Registering Illegimate Children

[maltonboy]

from what i gather a birth (wether still or living) has to be registered within 44days or so of birth.

if this does not happen what is the penalty? have people ever come across ancestors that have not been registered?

regards
maltonboy

[Guy Etchells]

There were different fees at different times see my Acts website for the various Act of Parliament and fees.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/actind.htm
Cheers
Guy

[Colin Moretti]

I've no specific incidents of non-registration myself but I came across a report in the Times (7 October 1889) that suggests that the problem continued long after 1874 when parents became liable to report births; the relevant section of the report is below:

Extract from the annual report of Dr Septimus Gibbon, Medical Officer of Health, Holborn District Board of Works

[The] Holborn part of the present Gray’s-inn-road … was a narrow way of squalid houses, and was pierced by numberless still more squalid courts, the centres of vice, disease, misery and crime. … One of these improvements has swept away the last of the Clerkenwell spas, in the old Coldbath Spa, which continued running until the foundation was dug for the new block of buildings in Coldbath-square. … The new street, in this branch, will replace an area of courts and rookeries by healthful dwellings. The changes have been so great in the Holborn district that Dr Gibbon is doubtful about the population in it. He states that the new district in the westward part has become retenanted, this new district, or recasting of an old one, including blocks of mansions with ample space for a large population. Not to take too favourable view of the health of the district, Dr. Gibbon calculates the population as at the time of the census of 1881 – namely 35,850 in the Holborn registration district and 1,232 in the Glasshouse-yard Liberty. The birth-rate during the year was 25.1 per 1,000 inhabitants, as against 30.7, the birth rate of all London. He holds that there are reasons for believing that the real birth-rate of the district is not obtained, and his reason is that many of the births among the migratory and Italian population escape registration. …

Colin

[v.wells]

from what i gather a birth (wether still or living) has to be registered within 44days or so of birth.

if this does not happen what is the penalty? have people ever come across ancestors that have not been registered?

regards
maltonboy

I have some relatives that were registered and their siblings were not - they were just baptized. This occurred in Wales and in 1874 Wales legislated fines for failure to register. I don't know what the cost was. It makes it difficult searching as one would think that if some were registered in the family why not the rest:confused:

[benny1982]

I think from 1850 to 1875, register offices didnt want the mother to name the father of an illegitimate child, even if the father was known.

I have had some birth of a bunch of siblings registered and not others.

In Durham all of my great, great grandfather George Musgrave's siblings births were registered except him. Grrrrr. George was the son of Thomas and Ann Musgrave and baptised as such.

At first I did find someone of the same name born in the same district at the same time in 1856, so sent off for cert and it gave the wrong parentage. It was Robert and Jane Musgrave, not Thomas and Ann. Robert was the brother of Thomas, and for two years I thought that maybe Robert and Jane gave George up for some weird reason to his brother Thomas, but I did think a bit impossible if George was baptised as the son of Thos and Ann. Thos and Ann had their own children as well.

But I did eventually find a death cert for a George Musgrave in 1860 and found that Robert and Jane's George died aged 3 and the death cert said "son of Robert Musgrave" and Jane was the informant. I was so relieved that I had solved the mystery but had the minor hiccup that my George's birth wasnt registered.

So I had indeed found that there were two George Musgraves born at the same time who were cousins, one died and one didnt, and one birth was registered and one wasnt. Obviously due to the double event, both babies were given the same name. I was tricked but my persistence paid off. I was pleased, as Thomas wife Ann had a Scottish grandfather.

Ben

[Lindad]

Neither of the births of my maternal great grandparents were registered! I've searched every quarter of every year for several years either side of where they should be (1857 and 1865). Several of my great grandfather's sibling were registered, so I have no idea why his wasn't. His father was a policeman too! |scold|

I also have an aunt who registered the birth of her first (illigitimate) son using a fictious name for the father and a fictious marriage status for herself!! :confused:

Obviously a very dodgy lot, my family. ;)

[benny1982]

Births could be re-registered if the parents married after 1926. Before then, even if the parents did wed after the birth of the firstborn child or children, then the birth cert or certs under the maiden name would remain the same in England and Wales.

