RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Whipby on Monday 06 May 24 15:01 BST (UK)
-
Hi all, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how long people had to register a birth in the UK in 1901? (I'm not sure whether it's the same as today).
I'm just trying to find the accurate DoB for my grandad, as his school admission register has a different date from his birth certificate, so I'm wondering whether my great grandmother 'tweaked' his DoB when she registered him.
Thank you!
-
How far out was it?
If he was alive in 1939 the register for that year should have his date of birth to compare.
Do you know when his parents married?
-
Yes, I have all that info, thank you!
His birth certificate says he was born on 13 January 1901, which was a Sunday. His mother registered the birth on 23 February, a Saturday, which is 41 days after the DoB that she stated, and presumably the last working day possible for registration, the next day being a Sunday, and if the maximum time allowed was the same then as it is now.
All documents I've found for him so far that have a recorded DoB say 13 January, except for one. His school admission record from 1911 says 10 January.
So it's just made me wonder whether she might have actually given birth on 10 January, but told the registrar the 13th, because otherwise she might've been fined for late registration, albeit only a few days late.
I believe he celebrated his birthday on the 13th, so it is probably correct, but it's just interesting to ponder!
-
Apologies for this - all, except the school say 13 January - I'd be inclined to say that the error was with the school registration :o :o AND after all, people were not so pedantic in those days. Plus apologies to Milliepede - the 1939 has a lot of discrepancies related to date of birth! :-X
-
Yes, I have all that info, thank you!
His birth certificate says he was born on 13 January 1901, which was a Sunday. His mother registered the birth on 23 February, a Saturday, which is 41 days after the DoB that she stated, and presumably the last working day possible for registration, the next day being a Sunday, and if the maximum time allowed was the same then as it is now.
I also thought that they had 6 weeks to register a birth at that time but I am sure someone will verify what it was
-
A birth should be registered (in E/W) within 42 days i.e. 6 weeks. That has applied since 1837, and still does today.
In 1901 the fee (not a fine) that became payable for a late registration was 2s 6d to the registrar and 2s 6d to the superintendent registrar, BUT that only became payable if the birth wasn't registered within 3 months of the birth.
So, in effect, the "free" period for registering was 3 months.
-
Thanks all, I dare say the school registration was wrong! It just got me thinking, that’s all 😊
Very interesting about the ‘free’ period of time being three months, thank you for that info 👍🏼. I think it was quite common, in my family at least, to give a false DoB, because some of them were quite open about it within the family! They assumed they’d be fined for being late, but maybe that wasn’t the case.
-
I also thought that they had 6 weeks to register a birth at that time but I am sure someone will verify what it was
Since the GRO's recent attack of relative generosity I have worked through much of my (fairly modest) family tree, recording dates of registration against dates of birth. A few parents went straight to the registry after a day or two. The great majority waited until the sixth week, one or two of them apparently arranging a baptism on the same day. So the evidence seems to be that 6 weeks has been the requirement since registration began. Very occasionally a parent seems to have forgotten.
It seems that my ggg-grandfather made a habit of going from his farm into Ashburton to register his children as soon as he could. A boy and a girl (twins) were registered with names the next day in 1842, but the father had to return just 5 days later to register the boy's (this time anonymous) death. The likelihood of that happening was perhaps the main reason for the typical wait until the sixth week.
-
Apologies for this - all, except the school say 13 January - I'd be inclined to say that the error was with the school registration :o :o AND after all, people were not so pedantic in those days. Plus apologies to Milliepede - the 1939 has a lot of discrepancies related to date of birth! :-X
(My bolding) I have found multiple instances of the birth date of birth on the 1939 register being exactly one year out. No idea why that should happen.
-
I wonder if it was anything to do with collecting an old age pension. There seemed to be compulsory and non-compulsory options. Here's an article https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v2n4/v2n4p14.pdf (https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v2n4/v2n4p14.pdf)
Anyway just a thought...
