not church of England

[JenB]

It’s well worth watching the video which Antony referenced here
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=871437.msg7426627

[AntonyMMM]

It is the most often (mis)quoted myth in genealogy ....the truth is it was far more complex than a simple "it wasn't compulsory until 1874"

I recommend listening to Dave Annal talk about the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNj-4eY2d8

...not to say there weren't many births that went unregistered though !

[GrahamSimons]

As KG said, birth registration in England and Wales began in 1837, but it was not compulsory until 1874.

Really ? That must have come as a shock to those prosecuted for failing or refusing to register in the early days then ( I use an example from 1839 when I give talks on the subject).

As I understand the progress of the legislation, from 1837 it was the registrar's duty to do the registration, and registrars varied in their diligence and their success; the legislation changed in 1874 to put the compulsion on parents, in order to improve the success rate.
The first Act required registrars to "inform himself carefully of every birth and every death which shall happen within his district;" once the registrar had found out about a birth, the parents were required to provide information about a birth – but only “upon being requested so to do.” So the onus until 1875 (the 1874 Act) was on registrars, rather than on parents. The first Registrar General, in his first report, lamented the lack of compulsion, and therefore omissions in the register, while saying that in contrast he believed that there was near-perfect registration of marriages and deaths.

[coombs]

Dave Annal's videos are good. I follow him on YT.

But he did not say that all births before 1875 would have been registered, he did agree that some slipped the net. But maybe 2 to 3%. I think the parents were taken to task if they refused to give the details but before 1875 it was the registrar and his/her deputies jobs really to go round getting info on new births, so some were missed. They were only human and it was impossible to record every birth until the onus was on the parents. I have an ancestor born in rural Essex in 1851 or 1852 whose birth seems not to have been registered. I have tried all variants under the sun. Mark Herber's book did say Essex was a county where there was a problem with births being registered in the first few decades of civil registration.

If Eileen is willing to give some names and a birth location then we can help.

[DianaCanada]

Just to add from my own experience - I find the vast majority of my relatives did register their children in those early years, whether they lived in the big cities or remote rural areas.  I've only had a few which seemed to avoid it for whatever reason - and am missing a few from later dates but there may be other reasons for that (not born in England/Wales or name entirely different from what I was expecting).

[coombs]

Also you have to take into account how many registrar copies did not make it to the GRO, of they missed any when copying the registers into the GRO copy book. Most of my 1837-1874 ancestors were registered but 2 direct ones were not apparently, and a few siblings here and there.

[AntonyMMM]

As Graham pointed out the original Act seemed to place the responsibility on registrars, but Registrar General correspondence of the time makes it clear they weren't expected to go around the district knocking on doors seeking out births/deaths. The only requirement was that they reside in the district, have a nameplate outside their premises, and make that known (you sometimes see ads in newspapers of the time giving the registrar's address and opening times).

A complicated picture....

The key fact is that the 1874 Act had no effect whatsoever on the rate of birth registrations ( in fact they fell slightly afterwards I believe).

[Eilleen]

coombs

Thank you for the offer of trying to find My Great Grandma Annie Moore,

many times on here , people have tried, the only route I see now is through DNA links,

but building tree.s of people with the surname MOORE, as you can imagine is taking up many years 

and I am finding many that have not got birth registers ,also in some case's cannot find baptism,s ,

but I supose at the end , I will have a vast ammount of MOORE tree's not , not related to Me .

[BushInn1746]

Hello Eilleen

I presume from your old posts this is your infamous  Annie Moore?

1891 St Mary, Nottingham, Mun. Ward Sherwood, Eccl All Saints.
89 Forest Road, West (In c Ivor Terrace)
Annie Moore, Serv, S, 24, General Servant (Domestic), born Gosberton, Lincs.

I think from your thread title, you'll already have discovered that Gosberton seemed partly Non-conformist and had:-
Baptist;
Independent / Congregational
Wesleyan Methodist;
Gosberton Clough Primitive Methodist;
Gosberton Risegate United Methodist.

The Registrar General made collections of NC Registers approaching 1837 to 1840s in RG 4 TNA (found an RG 4 Baptist Bapt / Burials Register number we were seeking on Anc yesterday), but only up to 1835.

Those surrendered under the 1857 Commision are in TNA, RG 8 Series
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13333
Those surrendered and retained are claimed to be here
https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/non-conformist-records/
But found none we searched for.

Some NC chapels closed, before County Archives really got going, but some CROs have handlists of NC Register holdings.

I did hear the United Reformed Church had an Archive for records which they acquired.

Also Dr Williams Library, Euston, London and John Rylands collected some NC paperwork and Registers (John Rylands University Library Special Collections).

Mark