Ef if Fred Bloggs was born and then registered under his mums maiden name before 1926 but the mother Mary Bloggs wed Thomas Jones afterwards, then the birth cert wouldnt be changed to Fred Jones. It would always remain Fred Bloggs but if that occurred after 1926 then the birth could be re-registered and the original closed.

Ben

[maltonboy]

Thank you for the replies; its good to know that mine isn't the only dodgy family out there! :D. I've heard about falsifying birth certs in regards to parentage and occupation but not to be registered is something new to me. Obviously I'm too law abiding because I wouldn't even dream of doing anything like that! :D

Unfortunately they married pre-1926, so no help there but thanks anyway. |banghead|
They were so inconsiderate our ancestors not thinking about us descendants wanting to do family history. How would they like it if it was the other way around? |soapbox|

Anyway one and all thanks.
maltonboy

[lohengrin]

Speaking of dodgy families, it was this forum that allowed me to track down my father's birth in Barnstable in 1914 that was certainly scandalous given that his mother was unmarried. She then went to a great deal of trouble to cover up the scandal by filing affidavits as to her (false) marriage to a man who never existed. She also claimed that my father was her little brother when they boarded a CPR ship to sail to Canada in 1916. My grandmother then made up a false name and false entry date when she and my father illegally immigrated to the U.S. in about 1916 or 1918 (the dates are unclear). I would guess in those days documents were either not required for travel or the authorities simply accepted the word of potential immigrants without demanding any proof.

[markv]

Have you checked the baptism entries, firstly to narrow down the date, but also to see if there is any clue to the parentage of the child.

One of my ancestors was illegitimate and baptised as 'base born' with his mother's surname,
His 2nd Christian name was 'gray', so I searched under that name and found him.
He was registered with his [presumed] father's name, and the mother said on his birth cert that she was married.

mark|banghead|

[maltonboy]

Have you checked the baptism entries, firstly to narrow down the date, but also to see if there is any clue to the parentage of the child.

Unfortunately i don't know if she was baptised. I assume that she was illegimate child and i know she was born Christmas Day 1889 and that her (what i assume to be her) mother married over 8 years later on September 18th 1898 at St. Philips in Stepney.

BUT

i now have a copy of her mother's marriage cert and her mother's maiden name is Ieeffe. I have spoken to Tower Hamlets registry office and it is definately Ieeffe! see this link http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=164237#post164237. According to FreeBMD there is only one Ieeffe and that is the marriage of the mother.

Up until 3 days ago i had been led to believe it was Taaffe.

This is where the administrators will start to dislike as i keep going on about it but i'm hoping a fresh pair of eyes will help. :o (Sorry admin team)

Harriett was illegimate and (i assume) was Taaffe.
her dau. (Louisa) was illeg. and was also (definately) Taaffe.
and her dau. (Catherine) was also illeg. and was (definately) Taaffe.

why change from Ieeffe to Taaffe? was it come practice to change the name of illegimate children? but why change the 1st one and not the others down the generation?

regards
maltonboy

[Mutley]

This is where the administrators will start to dislike as i keep going on about it but i'm hoping a fresh pair of eyes will help. :o (Sorry admin team)


Sorry Maltonboy
it is not just the Admin that will get upset but also the other forum members. If they start looking for answers for you and then find that other people are doing exactly the same research on the same name on other threads.