CD
-
…but the father had to return just 5 days later to register the boy's (this time anonymous) death. The likelihood of that happening was perhaps the main reason for the typical wait until the sixth week.
This is really sad, the possibility that people might have waited until the last minute to register a birth, in case they also had to register the baby’s death, too. I’d never thought of this scenario, but it makes sense, especially for families in rural areas with a longer journey to the register office.
How tragic that infant mortality was so common that they had to think like this 😭
-
I have several birth certs where the parents waited until the last minute to register the birth, or some who registered it days after, but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district. I have once born in rural Essex in late Dec 1843 and birth registered on 31 Dec 1843. I have a old work pal who was born a week before Xmas 1944 and he showed me his birth cert once, registered I think 27 or 28 Dec. His dad was a local clerk. And a 1944 birth had a much higher survival rate than someone born 1844.
-
but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district.
The actual wording of the act was that the registrar "is hereby required to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District".
Records of correspondence in the RG files at TNA make it clear that there was no expectation that the registrar was supposed to go out walking the streets asking about births and deaths or to be knocking on people's doors.
He was required to live within his district and to make his address (and times of availability) known by having a sign "in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of his own dwelling house".
Announcements placed by registrars in the newspapers of the time advertising times for registering are also quite common.
With young infant deaths in the early/mid Victorian period, although there should be both a birth and a death registration, it isn't uncommon to find only the death recorded by the registrar.
-
but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district.
The actual wording of the act was that the registrar "is hereby required to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District".
Records of correspondence in the RG files at TNA make it clear that there was no expectation that the registrar was supposed to go out walking the streets asking about births and deaths or to be knocking on people's doors.
He was required to live within his district and to make his address (and times of availability) known by having a sign "in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of his own dwelling house".
Announcements placed by registrars in the newspapers of the time advertising times for registering are also quite common.
With young infant deaths in the early/mid Victorian period, although there should be both a birth and a death registration, it isn't uncommon to find only the death recorded by the registrar.
So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?
-
That’s really interesting, I had no idea that they would record births etc at their own homes!
-
So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?
GRO issued notices in the press when registration was launched. The issue, and all the discussion since, really revolves around the use of the word "may" rather than "must" in the 1836 B&D Act, and how that would have been defined at the time. It was certainly the intention of parliament, and the Registrar General, that this was a compulsory system being introduced.
The press notice said ..."all births and deaths which occur after June 1837 may be registered by the registrar of the district within which they occur.." it then confirms that registration is free but then warns of the fee that becomes payable for registering births after the required 6 weeks ( which was 7s 6d), and goes on to say therefore that "All persons therefore should have the births of their children registered without delay".
The 1874 Act clarified things a little and instead of saying parents "may" register a birth it became "shall be the duty of " - it also extended the period of free registration to 3 months and reduced the fee for late registration slightly (to 5s).
Registrars had no ability to issues fines, and could only levy the statutory fees. Fines could only come from a court after prosecution. What is clear is that some parents were prosecuted for failing to register or refusing to regsiter births right from the start in 1837, but failing/refusal only became an offence once the registrar had issued a notice requiring the parents to register which they then ignored.
-
So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?
GRO issued notices in the press when registration was launched. The issue, and all the discussion since, really revolves around the use of the word "may" rather than "must" in the 1836 B&D Act, and how that would have been defined at the time. It was certainly the intention of parliament, and the Registrar General, that this was a compulsory system being introduced.
The press notice said ..."all births and deaths which occur after June 1837 may be registered by the registrar of the district within which they occur.." it then confirms that registration is free but then warns of the fee that becomes payable for registering births after the required 6 weeks ( which was 7s 6d), and goes on to say therefore that "All persons therefore should have the births of their children registered without delay".
The 1874 Act clarified things a little and instead of saying parents "may" register a birth it became "shall be the duty of " - it also extended the period of free registration to 3 months and reduced the fee for late registration slightly (to 5s).
