No birth registration

[lesleyl]

Is it possible that someone's birth was not registered at all?

I have been trying to find the birth registration of my great grandfather, William Mortimer GAINE. There is a record of a baptism on 21 August 1859 at Holy Trinity Church, Grays Inn, London. His date of birth is given as 11th August 1859.

Try as I might I cannot find an 'official' record. I suppose I do have all the relevant information about his birth but am curious as to why his birth was never registered.

My cousin visited the Camden Registry Office and searched the handwritten indices for the period but could find nothing.

Strange to think (in our terms now) that someone could have lived their life without a birth certificate. I wonder what problems they would have encountered?

[Pam Downes]

Hi Lesleyl,
Until the 1874 Act (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1874Act.htm) for the registering of Births Marriages and Deaths made it the duty of the father and mother to register the birth not all births were registered, and it may well be that William was one of the missing ones.
Pam

[RobinC]

I take it you've seen this baptism record:

Name: William Mortimer Gaine
Record Type: Baptism
Date: 21 Aug 1859
Father's Name: William Gaine
Mother's Name: Catherine Gaine
Parish: Holy Trinity, Grays Inn Road
Borough: Camden
County: Middlesex

I've looked on freebmd but can't find any sign of his birth but have found a William Mortimer Gaine who was born in 1891.

[Jan1954]

I've looked on freebmd but can't find any sign of his birth but have found a William Mortimer Gaine who was born in 1891.Or rather whose birth was registered in the December quarter of 1891.

I wonder if it was a "late" registration and that he needed his birth certificate for some reason. However, it would need the consent of the Registrar General and proof would be required. Maybe the baptism entry was proof enough.

Just a thought.....

[RobinC]

Or rather whose birth was registered in the December quarter of 1891.

I wonder if it was a "late" registration and that he needed his birth certificate for some reason. However, it would need the consent of the Registrar General and proof would be required. Maybe the baptism entry was proof enough.

Just a thought.....

Would he be able to register his birth 32 years later?

[notanotherminer]

Would he be able to register his birth 32 years later?

I had to smile. I had to register my own birth when I was 46 years old. I was born in the British Military Hospital in Singapore (my father was in the Royal Navy) and for years my certificate was the one issued in the British Colony of Singapore. It was only when I lost it I discovered that my birth had not been registered here on my parents' return to UK.

I was required to provide the following:

A copy of my Singapore Birth Certificate (which I had to apply for)
My father's birth certificate
My parents' marriage certificate
My father's Royal Navy Service Record
In addition to all that my father had to attend a Solicitors' Office to swear an affidavit to the circumstances of my birth.

All of the above had to be done at no small expense

The birth certificate I eventually received states (as Jan correctly pointed out): -
5th May 1999 General Register Office, Southport, . Entered on the authority of the Registrar General dated 4th May 1999

Interestingly enough I don't know where it's been indexed because Ancestry still don't seem to have a record. Needless to say I'm taking good care of this one.

[Sue Mackay]

Or rather whose birth was registered in the December quarter of 1891.

I wonder if it was a "late" registration and that he needed his birth certificate for some reason. However, it would need the consent of the Registrar General and proof would be required. Maybe the baptism entry was proof enough.

Just a thought.....

This was my first thought, but the LMA baptisms on Ancestry have this William Mortimer as the son of William and Margaret, baptised 18 Nov 1891 St.Clement, City Road, Islington, so I think he must be the next generation with the same name.

However, looking at the actual image of the 1859 baptism, something is not right. It's probably just an error on the part of the parish clerk, as the date of baptism has been recorded as 21 August 1857 and the date of birth as 11 August 1859, which is clearly impossible. As I say. the most likely scenario is that the 1857 is supposed to be 1859, as the whole page is for 1859 baptisms, but could it be possible that he was born on 21 August 1857 and baptised on 11 August 1859?

[lesleyl]

Thanks everyone for your input.

The William Mortimer Gaine of 1891 is my great uncle and indeed William Mortimer Gaine's (1859) son. As someone said the next generation.

As far as the Baptism record - I had the same thought about the '1857' and 1859 but when I looked 'properly' (it's a fault of mine that I don't always look properly) I could see that '1857' is just the entry number in the register - borne out by the following entries of 1858, 1859, 1860 of other children born in 1859.

I wasn't aware that there was an 1874 Act and I had assumed that when civil registration began in 1837 it was a legal requirement of all parents to register their children.

The only other thing I would add is that William Mortimer (the first b1859) had a sister Dora who was born in 1855 who was registered in Holborn District and another sister Catherine who was born 1857 who I can't find on the indices. Seems strange they would register one child and not the other two.

[Colin Moretti]

Would he be able to register his birth 32 years later?See this thread (http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?48724-Late-birth-registration)

Colin

[Peter Goodey]

Seems strange they would register one child and not the other two.

Not really because of the way the law worked. Google should locate details of the law for you.

There are a lot of Chinese whispers about the legislation but in fact registration was never voluntary - it was just that until 1874, the parents were not obliged to take the initiative in registering the birth. It was compulsory to give the registrar details, if requested. Giving birth in a hospital, particularly a poor law infirmary, was the best way to ensure that the birth was registered because it was easy for the registrar to track 'em down.

[Guy Etchells]

If he was born in 1859 and not registered at the time it would have been illegal to register him after 6 months.
The law was changed in 1874 to allow registration after 12 months by the Registrar General.
But between 1836 and 1874 a birth had to be registered before the expiry of sixmonths or not registered at all.
see
freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/actind.htm
Cheers
Guy