Eliza Corfe 1857 - can't find birth record

[pandacub]

I am struggling to find the birth record for Eliza Corfe.  She was christened on 31st Mar 1861 at Charterhouse St Thomas, Middlesex.  4 of her siblings were also christened that day.  Eliza's date of birth shows on the baptism records as 7th Oct 1857 but I can not find the entry on the BMD indexes.
Eliza appears to be the daughter of William Frederick Corfe and his second wife Julia Halliday. She is living with them in 1861 and 1871. I have found all the siblings on the GRO Indexes without any problem.
All I can think is that either her birth somehow got missed from the indexes, if that is possible, or that William & Julia took in the child of an unmarried relative and the birth was registered with a different surname.  William did have a sister Eliza born approx 1824 who never married. 
Would be very grateful if anyone can help shed some light on this.

[ShaunJ]

Birth registration wasn't compulsory back then, unless the registrar learned of the birth. It's entirely possible that the birth was not registered.

[pandacub]

Thanks very much ShaunJ, that's very helpful as I hadn't realised that.

[AntonyMMM]

Birth registration wasn't compulsory back then, unless the registrar learned of the birth.It's entirely possible that the birth was not registered.

An often repeated misunderstanding of the legalisation - it was compulsory and fully intended to be, as the contemporary documentation shows.

...but even so, you are correct that it is certainly possible the birth wasn't registered.

[ShaunJ]

Well OK. Let's have another go. Prior to 1874, there were no penalties for parents who did not register a birth. There were fees for late registration (after 42 days from the birth), and it was illegal to register a birth more than 6 months after the event, But no penalties for not registering a birth at all.

Is that OK, AntonyMMM?

[liverpoolgenealogy]

I recall reading an article that estimated between 6%-10% of pre-1875 births were not registered. Given the amount of generations that has passed since then, its probable that in each of our trees there will be someone whose birth wasn't registered. You could also try searching the index to see if any of her siblings were registered, if you don't have any luck there, then it will probably be safe to assume Eliza wasn't registered.

[pandacub]

Thank you very much for all the replies.  I hadn't realised it was possible for births not to be registered and that such a high percentage prior to 1875 may not have been.  It does seem strange because William and Julia registered the birth of their other 8 children, but it would appear to be the most likely explanation that for some reason they did not register Eliza.

[AntonyMMM]

I recall reading an article that estimated between 6%-10% of pre-1875 births were not registered. Given the amount of generations that has passed since then, its probable that in each of our trees there will be someone whose birth wasn't registered. You could also try searching the index to see if any of her siblings were registered, if you don't have any luck there, then it will probably be safe to assume Eliza wasn't registered.

There have been a number of studies done on the rate of non-registration ....they average out at about 8% right at the beginning of civil registration, but very quickly fell to around 1 or 2% which then remains fairly steady through the 1850s,60s and 70s. Interestingly there was no jump in the number of registrations or any change in the rate of non-registrations after the updated law in 1875, which shows it had little effect on compliance (or non-compliance).

I have found quite a few families where most of the children got registered, but the odd one didn't ( always the one you are most interested in, of course !)

[Talacharn]

Birth: Apr-Jun 1858 . Elizabeth Mary Corfe . Marylebone . Volume 1a . Page 327
A little late, but Marylebone is not that far away from Islington. Only the certificate will tell you if it is the right child, as you know parents.

In my family, I have a strand of travellers. Because they were travelling, they could be born at X and possibly noted on census records. The baptism could be at Y and the registration at Z. With large families, more were baptised than registered. They did not like authority, so considered baptism more important, in being recognised by the Lord. Also, the names could change, certainly between baptism and registration.