Thanks the only thing that annoys me is they had four other children and they managed to name them. According to our great helper Diane he is listed as Stephen in the 1841 but even then the age was wrong by 2 years. Ho Hum Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" <sandra.s@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > Bob, it was not necessary for a baby to have a name in order to be > registered. You see these frequently in the GRO indices as "Male" > Surname. On the birth certificate, there is a column for the name if > added after the registration, but I have never ever seen this used. To > most families of this era the most important event was the baptism when > the child would be given their names and they rarely considered it > necessary to inform the "authorities" > You also see them in the census too...just listed as "infant". > Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn the short straw in this case. > Regards > Sandra > > > bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: > >> Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL >> on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name >> if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk >> missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had >> this before. >> >> Bo Newell >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> >> >> > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

----- Original Message ----- From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates he is listed as Stephen in the 1841 but even then the age was wrong by 2 years. Hi Bob, don't forget the 1841 was a mish-mash for ages being rounded up or down. When I've compared my family's aages in 1841 and 1851, it was almost hard to believe they were the same family. regards, Jon -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05