Late registration of birth

[rosijayne]

Hi everyone
I'm a bit puzzled as to why a birth which took place in November 1851 wasn't registered until the following May 1852.  I don't believe that fines were in place during that period, so just curious as to why the family decided to register 6 months later.

Also, just to try and put some  context into registration, does anybody know how it took place?  I know today we make appointments etc, but did an individual just walk into a registrars office, did the registrar come to them? and did people in small towns/villages have to go further afield to register?

Many thanks for any comments on this
Gill

[CaroleW]

May be of interest

https://www.angliaresearch.co.uk/the-history-behind-your-birth-certificate/

[rosijayne]

Thank you Carole, that's an interesting article, especially the bit that registrars were paid to register births. I didn't know that, so maybe my ancestor was chased until he finally got around to registering his child. 
Gill

[Top-of-the-hill]

  Most of my experience is of small villages, where you will sometimes find a man in the census entered as registrar. They would have known their patch and I guess they went to the parents. I am open to correction from the experts!

[rosijayne]

Thank you. This is how I would have imagined it to be myself.
Gill
 

[AntonyMMM]

The first thing is to check that this was a first registration, and not a re-registration, which although much more common later did occasionally happen at that time.

Assuming it is the first registration - then there was no fine (and never has been) for a simple late registration, but after 42 days there were fees payable to the registrar (5s) and the superintendent registrar (2s/6d).

It should have been done within 6 months of the birth though, and countersigned by the superintendent registrar ?

The 1874 Act loosened things slightly, so the fees (slightly reduced) didn't start until 3 months after the birth and births could be registered up to 12 months ( after that the authority of the Registrar General would be needed).

[BumbleB]

Although I have no connection at all with this thread (other than being nosey), I would like to express my personal thanks to AntonyMMM for his input to this and other threads related to registration matters.  His insider knowledge is very interesting and appreciated.   

[phil57]

Although I have no connection at all with this thread (other than being nosey), I would like to express my personal thanks to AntonyMMM for his input to this and other threads related to registration matters.  His insider knowledge is very interesting and appreciated.   

Seconded. As I've mentioned before, I always enjoy reading his posts, and if he ever decided to write a book containing his knowledge I would be first in line for a copy.

[coombs]

Thirded, Antony is a former registrar as well so I always enjoy his posts.

Also, he says that registrars often advertised their address 1837-1874 in the days before the 1874 change, as opposed to simply touring the district getting info on new births.

And Dave Annals says there was a slight decrease in registered births in 1874, the year after the 1874 act came into force when parents (or someone present at birth) had to register the birth.

I think by the late 1950s there was a checking system introduced, where midwives and hospitals informed registrars of new births in the district.

The OP should check that it is not a re-registration.