Author Topic: Could a birth have not been registered?  (Read 12700 times)

Online Dundee

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,073
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« Reply #18 on: Tuesday 05 April 22 00:11 BST (UK) »
The 1939 register was used by the NHS and updated until 1991.

The change of name at marriage is noted - 29-5-48 QAA (district code for Birmngham) and the surname FRENCH added.

The forms CR282 and CR283 were used to alter a first name or a surname other than by marriage.  The name is definitely 'Lucy', the date might be 19-7-84.  District codes starting with DN are in Surrey but none of them looks like what is written there.  It might not be a district code but DN for Devon, I don't know.

https://www.findmypast.com.au/articles/1939-register-enumeration-districts

Debra  :)

Offline jc26red

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,345
  • Census information Crown Copyright.
    • View Profile
Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« Reply #19 on: Tuesday 05 April 22 05:49 BST (UK) »
Quote
Now you come to mention it, I don't think we have anything saying for certain that Sarah was her mother.  I have the 1921 census but Ivy is living with Sarah's mother. Our understanding is that she lived with Sarah's mother for most of her childhood

If Ivy is on the 1921 census she must have been born before 1923.  Perhaps one of Sarah’s brothers got a girl in trouble and Sarah’s mother bought Ivy up.  She would still be the grandmother.

Was Sarah’s mother a widow or separated at this time? When was she born?   Sometimes when a young daughter got into trouble the parents passed the child off as their own, perhaps Sarah’s mother did the reverse stating the child was a granddaughter instead of her daughter.

 My own great grandmother had children up to the age of 49….! Her daughter went to live with her aunt, 1911 she is down twice… as living with her mother and also at her aunt’s address. 1921 she is pencilled in as adopted daughter.  Thankfully, we knew the story of why she lived her aunt and she always knew her real parents.
Please acknowledge when a restorer works on your photos, it can take hours for them to work their magic

Please scan at 300dpi minimum to help save the restorers eyesight.

Offline sparrett

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 18,293
    • View Profile
Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday 05 April 22 06:01 BST (UK) »
Hi Michael.  We don't think she would have been registered as Page, because Sarah didn't marry Joseph Page until 1927 and we know Joseph was not her biological father.  DNA testing indicates her biological father probably had the surname Stead.

Have you browsed the 1921 to see if a male named STEAD lived nearby?

Sue
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline pickpin

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« Reply #21 on: Tuesday 05 April 22 09:08 BST (UK) »
Quote
Now you come to mention it, I don't think we have anything saying for certain that Sarah was her mother.  I have the 1921 census but Ivy is living with Sarah's mother. Our understanding is that she lived with Sarah's mother for most of her childhood

If Ivy is on the 1921 census she must have been born before 1923.  Perhaps one of Sarah’s brothers got a girl in trouble and Sarah’s mother bought Ivy up.  She would still be the grandmother.

Sorry, that's me getting confused!  No, Ivy is not on the 1921 census - I have Sarah and her mother living together.  Sarah's parents separated between the 1901 and 1911 censuses.  In 1911 Sarah is living with her mum and her brothers are living with their paternal grandparents.