Genealogy Chat

"In the early 19th century right up until the 1960s and even 70s, a baby that was stillborn or died shortly after birth was usually buried in a communal grave with other babies or in a grave with a female adult."

https://www.brieflives-remembered.co.uk/page_2555949.html

The fact that any live birth of a child should have been registered, even if it died very soon after, and the death registered too, doesn't necessarily mean it actually happened. Given that home births were the norm at that time, often with only close family members present, it would have been quite easy to treat such cases as stillbirths. When completing the 1911 census form several years later a couple wouldn't necessarily think about the numbers not tying up with actual registrations. Anyone know what would have happened to the bodies of still born children in the 19th century? Would treating a death shortly after birth as a stillbirth have potentially avoided the cost of a funeral?

Even if a child died within hours of birth, it should still have been registered - and the death.

Just to add a bit of extra info on the example I've given - Ann Wilson was 42 when she gave birth to Lucy, the youngest I know of, thus in the years before Lucy's birth would have still been very much in her fertile years.

Yes, this is my John Thomas Clarke, I could accept a number being say 1 out, but 4 out seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. The gap between John and Lucy also suggests a possibility of births in between, although I've come across several cases of a youngest child being several years younger than the next. I've heard the suggestion for that being that the wife thought she was no longer fertile and in effect got "caught out".

Is this your family?

As John is a widower the number of children shouldn't have been completed and has been crossed out (but very useful when these mistakes happen)

It's possible he counted up wrongly??

1911 Census For England & Wales
Leadenham Lincoln, Leadenham, Lincolnshire, England

First name(s) Last name Relationship Marital status Sex Age Birth year Occupation Birth place
John Thomas Clarke Head Widower Male 62 1849 Labourer Farm Lincs Billinghay
Lucy Clarke Daughter Single Female 21 1890 - Lincs Brards Leap

14 children born, 9 living 5 have died

As I have indicated in an earlier post the possibility of still-births being incorrectly shown has occurred to me, as has the possibility of live births where children died within hours of birth not being registered. I'm trying to get a feel for how likely these possibilities might be, on the basis of what others may have come across.

Have you considered that some of the 4 missing children could have been still-births (even though these shouldn't be counted on the 1911 census) and therefore wouldn't show up in the birth or death index?

Kath. x

Here is the worst example in terms of missing children. John Thomas Clarke and Ann Wilson supposedly had 14 children, I can only find 10. I have Mary Ann, reg'd as Wilson born 1865 before the couple married, William 1867, Charles 1869, Joseph 1871, Emma 1874, Martha 1877, Elizabeth 1878, Wilson 1880, John 1883, & Lucy 1889. Census data for the couple has several locations in Lincolnshire. I have searched on all the RDs that covered the county, including Newark on Trent that covered Fulbeck, one of the locations they lived. Clearly the large gap between John and Lucy has plenty of scope for births. I've searched under Clarke with and without the "e" and Wilson with 2xl as an alternative.

I have used the various options on the GRO search, not just one known spelling. I've searched without specifying an RD where the surname is not a common one, or searched on all the RDs in the areas where the couple lived. I've searched for illegitimate births under the mothers surname, searched without a mother's maiden name for births after a couple married. The problem with not specifying an RD , or leaving the mother's maiden name out, is that for common surnames there can be more than 250 possibilities and so you only get those listed. I did wonder about still births being wrongly recorded, or if live births where the child died very soon after might not have been registered by the parents. I'll dig out an example and post it so you can see what I mean.

Have you looked for surname variants?

You might find that the mother may have gone home to her parents for the birth so they could look after another one of the children at the same time, or that the mother gave birth in a hospital in another district or that family was away from home if father had occupation that meant moving around?

There is also the possibility that although requested to put number of live births. a still born child might be counted but no birth would be on the general register.

If you want to post some info will have a look?

I have recently been doing some work trying to tie up the 1911 census data on number of live birth/still living/died. I am encountering rather more cases than I would have expected where I can't make the numbers add up. I had thought that the GRO index with mother's maiden names would allowing children who did not appear on any census data to be identified. However, despite using the various search options, I still come up short in several cases. I have considered the possibility that a woman may have had illegitimate births in my searches, or that even though a couple don't appear to have moved very far, a child or children might have been born away from the RD or RDs expected. Have others found the same problem? Any suggestions as to why this should be?