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 On 27/02/2008, DAVID PRICE <davidlprice@btinternet.com> wrote: > > I have hunted for my irtGt.Gt.Grandmothers bh 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. > >