Genealogy Chat

Birth Registration was not a legal requirement until 1875.(Or death, come to that) Prior to that, it was the responsibility of the local Registrar, to go round the district, collecting names. Inevitably, some people got missed. Birth Registration cost nothing - but a copy of the cert cost a few coppers, and it is quite likely that lots of poorer people just didnt bother with this unnecessary expense, and later simply forgot that they had been registered Harold George, when in reality they had been registered George Harold. What always amazes me, is that so many births WERE registered, when it was not compulsory! OC

This is the nearest birth I can find:- Name: James Hull Year of Registration: 1860 Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar DISTRICT: Cookham County: Berkshire Volume: 2c Page: 394 If he was born in Winkfield then the registration district should be Windsor, but I can't find one there. You wouldn't need a birth certificate to get married (if you did, all my ancestors would have their correct age on their marriage certificates, whereas not many of them do!!) I would be inclined to think James/Alfred were two different people. Have you asked your contact where they got the information and do wife/children match for James/Alfred? Kath. x

Birth certs is a modern thing, some people said they were widows when they werent,some people lied about the name of their father and their age! Its a wonder we can trace anyone really!

If both the name and place of birth differ, can you be sure you are talking about the same person? If you are tracking back, have you found the family on the censuses right back to 1861 (the last one before James' birth?) Share some of the family info and I'm sure someone on here will help you sort this out! Jan

proof is ID to arry is a moden thing, just saying you were Joe Bloggs, that you were whatever age and who your dad was, was sufficient as no-one thought anyone would dare lie to the clergy. I have one in my tree born abd died Harold William but Married William Harold - fortunatly I have the oriinal certificates. From 1 July 1837 everyone should have had birth certs but people thought it was a choice between that and baptisum. in 1870's laws were tightened so you payed penaties if you were late reistring a birth. My great gran was born c1901 and never had a birth cert (she grew up being told her dad forgot to get it) so when she married in 1924 she didn't have a birth cert to prove who she was and didn't need one either.

I have a rellie whose name is James Hull on the marriage certificate. Would his BIRTH CERT NAME have to be the same as on the marriage cert? I've been on here a few times before trying to find the Birth date of James Hull c1859 Winkfield. Various census show his First name as JAMES, even his marriage cert. I have now found a close relie, who shares this same Gt Granfather, and have been told that his Birth Cert name is ALFRED and he was born in Marylebone. What I would like to know is in 1881 when James/Alfred married would he have to prove his name, by showing a birth cert. And did everyone have to have Birth Certs, in 1859. It's a big difference being James from Winkfield to Alfred from Marylebone Would be pleased to hear your views, Maggie