RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: rodc on Saturday 13 February 16 10:37 GMT (UK)
-
Hi Folks,
my ggrandfathers birth cert has the name of his father included but omits the name of his mother.
the original imaged copy of the birth cert has a name pencilled onto it. That name was found and agrees with the birth cert. GGF #1 was born in one parish [the home of his mothers family] and recorded in an adjacent parish the location of his father GGF #2. GGF#2 s own mothers father resided in the parish GGF #1 was born in. Looks as though he was born on his grandfathers farm.
The motherGGM #2 later joined GGF #2 at his location and there they stayed.
Question: why would the mothers name be omitted from the birth cert? Or is it possible another female was actually the mother and refused to be named? All answers very welcome. Thankyou
-
Where in the world did this take place?
-
And when?
-
More likely they just recorded the fathers names and didn't worry about the mothers at all, what year did this happen?
-
More likely they just recorded the fathers names and didn't worry about the mothers at all
That is fairly common on Parish Register record of a baptism - but this is said to be a Birth Certificate? Mind you, the post does go on to speak of parishes........
rodc - can you confirm what document you have? Is it a birth cert, or are you talking of a parish record of a baptism?
-
Hi Folks,
my ggrandfathers birth cert has the name of his father included but omits the name of his mother.
the original imaged copy of the birth cert has a name pencilled onto it. That name was found and agrees with the birth cert. GGF #1 was born in one parish [the home of his mothers family] and recorded in an adjacent parish the location of his father GGF #2. GGF#2 s own mothers father resided in the parish GGF #1 was born in. Looks as though he was born on his grandfathers farm.
The motherGGM #2 later joined GGF #2 at his location and there they stayed.
Question: why would the mothers name be omitted from the birth cert? Or is it possible another female was actually the mother and refused to be named? All answers very welcome. Thankyou
What birth certificate? a copy? or do you mean a baptismal record?
What original imaged copy? is this something you've found online?
-
It would seem to be a baptismal certificate as the pencilled name is then referred to as agreeing with the birth certificate.
If so, perhaps just the father presented the child for Baptism. ???
-
Thanks for replies.
scrolling thru common room archives [page 4] i found an interesting post by op snowball 05/01/16 on same subject, so see many answers there.
my post concerns an original imaged copy of a birth cert sent to me - it is a certificate - not a parish register entry and that was later used to verify the birth was recorded in the church from a cd produced by the church incumbent for his masters degree [social science 2005] where he transcribed the church records.
The event took place in Cheshire 1852.
the b.cert section for the mothers name is empty. the penciled entry is scrawled diagonally across the cert and I believe was written by my fathers hand since I recognise the scrawl. Since he is no longer able to rely to the query, I'm hoping the experts at Rootschat can drum up some suitable answers just to unravel one more oddity in the family past!
have at it please and thankyou kindly.
-
Who was the informant on the birth cert?
What is given for place of birth?
-
scrolling thru common room archives [page 4] i found an interesting post by op snowball 05/01/16 on same subject, so see many answers there.
The thread you mention related to the mother's name missing from an 1814 baptism entry, not from a birth certificate.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=738178.msg5843153#msg5843153
-
the father appears to be the informant [and maybe he was reluctant?]
place of birth is in the adjacent parish to the parish that the church baptism is recorded.
its a township perched on the edge of the center of the parish where that parishes church is located.
Now I don't know if a marriage was preformed at that church between ggf #2 & ggm # 2 since the records are not available to me for cost reasons. From what I have thus far developed, the likelihood of a marriage having taken place seems doubtful at best - and I can add that many other parallel lineages stemming from this, all have had great difficulty in determining the identity of ggm # 2, to the extent that there are several contenders all dutifully supported by some unprovable assertions that this is she named so and so.
Well that just isn't so. From the coded entries in the church register margins [explained by the transcriber as seen above] that record ggf # 1's baptism we can find the guilty female.
Her family moved from the place of baptism [ the margin mark indicates this] and she was found in the adjoining parish as a child.
Hope that helps - I'm doing this alone, so no good asking for the other parallel lineages since there's toooooo much dissension and who am I to change what is?
-
Hi Jen B,
thanks for the wakeup! I hadn't realized that but many of the answers there could possibly apply so I'll take what I can get and mull over it until a light flashes!
