Genealogy Chat

I have a birth certificate of a relative and I have no idea who the person was who registered the birth, who apart from the mother and father ( if married) was allowed to register the birth in those days?

It could be any one of the following:-


(1) In all cases - mother

else:-

(2) Father - if he is married to mother

(3) Father and mother jointly where they are not married to one another

(4) A person present at the birth

(5) The owner or occupier of the house or institution where the birth took place

(6) The person in charge of the child

You beat me to it, InspectorGreenPen. But just to add that the current rules (and I don't think they've changed much) can be found at www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Birthandadoptionrecords/Registeringorchangingabirthrecord/DG_175608

You also need to look at the address and put it in context with what you know about the mother.

For example we have a birth which was registered under (5) about 20 miles from where mother lived. She got pregnant when her future (as we now know) husband came home from leave in 1817 and was sent to a home of some sort to have her daughter.

The informant was the proprietor of the home.

I've got one like that which has puzzled me. My first cousin's grandfather born1869 in Salford. The address is correct. The father is correct. The mother was Sarah Ann but the person who registered the birth is an unknown - and just put Anne. it follows with the comment the mark of xxx occupier.

I have all the certs of the children before and after but that one is a surprise. Even my cousin can't explain and there is nobody alive to ask.

Perhaps the more experience rsearches an explain it
Susanne

Sometimes a relative or house owner might register a child under one of the above qualifying criteria.

I have a copy of a birth certificate (1882) where a father has registered his illegitimate daughter. He has not named himself in the father's column ( perhaps he wasn't allowed to as he was unmarried ? ) but in the informant column his name is there followed by 'father'.


Gwyn

AllanC & Gwyn in Kent

I've never thought of looking up the info before. Thanks for the link - Just read the guide. Very useful - you learn something new every day

Thanks

Susanne

I do agree that people were often known as just part of their name.
One of mine was registered Silvey, baptised as Sylvia Jane and was usually Jane on her children's birth certificates.


Wouldn't Anne have acknowledged her status as 'mother' though?

Is there no surname?

Gwyn

After reading the goverment link advise by AllanC, I've now understood how the cert was issued.

For PigletsPal to understand the issue . The person who actually registered the birth was a Louise Clowes who doesn't exist in the famlily. After her name it reads mark of occupier. Why the parents didn't register him is lost in history. I just presumed that Sarah was known locally a Ann so the lady who registered the birth used the name she knew Sarah Ann as.

The known name of a person or the use of a second name seemd to be a common trait in my family all branches. I've probably collected more certs than necessary just proving who is who because the names don't match with the census records.

Susanne

It sounds to me that was nothing particularly unusual about this.