Genealogy Chat

I have found a baby who was 1 month old in the 1921 census. No trace of birth or death certificates. I am assuming the baby died.
The family were poor and this was their first child, as far as I can ascertain.
With little money and no death registered, could the baby have been buried in a coffin of some other recently deseased ?
How were these baby deaths treated then?
Any one help?
Sue

Just to add to this post. This family adopted a baby girl, tho there are no official records, whos birthday was given as 22nd May 1921. I have no idea when she was adopted. The parents, William and Alice went
on to have another son in August 1922, a daughter in 1925 and another son in 1928. All 3 lived til old age, as did their adopted daughter.

I would have thought that if the baby was over a month old it would have had to have been registered for both birth and death. I think you had about 6 weeks to register the birth.
The undertaker could have taken pity on the parents and added the baby to another coffin so the burial place can’t now be found.

Could tthe adopted girl actually be the month old baby. The census date was the. 19th June. You won’t be able to find out about her natural parents.

As the 1921 census was taken on 19th June, that sounds like a reasonable idea, Nameslessone - ie - that the baby could be the adopted girl. [ EDIT: And now you've added the date to your post, too.]

Was the baby on the census a girl, Sue?

There was no formal adoption until 1928. Children were usually "taken in" by relatives who brought them up. These births would have been registered because there were no privacy laws regarding these informal adoptions.There are a couple of these instances in my family, my grandmother being one of them. I have her birth certificate which names her mother.

Annie

Is the child on 1939 register?

Presumably the infant’s name is recorded in 1921?

If you want people to help, give names and location, although it seems logical to assume that the infant is the adoptee

What does the 1921 census say about the child and its parents?

It’s quite possible that the child had not yet been named when they completed the census form.
I’m sure I’ve seen registrations without the first name. Not everyone is quick to agree on a name.

The child must have been named in 1921 - how else could the poster have looked for certs?

By searching for any births in the expected location, in the A/M/J qr of 1921, with the correct combination of parents' surnames.

I expect the child's surname was given in 1921, but we don't know if the first name was stated or not.

We need to wait for Sue to clarify.

You're correct, Nameslessone - there are lots of birth registrations with no first name.

That’s certainly possible, but…………..

To answer a different question posed by the poster, an undertaker could not have buried a child without a death cert having been provided, unless he was willing to risk prosecution

Also - any child which takes one unaided breath has to have its birth registered

BUT......no-one can really help in this instance without some data on which to work

It wasn’t a perfect world back then either. It is just that the imperfections change over time.

"Registered respiration" has to take place before it's considered a live birth. My son registered respiration after five minutes. This is written on his medical records.This was in 1979, things may well have been different in earlier times.

Annie

PM sent asking poster to return with info. Opened..................