Registrars had no ability to issues fines, and could only levy the statutory fees. Fines could only come from a court after prosecution. What is clear is that some parents were prosecuted for failing to register or refusing to regsiter births right from the start in 1837, but failing/refusal only became an offence once the registrar had issued a notice requiring the parents to register which they then ignored.
Would make a great new episode for Dave Annal's Setting the Record Straight series on YouTube. thought.
-
Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible? I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.
She obviously doesn’t want to be found!
-
Perfectly possible, but you should make really sure you have covered all the other options before deciding there is no registration.
-
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible?
I can only smile.
I did in-person research in a local registration office in the 1990s. Not Britain, but Ireland.
There were multiple people turning up every day for whom no birth registration could be found - their own.
-
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible?
Certainly very possible in the early years of registration
I have a family with 7 children born between 1839 and 1852 in Liverpool and I cannot find a birth registration for any of them under any spelling variation
They were all baptised at St Peters Church, Liverpool
-
Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible? I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.
She obviously doesn’t want to be found!
I would agree certainly possible. I'm sure I've heard that something like 5% of births were not registered. However, here is a little task for you... why not see if you can find birth registration of any siblings? This would determine what registration district these the births fell into thus reducing the area you are having to search. Equally if you are not finding the birth registrations of any siblings (or maybe only some) you can deduce that these parents were busy/scatty/not concerned and were just 'non registerers' and then focus on searching for a baptism.
CD
-
I have never been able to find a birth registration for my great grandmother (baptised 16 April 1854) She was the 10th and last child of the family. Her three oldest siblings were born before 1837, but siblings #4 to #9 were all registered. I have tried all the variants of her surname I can think of for the relevant times in her local registration district but no luck. I would have thought she would have had to prove her age to get her state pension when they came in.
-
I have never been able to find a birth reg for a great, great gran born about October 1851 or 1852 in Terling in Essex. In the 1921 census her age in months and years points to about an October birthdate.
It is handy, when such people whose birth reg cannot be found, lived to the 1921 census or 1939 register, at least there are more chances of the month and day being accurate. I have an ancestor's sister also born in Essex in late 1852, and on the 1939 register she says 29 Dec 1852 and she was baptised 30 Jan 1853 but no birth reg has ever been found and I have thought outside the box in searches.
-
I have only half of a family baptised before they became orphans, a real shame as I have for years searched for one person, no registration and no baptism not found till he married, never found his date of birth either, with the help of others I became a super sleuth , why only register half of the siblings and only one baptism?
LM .
-
[quote author=Wexflyer link=topic=882504.msg7553961#msg7553961 date=1715323836
I can only smile.
I did in-person research in a local registration office in the 1990s. Not Britain, but Ireland.
There were multiple people turning up every day for whom no birth registration could be found - their own.
[/quote]
That’s very interesting, thank you! And how upsetting for the people concerned.😦
-
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible?
Certainly very possible in the early years of registration
I have a family with 7 children born between 1839 and 1852 in Liverpool and I cannot find a birth registration for any of them under any spelling variation
They were all baptised at St Peters Church, Liverpool
How very frustrating that must be! I hope you find them eventually.
-
Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible? I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.
She obviously doesn’t want to be found!
I would agree certainly possible. I'm sure I've heard that something like 5% of births were not registered. However, here is a little task for you... why not see if you can find birth registration of any siblings? This would determine what registration district these the births fell into thus reducing the area you are having to search. Equally if you are not finding the birth registrations of any siblings (or maybe only some) you can deduce that these parents were busy/scatty/not concerned and were just 'non registerers' and then focus on searching for a baptism.
CD
Thank you for the suggestion - this is something I’ve already done, and I’ve found the registrations for her siblings, in the district I’d expect them to be.
The difference is that my direct ancestor - who was the last child - must’ve been illegitimate, born a few years after her supposed ‘father’ had died. I’ve even looked at census returns to check out the neighbours, and then searched to see whether there might be a registration for her under one of those surnames. thinking that perhaps one of them was the father. But nothing has ever come of anything I’ve tried. I’ve also tried searching just under her two forenames, regardless of surname, and then looked in the censuses for any children that I found, in order to rule them out.
