RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: tn17 on Thursday 04 October 07 03:42 BST (UK)
-
Hi everyone
On my tree, I have a John James McMahon, b 1883. He was baptised on 1 April, 1883, and his date of birth was given as 20 February. On his birth certificate, his date of birth was given as 27 February (the birth was registered on 20 April). Has anybody found this kind of thing on their tree, and which one should I put more faith in?
Thanks,
TN
-
Hallo, TN
I think you have to go with the information on the birth certificate.
Philip
-
The birth certificate is the official record, so it's probably more likely to be right. Of course, you can't trust that 100 per cent! Mistakes can be made equally easily by clergy and by registrars.
I can't currently think of a third check you could do... :(
MarieC
-
Is it possible the 20 April registration would have resulted in a fine for a birth on 20th February? I'm sure a couple of folks on here know all the rules - I shall have to see if I can find any details - but someone else may better know where to look. It is a rare time that I probably disagree with MarieC - I would probably use the date on the baptism. Did he perchance serve in WWI - that may provide the DOB that he used when asked.
Trish
-
you had 6 weeks to register a birth otherwise a financial penalty was implicated.
-
Are you sure Toni? I just found the legislation & it seems to indicate 3 months - this is a link given by Stanmapstone who has given me much assistance on these types of things. I'm starting to agree with MarieC again :D
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/acts/1874Act.htm
Upon the registration of a birth when the child is more than three months old, if it is not more than twelve months old, to superintendent registrar two shillings and sixpence, and to the registrar (unless the delay is occasioned by his failure to issue requisition, or otherwise by his default) two shillings and six-pence,
(Act of 1874) - unless there was a later one before 1883.
Trish
-
will check it out when i get home!
-
Hi
Is the baptism info from the original parish record? or from a transcription such as on the IGI. If you haven't seen the actual church record I would do so. Also, did the birth certificate come from the GRO in Southport or the local office? If it came from the GRO I would try and check the local registration office. It's possible that they made a mistake when forwarding the quarterly information. Who actually registered the birth?
If everything checks out I would tend to go with the baptism, firstly because it was closer to the birth and secondly because whoever registered the birth might have been alone whereas at a baptism there would have been other family members to correct a mistake.
Andy
-
Have often found there is a difference in dates on baptism records and birth certificate. As either can be incorrect I would refer to both 20 Feb./27 Feb. with a note for each source to explain both dates. You could check local newspaper to see if birth was announced in paper altough most people would not have put a birth in the paper.
-
From the same page Trish posted from:
1, In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register.
Of course, that's not to say that it was strictly adhered to and there are clauses, as Trish has pointed out, for the provision of late registrations but it is generally known as 6 weeks and it is still 6 weeks.
Casalguidi :)
-
20/27 Feb doesn't appear to be the difference between 6 & 7 weeks - rather 7 and 8 weeks. There didn't seem to be a penalty for exceeding the 42 days which was why I don't think this is the reason for the change.
It was rather an interesting read - after 42 days the registrar had to contact the family - How would he know there was an unregistered babe? Did he have to go knocking on doors to see who was born ??? ???
Thus said, the first sign of penalty appeared to be after 3 months.
Trish
-
A big thanks to everyone for your responses - has to be the first time this week I've prompted discussion on 19th century legislation :P
The Baptism record I have is a legitimate transcription (made in 1919) from the original parish registers. I'm based in Australia, but when I finally make it to London (the place of birth) I'll try to view the original with my own eyes.
I've looked a bit closer at the birth certificate, and it appears the informant wasn't either of the parents, but one of the next-door neighbours who was listed as "present at birth" (strange by today's standards, but times change). I suppose it could be that she remembered the birth was on a particular day of the week but miscalculated how long ago it was. Some things are just lost in time, though.
As the baptism record is closer to the DOB, whatever it may be, and would have had the parents present, I am finding it more convincing (will still list both dates though). I don't think that there was any WWI service but I'll ask my dad. Barring that, I'll check the newspapers for a birth notice.
Thanks once again for all of your ideas.
-
I wonder why the next door neighbour was the informant? ???
Seems strange. I would also go with the baptism date given the circumstances. Maybe the neighbour was a week behind with her memories of the baptism day.
Rosemary
-
I wonder why the next door neighbour was the informant?
Neighbour might have acted as midwife, mother maybe ill and father working so neighbour reported birth.
-
Yeah but the birth wasn't actually registered until a month after the birth. Unless the mother was really ill, and the registry office had limited opening hours (nothing's changed then >:()
I gather there was no law then about one of the parents being present, or even both when registering the birth.
-
I've looked a bit closer at the birth certificate, and it appears the informant wasn't either of the parents, but one of the next-door neighbours who was listed as "present at birth" (strange by today's standards, but times change). I suppose it could be that she remembered the birth was on a particular day of the week but miscalculated how long ago it was. Some things are just lost in time, though.
It's interesting that the variation is a week. My guess is the neightbour remembered it was a Tuesday (or whatever) but after a bit forgot exactly which Tuesday. I do that! ;D
meles
-
thiss is what my book says about loking for a birth:~
until 1874 the district registrars were charged with collecting information about allthe births within their jurisdiction. Thereafter responsibility for registration rested with t he parents. If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, many births seem to have gone unregistered or were registered or indexed in such a way as to defeat us. In the early years f civil registration some parents elected either to register the childs birth or to have them baptized butnot both, in the misguided belief that they had a choice if you cannot locate a birth registration investigate the baptism registers serving the place where your family lived.
by law births should be regsitered within 42 days, with an extension of up to six months accompanied by a financial penalty. always search at least the two quarterly indexes after the three month period in which a birth took place prior to 1984 as not everyone registered their children's births promptly.
starting in September qtr 1911 the mothers maiden name is recorded in the index making it easier to identify the correct registrations of people with common names and to pick up birth regsitartions of siblings.
the late registration of a child's birth to parents who were later married to each other might record a false birth date to conceal his or her illegitimacy. a child born out of wedlock was usually registered in the mothers name though before 1875 there was nothing to prevent an informant naming a putative father for an illegitimate baby. Later only if the father agreed and was present or his sworn declaration of paternity was produced to the registrar could his name be inserted as part of the entry. After the legitimacy act of 1926 if the parents subsequently married the child became legitimate and his birth was regsitered a second time under the married name.
-
Births could be registered by father or mother or other person present at birth.
-
I know they didn't always get it right first time on registering births! My g.grandfathers certificate (registered 1877) originally gave his birth date as 10th Feb.
However, a correction note was added (in1891) giving birth date as 10th January "on production of a statutory declaration" made by both parents.
No idea how/why the mix up happened as it was registered by his mother on 15th Feb 1877.
Anthea
-
I know they didn't always get it right first time on registering births! My g.grandfathers certificate (registered 1877) originally gave his birth date as 10th Feb.
However, a correction note was added (in1891) giving birth date as 10th January "on production of a statutory declaration" made by both parents.
No idea how/why the mix up happened as it was registered by his mother on 15th Feb 1877.
Might have been that on 15 Feb. when registrar asked child's date of birth parents answered 'the tenth' without saying it was the 10th of January not 10th February.
-
Ahhh .. good point! Thanks aghadowey
-
One of my ancestors was born 25 Jan (according to baptism on 16 March) or 20 Feb (on birth certificate). As the birth was registered on 31 March, I assume the latter date was given so as not to fall foul of the 6 week rule.
I suppose I'm lucky that this illegitimate ancestor's father is named both on the baptism entry and on his marriage certificate. So I now know that his father was Patrick McALLISTER .... or Thomas McALLISTER.