If you think you can help maltonboy then please click on his name and reply to the other threads. Family History is confusing enough :)

[Roger47]

Yes I have a Great Grandmother who was born in St Austell Cornwall in
1855 ish she was the illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth Husband and they both show from census returns 1861 to 1871 by 1881 Emma was married to my G/Grandfather in Plymouth

I have managed to find her Baptism at the age of 16 but have spent much time and money trying to find her birth details but even the record office in Cornwall advised that many "base Born" children were not registered for that reason and that I was unlikely to find her birth
The only clue I may have is in her name EMMA TRELAWNEY HUSBAND The middle name is sometimes used to express who the father was but so far I have not found the link

The registration act took years before it was really enforced so be prepared you like me may never find the details

[benny1982]

I can understand why a lot of people didnt register the births of baseborn children because of the shame. Registration wasnt actually enforced until about 1874. But, if the birth of an illegitimate child was registered, then that probably means that the mother was planning to wed the father later on. If you do find a marriage, then it was very likely to the childs father.

[maltonboy]

Registration wasnt actually enforced until about 1874. But, if the birth of an illegitimate child was registered, then that probably means that the mother was planning to wed the father later on. If you do find a marriage, then it was very likely to the childs father.

The child was born in 1889 and her mother didn't marry til 1898 (i think?!? still checking that one out). Also any Harriet Louisa's born in MAR 1888 to DEC 1890 unfortunately do not have the any of the surnames:- Taaffe, Ieeffe or Gillard which are the potential pickings.

it is a good thought and one i've tried to look into, so thank you anyway. |cheers|

regards
maltonboy

[Guy Etchells]

Don't fall for that myth, there were actually comparatively few births not registered.
That is not to say some births were not registered, but rather the numbers of those missed are greatly exaggerated.

If such great numbers, as some would have us believe, were not registered there would be a great leap in registrations when the system changed on the first of January 1875, there was not.

If a birth cannot be found the most likely situations are the registration has been miss-indexed, or the registration has not been processed through the system properly.

Try searching for the registration locally or by using different spelling similar names transposing christian and surname etc.
Cheers
Guy

[susanx123]

My gran told me her real DOB is June 1921 but her birth cert says July 1921 because her drunken father forgot to register her birth and lied about the date so he didn't have to pay a fine!!

[Wilkes_ml]

My great grandfather was born halfway through a large family - and the parents were married. I have a copy of his application for his own birth certificate, stating his date of birth, place of birth and parentage, but it doesn't look as though he got a copy of his birth certificate - as it was the application that was passed down the family. I searched the GRO indexes, and also sent an application to the local register office who did a search, and then passed it on to neighboring register offices, who also searched in vain!

All his siblings born before and after him were registered in Truro! I gave up in the end!

[Raphael]

Births could be re-registered if the parents married after 1926. Before then, even if the parents did wed after the birth of the firstborn child or children, then the birth cert or certs under the maiden name would remain the same in England and Wales.

Ef if Fred Bloggs was born and then registered under his mums maiden name before 1926 but the mother Mary Bloggs wed Thomas Jones afterwards, then the birth cert wouldnt be changed to Fred Jones. It would always remain Fred Bloggs but if that occurred after 1926 then the birth could be re-registered and the original closed.

Ben
Hello Ben,
I have two birth certificates for a child. The first one with the Fathers name "not known" the mother was the informant and occupation Field Worker.

When I applied for the Certificate, the GRO sent me a note to say the child had been re registered under the legitimacy Act of 1924, and the child was given the mans name who married her, They were my first wifes mother and father, the child was a boy and my wife always thought he was her full blood brother, the child died at the age of 2½ years.. There is a note on the second Cert in the margin in small print re the Act. I had to pay an additional £7.
My father in-law gave the child his name. If you look up Google for discussions in Parliament and look for Hansard records you will see the Acts which had for many years been under review, and some had already changed, and additional ones made, later.
Eventually the Ministers of all parties agreed, on the grounds of children being called "B" .
All parties in this post have been left un named and long passed away.

Kind Regards
Raphael
UK and Germany.
Ps I have already posted something on these lines before, cannot remeber when ...memory good from yesteryear.....but short term memory....useless LOL.

