Hello, I, too, am surprised about the baptism requirement. I have always understood that in cases where "Female" (or "Male") is shown it simply means that the child's forenames had not been decided when the birth was registered. Regards, Ken. (in West Sussex, UK) ----- Original Message ----- From: sfhg-request@rootsweb.com To: sfhg@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:41 PM Subject: SFHG Digest, Vol 3, Issue 88 2. Birth Certificates. (DAVID PRICE) 3. Smallpox (Barbara Sanders) 4. Re: Birth Certificates. (Jim Halsey) 5. Illness-Related Death (Barbara Sanders) 6. Name Abbreviation: "Johe"? (Donna Casey) 7. Birth Certificates. (DAVID PRICE) Message: 2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:41:47 +0000 (GMT) From: DAVID PRICE <davidlprice@btinternet.com> Subject: [SFHG] Birth Certificates. To: sfhg@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <281602.88710.qm@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I have hunted for my Gt.Gt.Grandmothers birth registration for over a year. I ordered a birth certificate which turned out to be an incorrect one. By chance came across the registration of "Female Baby" in the year, quarter and place which were quite likely and indeed it turned out to be my Gt.Gt.Grandmother. Cannot fully understand why she was not named as there was an 11 day gap between her birth and its registration. Just thought I'd pass this information on, in case anyone else like me has been searching for an ancestor/relation whom they couldn't find in the indexes. Jeanette Price Mem.11641. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:02:20 +0000 From: "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [SFHG] Birth Certificates. To: "DAVID PRICE" <davidlprice@btinternet.com> Cc: sfhg@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <77a401200802270402w3c25c3f3rfdda326b6c44d2ca@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello Jeanette, The application of the Act for the registration of BMDs was the cause of some irritation and indeed annoyance to many, if correspondence in the Times is anything to go by. One correspondent in late 1837 put the matter very clearly. I paraphrase :- The registrar called to register the birth before the child had been baptised and settled down to fill in the form. the first question was "when born ?". The second was "name, if any?". The correspondent answered "the child has not yet been baptised and therefore has no name." the registrar then asked for the proposed name.but the correspondent refused to give it, on the grounds that that the "proposed name" might not be the name at baptism. He was told that that name could be added after registration..However, the Registrar had "done his duty in registering the birth only and need not call again". If it were added the question then arose as to which of the two names, if different, is the legal name? In the case of a legacy that could prove "a fruitful caise of dispute". There is more, and it make interesting reading. It is not easy to put ourselves in the context our ancestors found themselves in more than 150 years ago, but they had their reasons for behaving as they did, even if some of their actions may seem seem strange to 21st c eyes. The registration of births brought problems previously not encountered and was not helped by the less than perfect drafting of the Act. Certainly those who resisted the new bureaucratic requirements have my sympathy, even if their objections have given me, and no doubt many others too, a good few problems over the years. Jim Halsey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 7 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:40:26 +0000 (GMT) From: DAVID PRICE <davidlprice@btinternet.com> Subject: [SFHG] Birth Certificates. To: jehalsy@gmail.com Cc: sfhg@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <505905.81156.qm@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hello Jim, Very many thanks indeed for your interesting and comprehensive reply. It really surprises me to learn that children were required to be baptised before their birth could be registered. The birth certificate of my Gt. Grandmother arrived in the post this morning and she had been given a forename, although I know for sure that she was not baptised until a full month or more post the registration of her birth. This was in 1866 and her mother's birth was 20 yrs earlier in 1846, so maybe the registrars had become a little more "relaxed" by then!! David and I would be very interested to know when the letters were published in the Times re registrations of BMD's. We are regular readers, but this seems to have passed us by! Thanks once again for your help. Best wishes from : Jeanette Mem.11641 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------