Twins - time on birth certificate

[Valda]

I didn't know when each child was given up. I sort of assumed they were both given up around the same time when it became impossible for Mercy to manage. If Muriel was registered in her mother's maiden name it would indicate the relationship had broken down before Muriel's birth. Mercy may already have had to give up Arthur before Muriel was born.
Have you checked the poor law records for Leamington (no idea where the nearest workhouse was ( I suspect Warwick?) but Warwick RO would know).
The children may have been given up into the poor law system when Mercy's relationship with their father broke down (I presuming it did - but without knowledge to presume/assume is dangerous). Mercy herself may have gone into the poor law system when pregnant with Muriel.
If that is the case Muriel's birth would definitely have been registered by the poor law authorities- but again that may have meant them leaving Leamington so perhaps less likely knowing they returned there.
If the adoptions were informal through the church, then there will be no record unless they passed through a Church of England children's home (in which case you wouldn't expect them to still be in Leamington).

Regards

Valda

[TracyL]

Hi Valda

I suspect, at least with Muriel, that the adoption was through the church.  This thread started, as you know, with my query about twins.  That was the only logical explanation I could think of for two children to be given up by a, seemingly, married couple.  But I suppose I am thinking in terms of life today, rather than the harder lives lived then.  I do think your theory has a realistic ring to it, makes more sense than two separate adoptions.  I have a feeling that there was a workhouse in Leamington, but will check.  If I could just find a marriage certificate .....
Tracy

[Valda]

I think it is less likely that there was a marriage which is possibly why the children were given up in the first place. The legitimate birth certificate of your grandfather I'm afraid means nothing in proving there was a marriage. There was not the paper trail there is today so basically you could bluff it out with the registrar and claim you were married (that really is the real difference with life today). I have several birth certificates which have children registered as legitimate which I can prove were illegitimate. I know of a birth as late as the 1930s (I know the person concerned) whose mother registered him as legitimate (and his siblings) when he wasn't.
Basically certificates are only as reliable as the information was reliable given to the registrar or official in the first place and yet family historians have a tendency to take them at face value.

If Mercy was still in a relationship of some sort with Arthur when your grandfather was born, it would have made it easier for her to appear at the registrar as Mrs Lawrence. If that relationship had broken down by the time she was pregnant with her second child - perhaps because she was pregnant again, then with Arthur gone some time, it would have made it much more difficult for her to have the second child registered as a Lawrence. By then pregnant and with a young child she may have been known to the local authorities because she was needing to claim financial support which is why I suggested checking the poor law records.

I don't know what the scenario actually was (I am speculating with different possible scenarios) but in checking the poor law records you can try and narrow possibilities down.
I think Leamington was in the Warwick poor law union.

If you are obtaining the risky Muriel birth certificate it may be quicker to get it from the Warwick registry office than the GRO.

Regards

Valda

[TracyL]

Have just checked the address of Thomas and Florence Judd against the three Marks sisters in Leamington.  The sisters were living one street apart and the Judd's were living a short walk away from them.  St Paul's church was moments away from the Judd's and had a school attached to it - which should make the school admissions search a little easier if they did stay at that address.
Tracy

[dee-jay]

I've been wondering why no family member came to the rescue, as was often the 'norm', prior to adoption legislation of the late 1920s.  Mercy's mother Mary MARKS might have been in poor health if it is her death that is registered 3Q 1907 aged 63 Walsall 6b 857, but Mercy had at least one married sister - Catherine Duffin -  who might have absorbed one or more into her own family. 

A baby would have required a 'wet nurse' in order to survive, so I doubt if adoption would have been a swift process soon after birth. 

To add another dimension to the mystery, in 3Q 1906 there is a birth regn for Florence JUDD ref: Warwick 6d 692;  the child's mother a possible contender for 'wet nurse'?

[TracyL]

Could this be Muriel Florence?  Although she was baptised with her birth name, is it possible she was registered with the Judd's name?  If not, and the wet nurse theory is correct, there were several other Judd's nearby having children at that time.

I have also emailed St Pauls Church today to see if they may have any additional records from that era - a long shot, but worth a try.

[Valda]

Though anything is possible I doubt the baby's birth was registered as Judd pre the adoption laws of 1927 (and then it would be a second birth registration by the authorities). Why after all allow the baby to be baptised a Lawrence and why create more problems for yourself trying to explain to the registrar why the baby, not your own child, was being registered as a Judd by you, or registered by a mother whose name was totally different from that the baby's registered name. Or did the Judds (having allowed the baptism in another name) bluff it out with the registrar and claim the baby was their own?
When thinking about possible hypothesises to explain the scant facts you have, you need to weigh up what are the possibilities for and against each.

What is known at this stage is the baby/child was baptised in October though we don't know at what age. You have a risky/possible birth registration in the September quarter which could cover, given the 6 weeks grace to register a birth, any child born from late April until the end of September. Arthur the older child (we think) was born in April 1905 so plenty of time for the birth of another child. By October for a late April/May birth the child would be old enough to be 'adopted'. I wouldn't add complications about wet nurses if at this point it is possible not to get more complicated. That doesn't mean in the end it might have to get more complicated, but it is better to keep it simple if possible.

Regards

Valda