Genealogy Chat

I should have freaked out! :-0 :-0

My mum, her sister, and my grandad's aunt were all rego'ed by a grandparent who was present at the birth.

What's a little surprising is the categories of persons who can rego a death includes those finding the body.
When my daur was 18, she went to Europe for what's now called a gap year.
For a couple of weeks, she worked for my bro on the R Ribble. They were tying up their boat at the end of the day when the police came round asking them to be on the lookout for a suicide who'd jumped off a bridge. My daur leaned over the edge of the boat and said "like this one". She told me this when she phoned home and I said "that must have been quite disturbing". "Oh, no" she said, "she was quite dead".
I was talking to my bro a couple of years later, when I next went to England, and he said he wished she'd not found the body as he (as master of the vessel) had to go into the police station and the Preston registrar and it took him the whole of the next morning, which meant adding a day to the job.

All good, Vera! I am always interested because it gives me hope of finding that elusive person! :-) ;-)

When I saw how late the registration was I did wonder if someone suddenly realised there would be a penalty to pay and got the baby registered quickly. I looked up the fine and it would have been £2 which was near enough 3 weeks average wage then.

My understanding from various sites is that anyone can register a birth subject to certain conditions but they can only do so in exceptional circumstances or with a "compelling" reason why the parents can't do it themselves.

I'll probably never know the reason but I would like to find out who did the registering as it appears to be a rellie I haven't come across before, in spite of this family being quite extensively researched by myself and my brother.

Anyone can register a birth in England/Wales,it doesnt have to be a birth parent as long as true known facts are given,,,,,,,many births have been registered by a grandparent,hospital worker,or anyone connected to welfare.

It was done regular where adoption was involved which resulted in the parent never knowing the name that was given.!


Perhaps in your case Vera,,,the registrar visited the home because the registration was at a vital point.?---a hefty fine or even imprisionment could be imposed for not registering a birth as it could be seen as concealment.

The girl is with her paternal grandparents on a later census which was how we discovered she existed and then I found a school admission record for her. I checked to see why she was with her father's parents and found her mother had died a little earlier. Can't prove it but my gut feeling is that her parents lived as a married couple until the mother died and then she went to live with her father's family. Her Dad married wife number 3 in 1890 and maybe his new wife didn't want to take on the child of a previous relationship, so she was sent to grandparents.

I understand that they may have wanted to hide the fact that they weren't married, but I don't understand why someone else registered the birth. It appears to have been a family member (surname Elsegood, same as the father), but not one I've been able to find.

This is an odd one all round. The little girl was called Maud in spite of the fact that the father already had a living daughter called Maud. She was also registered on the 42nd day after birth so only just made the 6 week time limit.

LAVENDER. I hope I haven't hi-jacked your thread. Some of these certificates do throw up fascinating stuff don't they

Is the child with the family on later census ?

Am wondering if the mum walked out on the child that was then registered by the midwife using the records that they had on the mum

Would to explain why the child was reg as if the parents were married .

Folks did try to hide Illigitmancy

I always thought that the birth had to be registered by either the mother or father, except in exceptional circumstances, but I've recently come across an odd one in my family tree.

It's a bit complicated but basically an ancestor was married three times. Between the death of wife number 2 and his marriage to wife number 3 (in the 1880s), he had a daughter who was registered in his name. In order to find out who the mother was I got the birth certificate. Mum turned out to be the sister of wife number 2. She was entered as the wife of my ancestor though they weren't married. However, neither of them registered the birth and I can't work out who did. The surname of the registrant was the same as my ancestor but the initials are different and under the name is written "present at the birth". I don't even know if it was a man or a woman but I haven't found anyone in the family at that time with that initial.

Have you come across a birth registered by someone other than one of the parents?

I find it all fascinating .. xx

It could also be the case that the lady took her friend of a male relation with her who was said to be the father by a certain name not his own.

Many lies were told back in those days to save face.

Very interesting, thank you both.

:-) :-)

My paternal gran lived with her second husband before they married and had two children . Both children were registered as if the parents were married .The dad registered one of them and put mums name as .Annie because that's what he called her , she was Emma Ann . So many records are not what they seem

I don't recall the circumstances of that particular episode, but maybe the mother implied she was married and just registered the child in the father's name.

Many trees probably contain people whose registrations were not entirely as they should be.
My great grandmother is shown in 1891 with a second husband and their 3 daughters. The girls were registered in his name, although the parents didn't marry until 1892.

I was just watching a repeat of the Long Lost Family tv programme.

This particular episode featured the young woman Louise whose father had been in Dijon as a young man but was discovered living in the Alps, France.

I found it interesting to note that the young woman showed her birth certificate with her father's french surname, yet it appeared he had not been present for the registration and was indeed surprised to find this to be the case.

Since we led to believe that the father needed to be present for the birth to be registered in his surname, I wonder how this was achieved? Indeed it is also interesting since it demonstrates that there are occasions when anything might happen when seeking birth registrations.