-
I don't think you've actually answered the question of where this baptism took place :-\
Without knowing the place and religion then it's hard to say for sure but many early baptism records only record the name of the father so you've need to check to see if this is the case here by looking at other baptisms around this time in that register.
-
Rodc, your post is quite complicated.
If you are able to post the details someone might be able to help. Travelling around unnamed and unknown parishes is quite difficult.
Why is the woman guilty?
Why is the man reluctant yet is the informant?
Do you mean he is not the father but has been persuaded that he is?
It's odd and difficult!
-
Sorry, I am completely lost!
Have we established if the document is a birth cert or a parish record of a baptism?
Or when and where it took place?
-
The thread you mention related to the mother's name missing from an 1814 baptism entry, not from a birth certificate.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=738178.msg5843153#msg5843153
Many thanks to JenB for posting the link to four pages about this same topic :-\
Really no need to waste our time by starting a new topic which isn't even clearly written, questions aren't answered, etc. ::)
-
The thread you mention related to the mother's name missing from an 1814 baptism entry, not from a birth certificate.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=738178.msg5843153#msg5843153
Many thanks to JenB for posting the link to four pages about this same topic :-\
Really no need to waste our time by starting a new topic which isn't even clearly written, questions aren't answered, etc. ::)
No, that was a topic started by someone else completely. However, it was the one which rodc referred to in reply #7 as having relevance to this enquiry.
-
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread as this one was so confusing :-[
-
the father appears to be the informant [and maybe he was reluctant?]
What do you mean by your statement that the father 'appears' to be the informant? The certificate should contain the name and 'description' of the informant, i.e. Joe Bloggs, father.
-
If this is a baptismal record there would unlikely to be an 'informant'
-
Since rodc says it refers to a birth in 1852, it is quite possible the birth was not registered.
It sounds as if the certificate referred to, was a certifcate of birth issued by the church years later, as proof of age, possibly for a pension.
Jebber
-
Also under the requirements of the 1836 Registration Act the registrar would not omit the mother's name, although the father's name could be omitted. After all the mother is always known even if the father is not.
Stan
-
One of the documents acceptable as proof of age for the Old Age Pension, under the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, was a certificate of baptism.
Stan
-
I think all we can do is be patient till rodc comes back on line, and hopefully answers the questions.
He has said it is a birth cert, yet refers to parishes that have no relevance to a birth cert. MAybe it is a baptismal certificate.
But all guesswork, till we get more info!
-
Also under the requirements of the 1836 Registration Act the registrar would not omit the mother's name, although the father's name could be omitted. After all the mother is always known even if the father is not.
Presumably the exception being a foundling?
-
??? Thoroughly lost.
Tried to put 2 and 2 together from past posts. (and probably failed ;))
Just wondering if the cert in question is for:
Baptism of Henry Challiner:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQ61-HN5
(born Nantwich 1852 according to FreeBMD)
Marriage of James and Ann (her surname on FreeBMD is SINKER)
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F351-S94
Baptism of Ann- Image on FindMyPast says illegitimate daughter of:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F7J3-5L8
Oh well.
Maureen
-
Also under the requirements of the 1836 Registration Act the registrar would not omit the mother's name, although the father's name could be omitted. After all the mother is always known even if the father is not.
Presumably the exception being a foundling?
Obviously :)
Stan
-
But all guesswork, till we get more info!
Absolutely!
rodc - please will you give chapter and verse - all the details from the document you are talking about.
-
A scan of the relevant sections of the document would be helpful. Is that possible rodc?
-
the father appears to be the informant [and maybe he was reluctant?]
Column 3 on a birth cert usually has the mother's name ,and her maiden surname,so are you tellig us that column 3 is blank?
The father IS normally the informant as the mother generally (having just had a baby) is not up to trooping into town to register a birth,so dad normally does it.
In all my years (over 30) of doing my family tree,I have rarely seen the mother as the birth informant.Except in the case of a single mum of course.
-
In all my years (over 30) of doing my family tree,I have rarely seen the mother as the birth informant.Except in the case of a single mum of course.
Just a quick look at the birth certifcates I have, 15 show where the mother is the informant.
Stan
-
.In all my years (over 30) of doing my family tree,I have rarely seen the mother as the birth informant.Except in the case of a single mum of course.
