RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Doddie on Saturday 21 May 11 14:35 BST (UK)
-
I am aware that the details contained in many BMD certificates are not always accurate and comprehensive but would still like to know how seriously the information that was entered on them was monitored on a legal basis. The reason I ask is that on my g.g. grandfather Robert Wilson's 1845 birth certificate it names his parents as Robert Wilson and Mary Smitton (Robert was born in the Seaforth area of Greater Crosby). However, I can find no marriage record for a Robert Wilson to a Mary Smitton. The only marriage for a Mary Smitton I have come across in the 1840's is to a George Hubbard. A census entry for the Wilson family does though reveal Robert's mother as Mary. I have always been under the impression that if a child was born illegitimately - if indeed this is even relevant in Robert's case - only the mother's name appeared on the birth certificate and that the child concerned would be given his mother's surname. Was/is it actually illegal to pose as husband and wife for the purpose of filling in a child's birth certificate. While I continue to be unable to confirm the relationship that existed between Robert snr. and Mary Smitton I am left with the nagging doubt that I may have taken a wrong turn in my research and that I may have stumbled on the 'wrong' Robert for my ancestor. Any advice gratefully recieved,
Regards
Doddie
-
The information on certificates is only as good as that supplied by the people involved The civil registration system in England and Wales is 'informant driven' that is the registrar/priest can only put what he is told. There is a penalty of perjury if the information is willfully false,
From the 1836 Act.
XLI. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall wilfully make or cause to be made, for the Purpose of being inserted in any Register of Birth, Death, or Marriage, any false Statement touching any of the Particulars herein required to be known and registered, shall be subject to the same Pains and Penalties as if he were guilty of Perjury.
Between 1837 and 1875 if the mother informed a registrar of an illegitimate child's birth and also stated the father's name, the registrar could record him as the father, otherwise the space for the father's name and occupation will be blank.
This applied until The Registration Act of 1875 which stated:
"The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants"
Stan
-
I think there are very few certificates in my possession that are 100% accurate. Some have spelling mistakes, others errors, though whether they are genuine mistakes or attempts to deceive who knows?
But if someone registers an event, the registrar didn't ask for proof.
-
If the father acknowledges the child as his, he is entitled to have his name on the certificate. (I have such a case in my own family) There is no requirement for a marriage to have taken place.
The registrar is obliged to enter the details supplied by the party/parties registering the birth.
-
Between 1837 and 1875 if the mother informed a registrar of an illegitimate child's birth and also stated the father's name, the registrar could record him as the father, although he may not have actually been the father, otherwise the space for the father's name and occupation will be blank.
Stan
I forgot to add "although he may not have actually been the father".
Stan
-
In one of my families, all three of the children, born in the 1880s, had their grandfather's name and occupation on their birth certificates and baptism entries. I don't know why this was, possibly their father couldn't get time off work to attend the registration or baptism. The parents were married, so it seems a bit odd.
-
I have several instances where mother's surname on the children's birth certificates doesn't match up with the marriage. Confused me for a while. But then realised the name on the birth cert was her maiden name, but the name she married in was her previous husband's name because she had been widowed or divorced
-
My great great great grandmother had 14 children, and I have the birth certificates of some of them, on which she is shown as married to their father, with her maiden surname stated.
However, I know that she never married the father, as she was actually already married to someone else (he was not so scrupulous, and did in fact remarry bigamously). She merely lived with her second "husband" and they behaved exactly as if they were married.
So I think the certificate you have may reflect a situation where the couple felt married and simply behaved as if they were, even if they had not actually done the deed.
