Registered late

Discussion in 'Adoption Pre 1919' started by Moff, Jan 21, 2019.

  1. Moff

    Moff Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    South Wales
    I have a relative in my tree who was born on 1st February 1908, but her birth was not registered until the September quarter of that year.
    Would the late registration have something to do with her being adopted?
    She appears in the 1911 census as 'adopted daughter' of the head of the household.
     
  2. Blackmogs

    Blackmogs Moderator. General Dogs(cats)body. Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    4,083
    Location:
    Kent, the Garden of England
    Does she have the head of the household's name Moff? In the 1911 I mean.
     
  3. Chimp

    Chimp Moderator & Cheeky Human IMP Staff Member

    Online
    Messages:
    5,204
    Likes Received:
    14,527
    Location:
    Knighton, Powys, Wales
    Child adoption had no legal status in Britain until 1926, when the first Act was passed which regulated it in England and Wales. So maybe the birth mother didn't register her and left it to the 'adoptive' parents to do it.
     
    Moff, Sis, Ma-dotcom and 1 other person like this.
  4. Moff

    Moff Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    South Wales
    No, she doesn't - it's completely different :)
     
  5. Moff

    Moff Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    South Wales
    I hadn't thought of that! Seems a very likely explanation.
     
    Chimp likes this.
  6. Blackmogs

    Blackmogs Moderator. General Dogs(cats)body. Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    4,083
    Location:
    Kent, the Garden of England
    Ah but if that was the case she would have had the adoptive father's name in the 1911 because surely they would have registered her in their name. So she has a different surname than all of the rest of the household? Maybe she was the mothers daughter before she married the head of the household and he just took her on so to speak. Chimpy I had an aunt who was registered under her mothers MN in 1904, then in 1916 she was reregistered under the fathers name (the couple having since married). I'll dig the 'stificate out in a bit 'cos the registrar annotated the entry and it might help.
     
    Chimp likes this.
  7. Moff

    Moff Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    South Wales
    The adoptive mother was 47 in 1911. She had 6 boys that I can find from her first marriage, and no children (that I can find) with her second husband, whom she married in 1907. Her maiden name and her first married name are not the same as the child's. Perhaps she just wanted a little girl? :)
    On the GRO website the child's mother's name is not shown - there's just a dash, so she was either unmarried, or maybe the child was a foundling.
     
  8. Blackmogs

    Blackmogs Moderator. General Dogs(cats)body. Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    4,083
    Location:
    Kent, the Garden of England
    One of these moments then :headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::(:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
     
  9. Moff

    Moff Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    South Wales
    You're probably right there! Guess I should get the child's birth cert to see if there is a mother named, then at least I'd have a line to follow back. Having done my immediate family, who were mostly law-abiding, pretty boring and easy to trace, I'm now climbing twigs on the family tree :D
     
    Ma-dotcom and Blackmogs like this.
  10. Daft Bat

    Daft Bat Administrator. Chief cook & bottle washer! Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    17,136
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England.
    Unmarried is the more likely.

    Depending upon who the mother was, it might be that she was not aware that she needed to register the birth and so it was done by someone else later on.
    Absolutely! Don't forget to let us know what it says. :)
     
    Ma-dotcom and Blackmogs like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice