Hello Jeanette, Brad has beaten me to it ! - As he says, children were not "required to be baptised" before the birth could be registered. Some people either thought the baptism to be the more important event, more so than registration, or were just not going to be rushed into naming the child at the behest of some petty bureaucrat. They had 42 days for registration without charge and then a further twenty weeks when charges were made. If registration was delayed later than six months after the birth there was a liability to a substantial fine. The correspondent in question was particularly unhappy about the insertion of a "proposed" name which in his view,would result in "stultifying the whole entries in that column as a legal evidence of name." The letter is a long one and most of it exposes the inadequacies of the Act in so far as this question is concerned. He concludes by advising parents not to give a a proposed name nor to allow the registrars to insert the baptismal name after registration of birth in any other than the proper column ("baptismal name". for which there was a column in the original form) without the knowledge of the parents and without the baptismal certificate that they would provide. I get the impression that the provisions of the Act had not been entirely thought through (not unusual even today !!) and that this was quickly realised by many people, who proceeded to object to the dictates of local registrars. Quite rightly, they did not have the interests of 21st c genealogists in mind ! The letter I have referred to was published on 29th November 1839. Jim Halsey. On 27/02/2008, DAVID PRICE <davidlprice@btinternet.com> wrote: > > 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 > publishedin the Times re registrations of BMD's. We are regular readers, > but this seems to have passed us by! > >