I’ve tried everything I can think of, and have been trying for years to find her - but if anyone has any suggestions as to what I might try next, please let me know, I’m happy to give anything a go!
-
I have only half of a family baptised before they became orphans, a real shame as I have for years searched for one person, no registration and no baptism not found till he married, never found his date of birth either, with the help of others I became a super sleuth , why only register half of the siblings and only one baptism?
LM .
A very frustrating mystery! I hope you solve it eventually.
I have a family missing from the 1901 census. Again, I’ve tried every permutation I can think of to find them, but have come up with nothing. I wouldn’t have expected them to have left the country, but that’s one avenue I haven’t explored yet.
-
It is handy, when such people whose birth reg cannot be found, lived to the 1921 census or 1939 register, at least there are more chances of the month and day being accurate. I have an ancestor's sister also born in Essex in late 1852, and on the 1939 register she says 29 Dec 1852 and she was baptised 30 Jan 1853 but no birth reg has ever been found and I have thought outside the box in searches.
Unfortunately my g-g mother didn't make it to 1939, but her age is all over the place on other sources
1861 - age 7
married 18 Jan 1870 - age 17
1871 - over a year later - still age 17 ???
1881 - 27
1891 - 36
1901 - 46
1911 - 60, but looking at the image "60" has been written over either 56 or 58 ( my great grandfather could not sign his name on marriage record but my g-g mother signed, so I wonder who actually filled in the census form)
1921 - 65 years and 5 months (she filled in the form herself as g-g father died in 1914)
death 9 Jan 1924 age 71 (death registered by boarder / live in employee who was also with her in 1921)
From the odd 5 months mentioned in 1921, I am guessing her birthday may have been in January, but whether she had just had her birthday in the year of her marriage or of her death, or it was still to come is anybody's guess.
-
I guess we can become too determined to find ancestors, hoping to get back further and find answers to our questions, when there are just some questions that we cannot answer. And as we know when we get back to pre 1800 the waters get murkier. In the case of it usually gets harder the further back you go. Many did not leave a will or did not have to come under the poor law authorities, and many of the poor law records do not survive. Witnesses to marriages often drawing a blank, many being merely friends or neighbours or church officials. Even during the 1837 onwards era it can be tricky at the best of times. Common names do not help, so the troubles will be greater for pre census and civil reg eras.
-
My search gave me a marriage with initials of H.A, I found a 1851with an initial A, no place of birth of any of the family and by 1861 the parents were both dead, A was living with an uncle Henry whilst it appears the rest of the family were in workhouse schools, I believe A took on the H from his uncle and after that he was H. A, took some working out but it all fitted in, his mother and Henry's wife was sisters, made sense to me but I still found no registration or baptism, wonder how many others would accept this explanation?
LM .
-
Sometimes we do have to make a judgement on the probability of something being correct, I think, otherwise we’d never be able to move on with our research.
In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings. She’s the only person I can find who fits, but if in the future I find something that proves her not to be correct, then all the previous ancestors will be wrong too. It’s something I revisit now and again.
-
Another relative I just could not find and he turned out to have his registration with Christian names wrong way round and a different surname, on 1881 they were then all named after the man she lived with and never married after having at least 9 children with him, what a complicated life?, and even then she went on to marry someone else and left her partner in a workhouse , using another surname, don't know how she got away with it, sadly for me she missed the 1911ccensus.
LM
-
Another relative I just could not find and he turned out to have his registration with Christian names wrong way round and a different surname, on 1881 they were then all named after the man she lived with and never married after having at least 9 children with him, what a complicated life?, and even then she went on to marry someone else and left her partner in a workhouse , using another surname, don't know how she got away with it, sadly for me she missed the 1911ccensus.