-
Liverpool Mercury November 7 1864
Deaths
Wilson - November 3 at Litherland aged 48, Mary, wife of Mr Robert Wilson and youngest daughter of the late Mr James Smitton, stonemason, of this town
-
Mary's brother Thomas Smitton was married twice at the ancient church of St Helen's in Sefton. Per Lan-OPC:
5 Jun 1844
Thomas Smitton - Stone mason - Bachelor of Seaforth
Margaret Birckett - Spinster of Seaforth, Sephton
Groom's Father: James Smitton, Stone mason
Bride's Father: William Birckett, Farmer
Witnesses: Margaret Braithwaite; Robert Smitton; Margaret Jones
12 Oct 1854
Thomas Smitton - Stone mason -Widower of Seaforth
Margaret Gillbanks - Spinster of Seaforth
Groom's Father: James Smitton, Stone mason
Bride's Father: Joseph Gillbanks, Grocer
Witnesses: John Tyson; Jane Lawson; George Gatley
-
And Mary was buried at St Helen's Sefton as Mary Wilson
(From Lan-OPC)
Burial: 7 Nov 1864 St Helen, Sephton, Lancashire, England
Mary Wilson -
Age: 48 years
Abode: Litherland
-
Hi ShaunJ, thank you for you replies. I know it's not the first time you have helped me with my queries so your input is always much appreciated. The fact that the death notice in the Liverpool Mercury is so clear in emphasising that Mary was the wife of Robert Wilson niggles me even more. Surely there must have been a marriage. Or maybe, as has already been suggested, Robert and Mary just lived all their lives as a 'married' couple without actually going through the actual ceremony of a wedding.
Regards
Doddie
-
Yes when a registrar was told the details of a birth he did not require proof of the parents marriage. He just wrote what he was told.
"And what is the baby's name my good man?"
"Joseph"
"Surname?"
"Bloggs"
"Full name and occupation of father"
"Frederick Bloggs, tin plat worker"
"Name, surname and maiden surname of mother"
"Mary Bloggs formerly Smith".
He did not then ask for the marriage proof of Fred Bloggs to Mary Smith.
-
In one of my families, all three of the children, born in the 1880s, had their grandfather's name and occupation on their birth certificates and baptism entries. I don't know why this was, possibly their father couldn't get time off work to attend the registration or baptism. The parents were married, so it seems a bit odd.
Do you mean that the grandfather was the informant, or that his name was given as the father?
-
There was a great stigma attached to illegitimacy in those days. Quite often a daughter's illegitimate child was passed off as a child of her mother, and raised as her sibling. Because young women often went away to work, it would not seem unusual for a young girl to go missing for months, and the baggy clothes worn by older women meant that few would question the pregnancy of the older woman.
Please note that this is a general comment, and not a reply aimed at any of the posters above.
-
In one of my families, all three of the children, born in the 1880s, had their grandfather's name and occupation on their birth certificates and baptism entries. I don't know why this was, possibly their father couldn't get time off work to attend the registration or baptism. The parents were married, so it seems a bit odd.
Do you mean that the grandfather was the informant, or that his name was given as the father?
His name was given as the father. I've had another look at the family, and the father and mother were in their teens when the children were born, so maybe the grandfather thought that he had to act as the father for official purposes, as the real father wasn't of full age.
-
You don't say whether he was the maternal or paternal grandfather, or whether it was the mother or the father who registered the birth.
I can imagine a situation where the parent, when asked for the father's details, misunderstands the question and gives his/her own father's details. Could that have happened in this case?
-
No, it was the paternal grandfather. I thought the same thing with the first baby, when I saw that the grandfather's name was on the birth cert instead of the father's, that the mother had made a mistake. But then I found that the second and third babies had the grandfather's name on their baptism entries, so it wasn't a mistake, the grandfather must have been the one who attended the baptisms, and stood in for the father. If only I could go back in time and find out why!
-
Thanks to all those who contributed their input to this thread.
Regards
George
-
Mary's brother Thomas Smitton was married twice at the ancient church of St Helen's in Sefton. Per Lan-OPC:
5 Jun 1844
Thomas Smitton - Stone mason - Bachelor of Seaforth
Margaret Birckett - Spinster of Seaforth, Sephton
Groom's Father: James Smitton, Stone mason
Bride's Father: William Birckett, Farmer
Witnesses: Margaret Braithwaite; Robert Smitton; Margaret Jones
12 Oct 1854
Thomas Smitton - Stone mason -Widower of Seaforth
Margaret Gillbanks - Spinster of Seaforth
Groom's Father: James Smitton, Stone mason
Bride's Father: Joseph Gillbanks, Grocer
Witnesses: John Tyson; Jane Lawson; George Gatley
Mr Tyson & His daughter are of relation to myself interestingly. I do know of a living descendant from that line and he has provided me with much information