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

[trish1120]

1911 they have 1 child who has died.

BOWDIDGE, NORMAN  STANLEY mmn   ORCHARD 
GRO Reference: 1887  D Quarter in GREENWICH  Volume 01D  Page 1112

Death Reg Sept 1888 age 0

[Deirdre784]

Berdie, I realised what you were looking for but additional info helps in searching. Does Violet’s birth certificate say Orchard not Orch? I have wondered previously if a long first name (such as Beresford) could truncate the surname. Sounds daft but this is a second occurrence 🤔

[Berdie]

1911 they have 1 child who has died.

BOWDIDGE, NORMAN  STANLEY mmn   ORCHARD 
GRO Reference: 1887  D Quarter in GREENWICH  Volume 01D  Page 1112

Death Reg Sept 1888 age 0

That is AFTER the birth of Violet, which was in 1884. I am looking for PRIOR to 1884. Prior to Violet's birth.
The marriage to Bowdidge was after the birth of Violet.
The child I am searching does not have the surname Bowdidge.

Sophie was not married when she had Violet. They registered under Sophie's maiden name Orchard or some other name. That is what I am trying to find. There are no births in the relevant period, 1880-1883, that fit with the surname Orchard. So I wonder if the child could be registered under another name than the mother's. If that would have been allowed. If that would have been done for children who were given up in those days as it was prior to legal adoption.

[Berdie]

Berdie, I realised what you were looking for but additional info helps in searching. Does Violet’s birth certificate say Orchard not Orch? I have wondered previously if a long first name (such as Beresford) could truncate the surname. Sounds daft but this is a second occurrence 🤔

The Birth certificate has the name Orch. I have very thoroughly researched all the information on the Birth Cert. it is possible it was supposed to be James Arch, given the Devon accent. I did find a James Arch. However I think the information on the birth cert is all made up. The Birth cert was filed by Lily Hill, who was Sophie's sister. Hill was her married name.


They may have used Orch because they had some piece of paper with Jane Orchard on it which they modified... That is my latest thought. As there is a Jane who was married to an Orchard - in Australia- who died in 1881. That sounds far fetched except that the Orchard jane was married to is a on the tree of a DNA match.

Sophie claims to be a widow on that marriage cert but there is no record of a prior marriage.

I think there might be a clue in the name Beresford, as Sophie used that middle name in her marriage. she was not given it at birth and she was not baptised subsequently. Violet has that middle name. There is no Beresford in Sophie's tree.  There is no marriage of Orchard and Beresford. So I think the name Beresford may be to match her given up child. As a clue and reminder. I wonder if it would have been done, to have given a child a different surname though, if the child was given up.
I know that prior to the adoption law which came in well after Sophie had her children, prior to that law a mother could legally claim her children back although very few ever did. But how could they claim them back if the name was changed and then they could not trace them? So maybe names were changed so they couldn't get them back. That is what I am wondering about.

[brigidmac]

Regarding reply 3
I too wondered about the term cousin

Could a sister of  Sophie or the birth father have taken in the child

It could possibly have been a twin with birth registered to another couple

I looked into a case of child adoptions in 1906
The babies were taken soon after birth in different towns so that the  new couple could register the child as their own . Paper trails would not help with these cases but some could be resolved by DNA matches of descendants

One of the first  children was acknowledged  as adoptive child in 1911 birth had been registered under bio father's name with a false name for the mother who was passing as married .

So my answer would be that birth registrations could be false as well as mistranscribed

BUT look at the logical ones first and look for patterns + baptisms which give extra clues

It is important if you know the names of the other children so we can see how they were registered

[brigidmac]

It was typical to give a child the surname of birthfather as. A middle name this could then be used as proof of paternity to get an affiliation order ( child maintenance)
Worth looking if there were any BERSFORD  neighbours .

Have you traced sister lily to see if her birth ame was also ORCHARD 

[Berdie]

Regarding reply 3
I too wondered about the term cousin

Could a sister of  Sophie or the birth father have taken in the child

It could possibly have been a twin with birth registered to another couple

I looked into a case of child adoptions in 1906
The babies were taken soon after birth in different towns so that the  new couple could register the child as their own . Paper trails would not help with these cases but some could be resolved by DNA matches of descendants

One of the first  children was acknowledged  as adoptive child in 1911 birth had been registered under bio father's name with a false name for the mother who was passing as married .

So my answer would be that birth registrations could be false as well as mistranscribed

BUT look at the logical ones first and look for patterns + baptisms which give extra clues

It is important if you know the names of the other children so we can see how they were registered

The term cousin is because the shoe was handed down. if each sister hands down the shoe to her child, then the shoe has gone to cousins. The preceding sentence was there were two girls, or two sisters. Each sister had a shoe. the shoes were to be handed down. They may have been twins but I don't think so as the other piece of information was "Sophie had children before Violet." That does not sound like twins.

A sister didn't take the child. I have researched the family. It is possible the father did. I think it unlikely, because did they usually? But I do not know who he was.


That is interesting about the couple registering the child as their own. That answers my question.
Although I still wonder if a couple did not take the child, would an orphan's home have recommended or permitted a name different from the mother's?

No DNA leads so far.

[Berdie]

It was typical to give a child the surname of birthfather as. A middle name this could then be used as proof of paternity to get an affiliation order ( child maintenance)
Worth looking if there were any BERSFORD  neighbours .

Have you traced sister lily to see if her birth ame was also ORCHARD 

Yes I think Beresford must be a lead. There are no Beresford births with mother's maiden name Orchard. Perhaps the mother's maiden name was left off. But those ones are not in the right location. If the child was given to a couple maybe the step mother's name would be recorded on the certificate.

I have traced Lily Hill. She was Sophie's younger sister. Her birth name was Elizabeth Orchard, she was known as Lily, she married Willaim James Hill.

[brigidmac]

Have you got a tree on ancestry ?

How far back have you traced the ORCHARD family and how high is the Australian DNA match is their ORCHARD line a direct line with any common ancestors

As you said James Orchard is fictitious but likely to be James BERESFORD

Did Sophie use the middle name BERESFORD at any other time other than her marriage ?
It is possible that the father took the child
And she wanted the middle name to be able to acknowledge a relationship at a further point