LM
Wow, that’s a complicated one! It’s a wonder you managed to find them at all! I did have a whole family registered under a completely different surname in one census - luckily all the first names were correct, plus they were where I expected them to be. I was in contact at one point with a distant relative, who told me that they’d used a different surname because the father had been a poacher and was worried about being tracked down!
-
It's a bit like being a detective sometimes but enjoyable. LM
-
Sometimes we do have to make a judgement on the probability of something being correct, I think, otherwise we’d never be able to move on with our research.
In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings. She’s the only person I can find who fits, but if in the future I find something that proves her not to be correct, then all the previous ancestors will be wrong too. It’s something I revisit now and again.
I half agree with that, but sometimes I think I have the right info, but then find that burial of someone who I think is my ancestor as a child, a burial not picked up on before. I had a keen eye on my ancestor who wed in 1786 as being the same woman born 1762 in a nearby parish. But then found a burial today in 1767 of the 1762 one, listing parents, so I know it is a different person. The burial on the Ancestry search engine just gave first name but looking at the original, it said "Elis, daughter of John and Susannah Cripps".
-
We have to become detectives.
LM
-
Sometimes we do have to make a judgement on the probability of something being correct, I think, otherwise we’d never be able to move on with our research.
In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings. She’s the only person I can find who fits, but if in the future I find something that proves her not to be correct, then all the previous ancestors will be wrong too. It’s something I revisit now and again.
I half agree with that, but sometimes I think I have the right info, but then find that burial of someone who I think is my ancestor as a child, a burial not picked up on before. I had a keen eye on my ancestor who wed in 1786 as being the same woman born 1762 in a nearby parish. But then found a burial today in 1767 of the 1762 one, listing parents, so I know it is a different person. The burial on the Ancestry search engine just gave first name but looking at the original, it said "Elis, daughter of John and Susannah Cripps".
That’s why I revisit my 1851 girl every now and again! I dread finding anything that would show she’s not mine, but it has to be done I suppose 🤭. But until then, I’ve made the executive decision to assume she IS mine (because to date I’ve done everything I can think of to look for an alternative) and carry on looking into her ancestors 🤣🤣🤣
On the positive side, with your recent find, it means you can start researching other possibilities!
-
We have to become detectives.
LM
We do, and that’s half the fun!
-
I enjoy the thrill of the chase. LM
-
Research the dead, forget the living. ;)
-
In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings. She’s the only person I can find who fits, ...
That sums it all up. When records become hard to trace, or 'fuzzy', one is easily led into accepting one that 'fits' best. The real problem may be that no genuine record ever existed, or now remains, or has not yet been put on line or transcribed anywhere.
-
Also the confusion of, for example, two John Bloggs marrying a woman of the same name in the same area, and researchers getting the couples mixed up.
-
Also the confusion of, for example, two John Bloggs marrying a woman of the same name in the same area, and researchers getting the couples mixed up.
Also the problem when one man marries two women of the same name.
-
Keeping many, very detailed records for their very nosey and determined descendants generations later was not on their list of priorities. ;D
-
My great grandfather was born 1900 - he was registered as being born on the 22nd January (he was registered 42 days after that) he was actually born on the 18th
I know he was born on the 18th -a) his baptism record shows the 18th (lie to the government but don't lie to god) and b) he told me - apparently he discovered this in his 20s when he first saw his birth certificate and his mother confessed - always celebrated his birthday on the 18th - but wrote the 22nd on forms so his mum wouldn't get into trouble
-
Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.
How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s? Was that even possible? I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.
She obviously doesn’t want to be found!
It may also be worth trying as a male
My great great grandmother was baptised as a girl Emily at 2-3 weeks old, week later her parents registered a birth born the same day as Emily but a boy Henry - no record of Henry's baptism or death
The conclusion I reached was trying to say 'Enry' and 'Emly' in a broad west country accent and the registrar mishearing
That said a photo of Emily does look scarily like my brother in drag