What do you think?

[charlotteCH]

As a matter of pure curiosity, how would the registrar know if the mother was married ?   If she was from out of town but gave birth there... or someone beside either the father of mother did the registration, anything could be said?

charlotte

[coombs]

Hi

Before 1875 it is very rare that a father will appear on a birth cert of an illegitimate child, although there was noting to stop a woman naming him, but this was rare. After 1875 as Osprey said, he could only be named if he was present at the registration.

If a mother had an illegitimate baby, then married soon afterwards and the new husband was married into the pregnancy and only just lost his wife at the time of birth or just before, this is a good clue. As said, try a baptism. Some people lied to a registrar to pretend to be married, and with churches there maybe was a select few but not many people lied to a priest in a baptism. If he is named as the father on a baptism, then that will build up a good case for you.

Ben

[charlotteCH]

Hi again,

Ben, do you know who was required to appear at the RO to enter the birth details? Before 1875, and after 1875?

How did the Reg. know if the child was illegitimate in say a big city such as Manchester where there would be no local knowledge involved?

charlotte

[coombs]

Hi

Normally the mother or father went along to register the birth of the baby. Although I did hear that in the early decades the registrar went round the district recording births and deaths.

Ben

[charlotteCH]

So the Reg took the word of whoever appeared at the counter to make the reg. 

I have a birth cert 1866 where a female cousin went to register the baby's birth-  no father named but presumably the mother was not well enough to do it. no father named.

charlotte

[maidmarion]

In rural areas, not sure if the same applied in cities, between 1837-1875 it was the responsibility of registrars to visit local areas within their sub-district to collect any births and deaths! No wonder so many births were unregistered.

[coombs]

Hi

Yes, as MaidMarion said it was the responsibility of the registrars to visit the local districts to collect information on births and deaths. If they visited the house of the mother, then the birth was probably registered there. I dont think the mother trotted to the office and registered the birth as a lot of people think. Only after 1875 did this change.

If the registrar visited the house of a mother who had an illegitimate child in say 1864, then if there were other families around to know then the mother probably had to tell the truth.

Ben

[stanmapstone]

The rule applied everywhere.  Registration was compulsory in the case of the Registrar. The onus was on him to collect births and deaths and he could be fined for failure to register them. In carrying out his duties the parents were compelled, under the Act to supply the information when asked.
The registrars also had an incentive to register as they were paid for the entries viz. for the first Twenty Entries of Births and Deaths in every Year which he shall have registered, whether the same be of Births or of Deaths indiscriminately, Two Shillings and Sixpence each, and One Shilling for every subsequent Entry of Births or Deaths in each Year.

In fact two registrars were jailed for fraudulent entries. In one case births and the other births and deaths.

Stan

[stanmapstone]

As a matter of pure curiosity, how would the registrar know if the mother was married ?   If she was from out of town but gave birth there... or someone beside either the father of mother did the registration, anything could be said?

charlotte

They did not have to provide proof but it was a crime if they were found out.

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.


Two convictions for offences against the Registration Acts;
On the 6th March, 1917, xxxxx was charged at the Oldham Petty Sessions for having registered as the Birth of her own child that of the child of a woman with whom she lived. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, was fined £2.10s.

On the 2nd  April, 1917, xxxxx was brought up for trial at the Liverpool Assizes charged with having committed perjury by registering the Birth of the child of another woman as that of her own child. Defendant was sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment.

Stan