Did you need a birth certificate for baptism?

[ShawThing]

My great-uncle was born in 1904 but his parents did not register his birth until 1927.  Both his mother and his father had had three children each before his birth and all those children had birth certificates, but they were not married to each other when my great-uncle was born, and were not able to marry until 1927.  I have not been able to find a baptism for my great uncle yet.  Would his parents have to show a birth certificate before he could have been baptised and, if so, what else would need a birth certificate?

[AntonyMMM]

A registration in 1927 suggests it was a re-registration under the Legitimacy Act 1926.... check for an original entry in 1904.

No, you wouldn't need a birth certificate to be baptised.

[ShawThing]

There is no original entry in 1904, just a hand written note at the bottom of the page referring to the 1927 registration.  On the 1927 certificate it states under 'Signature of Registrar' - J C Smailes, Registrar.  On the authority of the Registrar General dated 2nd March 1927, and under column 7 - after the father's details As per declaration dated 9th March 1927.

[sylvia (canada)]

Have you tried looking for him under his mother's name .............. either her married name, or entering her maiden name in the appropriate box.

You should use GRO for this in 1904.

[ShawThing]

I have just been reading about late birth registration on another forum, and a contributor suggests that the Registrar General would take a baptism certificate as proof of the original birth.  Otherwise how would you prove when a home birth had actually taken place?

[oldfashionedgirl]

Was it not considered breaking the law not to register a birth post 1837 in England ?

[AntonyMMM]

It is possible it could be a late registration, but they are quite unusual, especially after such a number of years, and by far the most likely explanation is a re-registration. The timing (1927) suggests that is the case.

Finding the birth registration in 1904 could be difficult, because it could be indexed under a number of names, depending on the marital status, and surnames of the parent(s) named at the time. If you don't want to post the names here - I'm happy for you to send the details via PM and I'll have a look for you.

Were either of the parents, named in 1927, married to other people in 1904 ? If they were that may make a re-registration less likely (assuming they told the truth).

I have just been reading about late birth registration on another forum, and a contributor suggests that the Registrar General would take a baptism certificate as proof of the original birth.  Otherwise how would you prove when a home birth had actually taken place?

The word, or possibly signed statutory declarations, of the parents could be enough - but a baptism certificate might be part of the evidence that could be submitted (but it wouldn't be a legal requirement).

Was it not considered breaking the law not to register a birth post 1837 in England ?

No - it is a lot more complex than that, but a simple failure to register has never been an offence.

[ALAMO2008]

Was it not considered breaking the law not to register a birth post 1837 in England ?

No - after 1 January 1875

[ALAMO2008]

I have a Relative Registered in August 1894 for Birth in Late June but the Child was Baptised in May 1894