Genealogy Chat

I have just received a berth certificate with the name of the female child left blank. I have never seen that before and I am surprised it was actually allowed/legal.

I assume another cert would have been issued at some time. If so, how do I find it?

Any thoughts?

Gerry

I don't know the answer to your question, but on all the birth certificates I have the relevant column says "Name, if any", which implies that you didn't have to have named the child before you registered the birth.

If you look through the birth indexes for any particular surname you will often find at the end of the alphabetical list of first names there may be some "female" or "male" entries.

This is because you do not have to have a first name for the child to be able to register the birth.

An example here:-

https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=BMD/B/1900/2/AZ/000081&parentid=BMD/B/1900/2/AZ/000081/194

Look at the list of Brown surnames and you will see a "female" at the end. (near top of page).

Depending on the year the birth you are looking at was registered, then I don't think another certificate will be available. If the parents had gone back to register a name later then I think it would have been added as an amendment to the original certificate.

Have you looked for a baptism for the child's surname a few weeks after the date of birth in the same sort of area?

Kath. x

Not unusual ............ many parents did not have names for their child when it was born, or some registered the child under one forename but then changed it later when the child was baptised!

Parents were supposed to go back and amend the registration if this happened, but many (?most) did not ......... perhaps they didn't even know they were supposed to!

I'm not sure what the regulation is now, but back in the day mothers were the ones supposed to register the baby, and it had to be done within 6 weeks of the birth or there was a fine to be paid. So some registered it within the time period even if they were not sure of the name, or some altered the birth date to fall within a later 6 week period!

Sometimes if the baby was sickly and unlikely to survive the parents didn't name the baby. Often you will find a death registered in the same quarter.

I have just looked this up and it says that parents had up to a year to add to or amend the names on the certificate. When they did so the original index entry was amended to show the names.

If neither your certificate nor the original index entry have been altered, then presumably the parents didn't bother to tell the registrar.

The legal requirement is that you register the birth, not that you name the child.
If you look at the last col on a pre-1969 b.cert, there is a specific column for naming a child after registration, ( - not that it need be used)

My experience of this was a baby born alive but died soon after

The child wasn't named but it's birth was recorded then the death

My experience of this was for my great grandfather who was registered the same day as he was born. (new year's eve). I think at the time he was born it was the responsibility of the registrar to travel round the areas to register births (somebody correct me if I am wrong please). I suspect as the parents ran the village inn the registrar may have actually been staying there that day!

Registrar had to travel round to register births from July 1 1837 to, I believe, some time in mid-1875 or 1877

Thank you for confirm that Sylvia. The birth I mentioned was 1862 so fits that time frame

If a child is baptised after registration.

From...https://tinyurl.com/yddzusra

'An Act for registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England. [17 August 1836]

Name given in Baptism may be registered within Six Months after Registration of Birth.

XXIV. And be it enacted, That if any Child born in England whose Birth shall have been registered as aforesaid shall, within Six Calendar Months next after it shall have been so registered, have any Name given to it in Baptism, the parent or Guardian of such Child, or other Person procuring such Name to be given, may within Seven Days next after such Baptism, procure and deliver to the registrar or Superintendent Registrar, in whose Custody the Register of Birth of the Child may then happen to be, a Certificate, according to the Form of Schedule (G.) to this Act annexed, signed by the Minister who shall have performed the Rite of Baptism, which Certificate such Minister is hereby required to deliver immediately after the Baptism, whenever the same shall then be demanded, on Payment of the Fee of One Shilling, which he shall be therefore entitled to receive; and the said Registrar or Superintendent Registrar, upon Receipt of such Certificate and on Payment of the Fee of One Shilling, which he shall therefore be entitled to receive, shall without any Erasure of the original Entry, forthwith register therein that the Child was baptized by such Name, and the Registrar shall thereupon certify upon the said Certificate the additional Entry so made, and shall forthwith send the said Certificate through the Post Office to the Registrar General.'

Maybe they didn't want too/couldn't afford too pay the shilling or just didn't understand the need to 'complete the paperwork'?

Hope it helps, rather than cloud the issue :-(

Chris