Birth - Significance of who registers a birth?

[Rowan Tree]

This undoubtedly falls into the catergory of coincidence but...

I've been going through the local paper for Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown and learned that in June 1970 there was a Florence Wells living in the same nursing home that my great-grandmother died in, in January 1973.

[LizzieL]

In the absence of a date of attestation I recall efforts in previous threads made to calculate a possible date or time period from the soldier number. But it is not an exact science.

For example, No 178019 appears against Sapper Robert W Gathergood attesting for the Royal Engineers, 6 June 1916, Regt or Corps 2nd R.B.R.E, place Norwich. I understand Nos. weren't allocated consecutively because of scattered recruitment depots? Nos. were possibly allocated in blocks so it is not possible to say with confidence that 178150 was issued after 178019.

Can someone confirm?

I've found a couple of soldiers with similar numbers who enlisted in Feb 1916

eg John Barrow Wyrill 178319 enlisted at Manchester on 22 Feb 1916

[Rowan Tree]

That's very interesting. Thank you.

I'm wondering what exactly happened to soldiers who were conscripted in 1916. What barracks would Arthur have first been sent to? There's an old barracks in Warrington that's got a WWI connection to the Royal Engineers. Could Arthur have initially been sent to this barracks? Warrington boarders Newton-le-Willows and at the time, both towns were in the same county. At various points in history, Warrington has been the registration district for Newton-le-Willows.

In October 1915 Arthur Robert Moore senior was living in Newton-le-Willows. His address at the time was 107 Crow Lane West. This is where the MOORE family where living when their baby died.

At this time, Arthur was employed by a local stone mason on Glover Street, off Wargrave Road, Newton-le-Willows. The monumental stone mason was named F. Plumbly.

Mr. Plumbly was close in age to Arthur. When conscription began, Mr. Plumbly appealed to the local tribunal who decided which men from the town would have to leave and become soldiers. In June 1916 Mr. Plumbly states that he is now the only mason left in the town and uses this fact to argue that he should not be sent to war. Mr. Plumbly found himself before the local tribunal several times and each time he successfully argued that he should remain.

I've read through all of 1916 (it's possibly one of the most bleak and heart rending things I've ever read) and I didn't spot my great-grandad. It doesn't look like he spoke to the tribunal, or if he did, it wasn't recorded.

[hanes teulu]

Thanks for the response. Looking at JBW's docs
Page 2 Casualty Form
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16  Service Reckons From (a) 22.2.16

Page 4 Casualty Form - amendments to Page 2
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 to 6.6.16    Service Reckons From (a)22.2.16 to 6.6.16
 
Page 7 Medical History
"Enlisted - Woolwich, 6 Jun 1916    Corps - Royal Engineers    Regt'l No. 178319

Doc 2 appears to have been drawn up thru 1917. Struggling to determine when Regt'l No allocated.

 

 

[Pheno]

Another possibility for registration.  Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration.  However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies ....

Pheno

[LizzieL]

Another possibility for registration.  Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration.  However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies ....

Pheno

I had a similar one a few years ago. The baby was registered 41 days after the date of birth which is a bit suspicious anyway. Informant was (like in this case) an  unrelated woman living some distance away who claimed she was present at birth. The mother was a single woman but on the birth certificate appears to be the wife of a man who was probably the father. I also suspected that she didn't feel she could lie to the registrar and got a friend to do it. Or she could have lied to the friend who gave the registrar the information in good faith.

[Rowan Tree]

Thanks for the response. Looking at JBW's docs
Page 2 Casualty Form
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16  Service Reckons From (a) 22.2.16

Page 4 Casualty Form - amendments to Page 2
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 to 6.6.16    Service Reckons From (a)22.2.16 to 6.6.16
 
Page 7 Medical History
"Enlisted - Woolwich, 6 Jun 1916    Corps - Royal Engineers    Regt'l No. 178319

Doc 2 appears to have been drawn up thru 1917. Struggling to determine when Regt'l No allocated.

Hello hanes teulu,

Thank you for your post. I'm apologising in advance because I'm not sure I understand what I'm reading.

What are "JBW's docs" and what do the dates relate to?

I should know more about researching WWI than I do. I'm not completely hopeless but I think I need pointing in the right direction with this one.

Many thanks, Rowan Tree 

[Zaphod99]

From AI:

"Making a false declaration on a 1916 birth registration in the UK would fall under the Perjury Act 1911, specifically Section 4, which addressed false statements related to births or deaths. This was a criminal offence classified as a misdemeanour.

Penalties on Indictment
Conviction on indictment could result in penal servitude for up to seven years, imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine. These were the maximum penalties outlined in the Act for wilfully making false declarations or certificates concerning birth registrations. 

Penalties on Summary Conviction
On summary conviction, the penalty was limited to a fine not exceeding £100. This lighter option applied to less severe cases handled in magistrates' courts."

£100 could be getting on for 2 years' salary!

Zaph

[Rowan Tree]

Another possibility for registration.  Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration.  However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies...

Pheno,

This is very interesting. Thank you 

Yes. I can easily understand this scenario. In what feels like it was a more honest age, perhaps, I can imagine a mother feeling like she couldn't lie face to face with a registrar and wanting a friend to register a birth.

I believe Edith was a woman of faith and quite a principled person. She perhaps felt she simply could not tell a lie and was desperately hoping that her husband would return from war and she'd have a birth certificate that legitimised her son.

I wanted to add that I don't suspect my great-grandmother of having an affair (not all pregnancies are created consensually). I know she was very much in love with her husband and it was incredibly difficult for her when he died. She wrote to the local newspaper to share the news of her husband's death. When I accidentally came across what had been published in the paper, I found myself sat in Newton-le-Willows library crying in front of a microfilm machine.

Rowan Tree