[benny1982]

Hi Raphael

Is it possible that the man the mum married was the father? When was the child born and when did the mother marry? If it was a few years inbetween, then the paternity is probably more speculative but if it was within a year, then that does increase the possibility of him being the blood father.

Ben

[sue2white]

Here's a strange one!!
My grandmother was born illigitimate in 1909, but her mother later married in 1912.
She needed a copy of her birth certificate to get a job when she was 18, and her 'father' acquired one for her. But she only had a copy of the shortened version.
Recently I sent for the full version, and found that she wasn't registered until 1927!! This sent alarm bells ringing, so I looked up her name under her mother's maiden name and wo and behold, I found her. I then sent for her orginal certificate, with no mention of a father. This had an additional note on the far right hand side, saying she had been re-registered due to the legitimacy act of 1926! But her mother had married in 1912!!
How can that be, I wonder!! |scold|
Sue

[Guy Etchells]

Here's a strange one!!
My grandmother was born illigitimate in 1909, but her mother later married in 1912.

The fact that her mother married made no difference as her mum and dad were not married when she was born.

She needed a copy of her birth certificate to get a job when she was 18, and her 'father' acquired one for her. But she only had a copy of the shortened version.

It was common to obtain a short version of a birth certificate as they were cheaper.

Recently I sent for the full version, and found that she wasn't registered until 1927!! This sent alarm bells ringing, so I looked up her name under her mother's maiden name and wo and behold, I found her. I then sent for her orginal certificate, with no mention of a father. This had an additional note on the far right hand side, saying she had been re-registered due to the legitimacy act of 1926! But her mother had married in 1912!!
How can that be, I wonder!! |scold|
Sue

1st January 1927 was the first date a person born illegitimate could be re-registered under the Legitimacy Act, 1926. That is the date it came into force.
As long as her mother and father were free to marry when your grandmother was born in 1909 her birth could be legitimised in 1927.
http://tinyurl.com/5aocwq

Cheers
Guy

[auburn]

It may be worth looking at the marriage cert for the illegitimate person.My illegit. gg grandfather James was baptised with his mothers name (Ayling) and no fathers name. However, on his marriage cert 25 years later his fathers name is given as Shawyer. I still don't know if it really was his father but it is a line to work on.Certificates are a mine of information.Good luck-A

[benny1982]

Hi

It was pretty simple, if the parents werent married at the time of the birth, then the fathers name normally didnt appear on the cert and only did if he consented and was present at the registration and even that was only after 1875. Before that, it is very rare does a fathers name appear on an illegitimate birth.

Ben

[sue2white]

Thanks for the replies
My grandmother was totally unaware that she was ever registered any way different than the legitimized certificate she got when she was 18. Remember, she only got the short version!!|oopsredfa|oopsredfa|oopsredfa
I only discovered that orginal certificate recently. She will be turning in her grave, to think that I have uncovered that she was illigitimate!! The shame!!!
Sue| oopsredfa

[Guy Etchells]

Shame, what shame?
There is absolutely no shame in being born illegitimate!

If small minded people wish to cast aspersions then it is the parents who have to come to account never the child
Cheers
Guy

[sue2white]

I find it very amusing that she didn't know, but I know she would not have liked it at all. It's her generation!! Don't forget, even when I was a child 'that sort of thing ' was not spoken about!!
Needless to say, in my research, I have come across many in my family tree and several 'black sheep'. Exciting really!!

Sue|moon|

[benny1982]

Hi

If the parents of an illegitimate baby married soon afterwards, then they often kept them in the dark about it. Sometimes, a move away from their home areas was an option to stop locals telling the child when it grows up or teasing from schoolchildren. A move away, especially to London was a good move if they didnt want their child to know. Sometimes they even "amended" their marriage date to make it look as if they were wed before the birth.

It wasnt really the child, it was the parents that were accountable for the shame but some locals probably took it out on the child or children as well.

Ben