Registered late

[Moff]

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.

 

[Blackmogs]

Does she have the head of the household's name Moff? In the 1911 I mean.

 

[Chimp]

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]

Does she have the head of the household's name Moff? In the 1911 I mean.

No, she doesn't - it's completely different

 

[Moff]

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.

I hadn't thought of that! Seems a very likely explanation.

 

[Blackmogs]

So maybe the birth mother didn't register her and left it to the 'adoptive' parents to do it.

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.

 

[Moff]

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.

 

[Blackmogs]

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.

One of these moments then

 

[Moff]

One of these moments then

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

 

[Daft Bat]

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely! Don't forget to let us know what it says.