Birth certs and the 6 weeks time frame given.

[coombs]

As of 1875, the onus was on the parents (or whoever else was present at the birth) to register a birth, as from July 1837 to 1874 it was the job of the registrars and their deputies etc, to get info on births.

6 weeks was given to register a birth, 42 days. With the birth certs I have, the time frame within those 6 weeks varies depending how on the ball the registrars were at getting the info, and from 1875, depending how quickly the parents registered the birth. I have some where the birth was registered just within the 42 day timeframe, and others registered within days. Although some were registered late. I have one born 1st June 1899 and registered in August, so the parents must have paid the fine for late registration.

For people new to genealogy and not sure how the system worked, they may get confused if say for instance they wanted to look up their own birth in the indexes (due to lost birth cert etc) and was born in for example, 15th December 1964 in Lambeth but cannot find their birth in the Oct/Nov/Dec quarter of 1964. If they was at the FRC or at the Kew archives in person looking at those ledgers, they would have to ask at the desk if unaware of the 6 week period allowed to register a birth, but if on a laptop and they typed their name and mothers maiden name into Anc, FreeBMD or FindMyPast and expected to find their birth in the Oct/Nov/Dec quarter of 1964, but found it listed in the Jan/Feb/Mar quarter of 1965, they would wonder why their birth appears late. They then look at the original index entry and it says "Births registered in Jan, Feb and March 1965". They bought a copy and the birth is correct, mid Dec 1964 but registered 5th January 1965. They would probably then understand the GRO indexes go by date of registration, not the date of the event.





 

[Gillg]

My aunt was born on December 18th 1897, but her birth wasn't registered for several days and appears in the Jan/Feb/Mar 1898 quarter.  It wasn't till I went into more family records that I discovered that her parents/my grandparents had only married in September 1897.  Was it shotgun wedding?  Both my grandparents were married very young - 18 and 19 years old, so I guess so.  Auntie kept very quiet about this!

[coombs]

My aunt was born on December 18th 1897, but her birth wasn't registered for several days and appears in the Jan/Feb/Mar 1898 quarter.  It wasn't till I went into more family records that I discovered that her parents/my grandparents had only married in September 1897.  Was it shotgun wedding?  Both my grandparents were married very young - 18 and 19 years old, so I guess so.  Auntie kept very quiet about this!

Oh I have many instances of the bride being pregnant when she married. Probs a shotgun wedding or they wanted to prove fertility then get wed.

One relative was born 24 Nov 1879 and his birth not registered until 3 Jan 1880 so appears in the Jan/Feb/Mar 1880 quarter. My dad's cousin was born on the 2nd Dec 1935 and birth registered 16 Jan 1936 so appears in the Jan/Feb/Mar 1936 quarter. That was 4 days beyond the time frame allowed to register the birth, so they may have been slapped with a fine.

[AntonyMMM]

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about fines and registration.

Registrars cannot, and never have been able to, fine anyone. There were additional fees payable in certain circumstances.

Courts could fine people, but really only for refusing to register, giving false information (which was perjury) or failing to give information when required to do so by the registrar. You see cases for these offences in the court records from 1837 onwards.

The 1836  B&D Act was unclear on the responsibilities, and said it was the duty of the registrar to "inform himself carefully" of any birth or death in his district, but if you read the Registrar Generals correspondence of the time, he wasn't expected to go door to door around the whole district asking if any births or deaths had taken place. In fact the only requirement was that he lived in his district and advertised his address. The 1836 Act also said that for births registered between 42 days and six months there could be an additional fee of 2s 6d payable to the superintendent registrar and 5s to the registrar (a considerable sum though).

The 1874 Act firmly placed the responsibility on the parents to register a birth, but also made it clear that such registrations were to be free up to three months - after which, and up to twelve months, an extra 2s 6d fee became payable ( to both the registrar and the supt registrar).

[coombs]

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about fines and registration.

Registrars cannot, and never have been able to, fine anyone. There were additional fees payable in certain circumstances.

Courts could fine people, but really only for refusing to register, giving false information (which was perjury) or failing to give information when required to do so by the registrar. You see cases for these offences in the court records from 1837 onwards.

The 1836  B&D Act was unclear on the responsibilities, and said it was the duty of the registrar to "inform himself carefully" of any birth or death in his district, but if you read the Registrar Generals correspondence of the time, he wasn't expected to go door to door around the whole district asking if any births or deaths had taken place. In fact the only requirement was that he lived in his district and advertised his address. The 1836 Act also said that for births registered between 42 days and six months there could be an additional fee of 2s 6d payable to the superintendent registrar and 5s to the registrar (a considerable sum though).

The 1874 Act firmly placed the responsibility on the parents to register a birth, but also made it clear that such registrations were to be free up for to three months - after which (and up to twelve months) an extra 2s 6d fee became payable ( to both the registrar and the supt registrar).

Thanks for the clarification. Member Stanmapstone would also be knowledgeable on this subject but he has not been around for a while, hope he is OK.

[andrewalston]

The arrangements for marriage registrations were different, with the "end users" not being the informants.

With few possible marriage locations, paperwork could be tidied up soon after the events, so it is unusual to see a marriage which took place on New Year's Eve to be indexed in the following quarter.

That said, there are a few events of all types which are indexed locally as being in one year, and in the following year at the GRO. We can be pretty sure that these actually made it to the registrar very close indeed to the end of the year, with the registrar having already parcelled up his copies for the GRO.

[AntonyMMM]

All BMDs should appear in the index according to their date of registration, not the date of the event ( with a few rare exceptions like some re-registrations), so if you have an example of a marriage taking place in December but indexed in the Jan quarter of the next year, I'd love to see it....be an interesting one.

[Deirdre784]

Christmas Day used to be a very popular day for a wedding, but I can't say I have a March quarter registration for any of mine!

[coombs]

My uncle was born on the 5th September 1944 but his birth appears in the Oct/Nov/Dec quarter of 1944. So his birth was probably registered in October 1944.

I have yet to see a marriage at the end of a quarter being registered in the following quarter.