why can't I find a birth certificate ?

[Jebber]

In the early days of registration it was the responsibility of the Registrar to go out and register Births, quite a lot went unregistered.

I have a whole family in the 1850s and 1860s who were unregistered, as well as quite a few others.

It was only after 1875 that the onus was on the parents to register the births.

[GR2]

Is he the oldest child? If so, could he have been born before his parents' marriage and registered under his mother's maiden name?

[Milliepede]

When I was looking last night, before knowing mother’s name, I’m sure there was a James born right time right place with mothers name Findler.

Have you got a James or might that be Isaac?  Worth checking out if only to eliminate. 

[harewood]

no . He wasn't the oldest child but I think Jebba has the answer!

Thanks all

Harewood

[AntonyMMM]

The original 1836 Birth & Death Registration Act was poorly worded, it said it was the registrar's duty "to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District". This has caused endless debate amongst researchers ever since.

I don't think there was ever an intention (or requirement) that the registrar go out and walk the streets of the district seeking out babies or bodies - in fact the only specific requirements were that he should live in his district, have a name plate placed in a prominent position near his front door and advertise where he was to be found.

Reading the Act in conjunction with the correspondence files of the Registrar General of the time does make it very clear that the intention was that registration was compulsory, but there was some confusion (and some resistance to it) in the early years.

Studies show that in those early years the rate of non-registration of births was about 6-8% (but some say higher/some lower and it does vary quite widely in different districts ) but that rate fell quickly reaching about 1-2% by the time of the 1874 Act, which clarified the various responsibilities and put the onus clearly on the parents. But that does still mean a significant number of births, and some deaths, did go un-registered, and I have seen a number of examples where some births in a family have been registered whilst one or two not, and for no discernible reason.

There are recorded cases of prosecutions for failing to register right from the early days - one I use as an example in a talk I give is from a Quarter Sessions case in 1839. The mother is convicted, but interestingly the court doesn't know what to give as a penalty because the Act doesn't specify what it should be (it only talks about payments & fees due to the Supt Registrar).

[River Tyne Lass]

I think Jebba might have the answer too as I have a handful of ancestors who just weren't registered.

However, I have one ancestor who was registered under one name (Mother's Father's name)  and then they changed his name ( to Father's Father's name) and he never got called by his registered name again.  Then the second son was registered with the same name that first son had been registered with. 

Missed AntonyMMM's good explanation in the time I was typing.

[LizzieW]

no . He wasn't the oldest child but I think Jebba has the answer!

Thanks all

Harewood

The only problem is that you can't find his baptism either.  Even if births went unregistered there was usually a baptism and as you say you have found the baptisms of his siblings.  That is my problem with my 2 x g.grandfather.  All other siblings baptised but nothing for him.  That's why I think his eldest sister could have been his mother, maybe he was born away from the family home if she was working as a domestic and she just didn't get round to baptising him.  When the 2nd child was born and she was dying, obviously she came home and then after her death her parents had that child baptised as though they were the parents.

[River Tyne Lass]

That is true, I was able to find baptisms for my unregistered ones too.

I think that is plausible too.  I have never been to find a baptism for my Grandmother and it was her 'eldest sister' who was actually her Mother.  Thankfully, the truth was on Grandmother's birth cert.  Although one of the census would suggest otherwise.

[harewood]

That's very true. The only lateral thought I had was that  I know my grandfather ( his son) was married in a Methodist church in Leek. it was round about the time that Wesleyan Methodism was taking off in that area.  so I wonder if he had been baptised as a Methodist? i don't know if it's possible to get hold of non Conformist baptism records for the Leek area. I've never found any.