' but seem to ignore Section XX and the word 'shall'.

The 1836 Act states-
"XIX. And be it enacted, That the Father or Mother of any Child born, or the Occupier of every House or Tenement in England in which any Birth or Death shall happen, after the said First day of March, may, within Forty-two Days next after the Day of such Birth or within Five Days after the Day of such Death respectively, give Notice of such Birth or Death to the Registrar of the District ; and in case any new-born Child or any dead Body shall be found exposed, the Overseers of the Poor in the Case of the new-born Child, and the Coroner in the case of the dead Body, shall forthwith give Notice and Information thereof, and of the Place where such Child or dead Body was found, to the Registrar ; and for the Purpose of this Act the Master or Keeper of every Gaol, Prison, or House of Correction, or Workhouse, Hospital, or Lunatic Asylum, or public or charitable Institution, shall be deemed the Occupier thereof.
XX And be it enacted, That the Father or Mother of every child born in England after the said First Day of March, or in case of the Death, Illness, Absence, or Inability of the Father or Mother, the Occupier of the House or Tenement in which such Child shall have been born, shall, within Forty-two Days next after the Day of every such Birth, give Information, upon being requested so to do, to the said Registrar, according to the best of his or her Knowledge and Belief, of the several Particulars hereby required to be known and registered touching the Birth of such Child.”

They also seem to ignore Section XVII-

“XVIII. And be it enacted, That the Registrar General shall furnish to every Superintendent Registrar, for the Use of the Registrars under his Superintendence, a sufficient number of Register Books of Births and of Register Books of Deaths, and of Forms for certified Copies thereof, as herein-after provided, at a reasonable Price, to be fixed from Time to Time by One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, the Cost whereof shall be borne by the Union, Parish, or Place in or for which the Superintendent Registrar is appointed, and shall be paid by the Guardians or by the Churchwardens and Overseers (as the Case may be), out of monies coming to their Hands or Control as such Guardians or Churchwardens and Overseers, to the Registrar, and shall be accounted for by him to the Registrar General ; and 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, in One of the said Books, the Particulars required to be registered according to the Forms in the said Schedules (A.) and (B.) respectively touching every such Birth or every such Death, as the Case may be, which shall not have been already registered, every such Entry being made in Order from the Beginning to the End of the Book.”

What confuses the likes of the SoG and others who claim birth registration was not compulsory until 1874 is the fact that the onus of registering the birth was on the Registrar until 1874 when the onus to register the birth was put on the parents.

The Registrar was even subject to a possible fine for failing to register a birth-

“XLII. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall refuse or without reasonable Cause omit to register any marriage solemnized by him, or which he ought to register, and every Registrar who shall refuse or without reasonable Cause omit to register any Birth or Death of which he shall have had due Notice as aforesaid, and every person having the Custody of any Register Book, or certified Copy thereof or any Part thereof, who shall carelessly lose or injure the same, or carelessly allow the same to be injured whilst in his Keeping, shall forfeit a Sum not exceeding Fifty pounds for every such Offence.”

Even the fact that the parents could be fined for registering a birth late shows the intention of those drawing up the Act was the parents would register the birth of their children promptly and the registrar would quickly make himself aware of any which had not been registered and correct the situation.

This is revealed by the fact that late registrations were subject to a fee or fine.

It is my contention that any events not registered were more likely to be due to the consistent failures of the GRO from early times to the present day to record and index the events sent to them than to the failure of the parents to register the births of their children but that is not to say some parents did fail to register the said births.
For examples of the GRO's failures in the case of marriage registrations read the two excellent books on the subject by  Michael Whitfield Foster 'A Comedy of Errors' and  his follow up 'A Comedy of Errors - Act 2'

Cheers
Guy

[Alison55]

Thank you very much for these helpful replies and to you, groom, for that link.  I read it and will save it.  And thank you Guy Etchells for all that useful info. I'll save that too.

So I guess it is possible Mary Ann Powell's birth was not recorded but it seems very odd that her five siblings' births were all recorded.  She was number three in birth order of the six.

We have all seen some strange transcription errors so that could be an issue.  I'm not giving up. Any further thoughts or suggestions very welcome.

[Marmaduke 123]

I have a Rosina Mickle, born around 1863, and we've never found a birth registration or a baptism for her. Her brothers and sisters had their births recorded one way or the other, but not Rosina. According to census records she was born in Gosport.

The family moved around a lot as they were brick makers and seemed to be involved in building Army camps. We can only imagine they moved very shortly after Rosina's birth, and didn't realise they could register Rosina in their new area.

[LizzieW]

My 4 x g.grandmother. Dorothy Chorley (nee Gardner) died on 14 October 1837 in Egremont, Cumberland and was buried on 16 October 1837 in St Michael and St Mary's Church, Egremont.  I know this because her death and burial are recorded in the  Parish Records - which the archivist kindly looked up for me when I emailed the office - however, there is no GRO Death record for this lady.  I assumed that the family either didn't know or didn't think it necessary to advise the registrar of her death if the Parish officials knew.

[jonw65]

What confuses the likes of the SoG and others who claim birth registration was not compulsory until 1874 is the fact that the onus of registering the birth was on the Registrar until 1874 when the onus to register the birth was put on the parents.

Exactly. We all know that. So it means it wasn't entirely compulsory?
The 1874 Act came into force at the beginning of 1875.
It's not just the SoG who say it, but the GRO themselves, both now and then. This is what the Registrar General, George Graham, wrote in his Annual Report for 1876 (Thirty-ninth Annual Report, available on google books, histpop)

"I have to state that the various changes, of which I gave some account in the last Report, have worked satisfactorily. Registration is more complete than it was, and I believe more accurate. This is especially the case with the births, of which registration was rendered compulsory".

here he is again
"in England while the deaths have been accurately registered from the first, the registration of births has only recently been made compulsory."

and again
"Children born out of wedlock.—The number of illegitimate births registered in England in the second year of compulsory registration" was 41,594"

So, friendly question for Guy When the Registrar General of the time said that the registration of births had been made compulsory from 1875, was he also peddling a myth? And if he could say it, why can't we?