That's interesting - I have got several where the mother is the informant, including one where my g-g-grandmother was the informant, registered the day before she married my g-g-grandfather ;D (She registered the birth under her married name even though she wasn't ;D)
-
In all my years (over 30) of doing my family tree,I have rarely seen the mother as the birth informant.Except in the case of a single mum of course.
Just a quick look at the birth certifcates I have show 15 where the mother is the informant.
Stan
None of my husband's do(Ireland,so we think dad went into town to the pub too!) and flicking through one surname in my files only a handful show mum as the informant. Maybe my lot were too tired after birth,or not up to travelling through London to the register office.
Mind you all my ancestors were on the buses in some shape or forn,so they must have got free travel ;D 8)
-
Yes I too have a few where the mother was the informant.
Two examples were my dad and his brother. Grandad was serving in the Navy during WW1 when they were born. My gran had to register the births herself. The little brother sadly died 10 months later and my gran had to register his death too. My grandparents were married in 1912.
Oh I have just remembered I registered my own two childrens births in 1967 and 1968. Hubbie was working silly shifts and he could not afford to take unpaid time off to go to the Register Office.
Dorrie
-
Nothing much more to add really but is intriguing and irritating!
Going back to Maureen's detective work at reply 25 which all seems to fit, the civil records (not sure they have been posted in the confusion ;) ) show:
Marriage September 1852
James Chaloner and Ann Sinker
Birth December 1852
Henry Challiner
It all looks to be in order- mum and dad married prior to baby's birth.
Bishops Transcript of baptism shows both parents.
Parish register shows both parents.
We will have to wait for the birth certificate full details.
-
The father IS normally the informant as the mother generally (having just had a baby) is not up to trooping into town to register a birth,so dad normally does it.
In all my years (over 30) of doing my family tree,I have rarely seen the mother as the birth informant.Except in the case of a single mum of course.
You have 6 weeks to register a birth -- so Mothers would have been perfectly capable of registering many births - they were out & about with the baby much earlier than the end of the 6 weeks period.
In the early days of registration, it was the Registrar's duty to ensure babies were registered --so they did visit anyone they had heard had recently given birth
And admittedly much more recently than the period being discussed here, when I had my daughter in 1980, the Registrar actually came to the Maternity Hospital once a week and registered many of the new babies
-
As Marmalady said, with six weeks in which to register a birth, it is perfectly feasible for the mother to be the informant.
I have just done count of the birth certificates for one side of my family, out of 50 certificates, on 28 of them the mother was the informant, so more than 50 percent.
Jebber
-
You have 6 weeks to register a birth -- so Mothers would have been perfectly capable of registering many births - they were out & about with the baby much earlier than the end of the 6 weeks period.
I was born at 5pm on a Sunday,my dad was waiting outside the register office as it opened on Monday morning at 9am to register my birth ;D
Carol
-
Gosh, poor Rodc has got 5 pages of 37 posts to wade through when he does come back online! I think he might be the one who ends up confused!
Hopefully he can focus us on the matter in hand - if he can give a name for the child in question and the parents we will then know if the people Maureen found are relevant or not.
And if, as has been asked, he can confirm exactly what this document he refers to is, preferably with a scan of the small section where the mothers name is missing.
Till then, I for one, am keeping well away! :)
-
When I registered my first daughter's birth we both went and the registrar said she had to put he dad as informant as Dad took priority. I was too doped up on painkillers at the time to realise how ridiculous she was being.
-
As Marmalady said, with six weeks in which to register a birth, it is perfectly feasible for the mother to be the informant.
My great, great grandmother registered my great grandad's birth 7 weeks after his birth, then found out there was a fine, so lied about his date of birth, moving it by a week. I don't think she told anyone, as he said he was in his late twenties when he found out his birth date was wrong on the certificate.
I presume she registered it as they couldn't afford her husband to take time off to go to the registrar's office (or pay the fine)
-
As Marmalady said, with six weeks in which to register a birth, it is perfectly feasible for the mother to be the informant.
My great, great grandmother registered my great grandad's birth 7 weeks after his birth, then found out there was a fine, so lied about his date of birth, moving it by a week. I don't think she told anyone, as he said he was in his late twenties when he found out his birth date was wrong on the certificate.
I presume she registered it as they couldn't afford her husband to take time off to go to the registrar's office (or pay the fine)
My great grandfather did the same when he registered my grandmother's birth.