Would the original entry for a child-given-up be removed from the GRO index ?

[Berdie]

I am trying to find the birth record for a child who was given up in the 1880s.
Sophie Orchard b. Torrington Union 1858 was the mother of Violet b. Plumstead 1884, and a girl or perhaps more children born before Violet.
A token, an ornamental shoe, has been passed down, with the message that there were two girls, and each was given one shoe of the pair, and "you would know your cousin as she would have the other shoe." Also passed down was that Sophie had children, plural, before Violet and that period of Sophie's life was kept secret.
There is no record of a marriage for Sophie prior to Violet's birth. There is a record for a Sophia Orchard but I traced that tree and I believe that is someone else.
The child/ren born before Violet must have a birth record. As Sophie was not married I expected the birth record for the child would be under her maiden name, Orchard.
There are records for Orchard births with no mother's maiden name in 1880 -1883. However, none of them seem likely. Sophie is recorded in Plymouth in 1881 (census). Then in Plumstead in 1884. None of them are near those locations.
There was no mention that Sophie went overseas.
Sophie assumed the middle name Beresford for which there is no precedent or explanation in her tree. Perhaps that is a clue.
 Would  a child who was given up in the early 1880s be given another name, with no record of the birth mother?

[Deirdre784]

What do you know about Violet and her birth if no birth certificate? Is she ever found with her mother and / or any siblings?

Do you know that the 1881 census is Sophie as she is recorded as Sophia and there was a Sophia birth in Torrington in Apr-Jun 1857 quarter as well as the Sophie birth in Jan-Mar 1858.

From my own knowledge, though not back that far, the birth entry will remain on the GRO. I have a child in my tree whose mother died when the baby (her 8th) was 6 weeks old. The baby was taken in by friends and kept her first name but used their surname until her marriage. So the only record of her is her birth.

[farmeroman]

No, it wouldn't have been removed from the GRO once registered, but there is always the possibility that the birth was never registerered in the first place.

[ShaunJ]

you would know your cousin as she would have the other shoe

The use of the word cousin is curious. Not a sister then?

[Dundee]

ORCH, VIOLET  BERESFORD
Mother's maiden surname: ARCHER     
GRO Reference: 1884  S Quarter in WOOLWICH  Volume 01D  Page 1233

Sophia married as 'ORCH' and William's birth also has it as her maiden surname.

Debra 

[Deirdre784]

ORCH, VIOLET  BERESFORD
Mother's maiden surname: ARCHER     
GRO Reference: 1884  S Quarter in WOOLWICH  Volume 01D  Page 1233

Sophia married as 'ORCH' and William's birth also has it as her maiden surname.

Debra 

Brilliant 😀

[trish1120]

They under Bowdidge in 1901

Violet Bowdidge born c 1885 Plumstead, Kent

Together 1891 also

Marriage Reg
June 1887
Bowdidge    Thomas      Greenwich  1d   1426   
ORCH    Sophia Beresford

oops sorry repeating what is already found

[Berdie]

Re

What do you know about Violet and her birth if no birth certificate? Is she ever found with her mother and/or any siblings?


Do you know that the 1881 census is Sophie as she is recorded as Sophia and there was a Sophia birth in Torrington in Apr-Jun 1857 quarter as well as the Sophie birth in Jan-Mar 1858.

From my own knowledge, though not back that far, the birth entry will remain on the GRO. I have a child in my tree whose mother died when the baby (her 8th) was 6 weeks old. The baby was taken in by friends and kept her first name but used their surname until her marriage. So the only record of her is her birth.
 
Reply:
Sorry, my question was not clear. I am looking for the older siblings of Violet. Not Violet. I have her birth certificate.

Regarding Sophie's marriage certificate.  I have Sophie's marriage subsequent to the birth of Violet. That marriage certificate is erroneous in many ways. There is no James Orch. Sophie was formerly Orchard.

Yes, I know about Sophia Orchard. I have traced her family tree. Sophie sometimes was called Sophia.

My question is about the child or children born to Sophie Orchard prior to the birth of Violet.

you would know your cousin as she would have the other shoe

The use of the word cousin is curious. Not a sister then?

They were sisters but when the shoes are passed down they go to cousins. First cousins, then second cousins...

No, it wouldn't have been removed from the GRO once registered, but there is always the possibility that the birth was never registered in the first place.

Could the child have been registered under a completely different name than the mother's name?
No ID required? Or perhaps that would be allowed if the child was born in a Care Home? Or given up?

They under Bowdidge in 1901

Violet Bowdidge born c 1885 Plumstead, Kent

Together 1891 also

Marriage Reg
June 1887
Bowdidge    Thomas      Greenwich  1d   1426   
ORCH    Sophia Beresford

oops sorry repeating what is already found

Yes, that was AFTER the birth of Violet. Sophie married Thomas Bowdidge after the birth of Violet.
I am looking for the child or children born PRIOR to the birth of Violet.

[Berdie]

ORCH, VIOLET  BERESFORD
Mother's maiden surname: ARCHER     
GRO Reference: 1884  S Quarter in WOOLWICH  Volume 01D  Page 1233

Sophia married as 'ORCH' and William's birth also has it as her maiden surname.

Debra 

Brilliant 😀

There was no James Orch who is named as the father. Sophie's maiden name was Orchard not Archer. I have this birth certificate. It is possible that Beresford is a clue. It is correct that Violet was born in Plumstead. Those names have been made up. Perhaps Sophie was trying to escape someone.