Registering a birth

[Tempest]

I've been researching a relations family tree. The search is throwing up many a strange set up, I have a query about registering a birth (something I have never done!) What do you need to register a birth? Do you need to take the new born baby and present it to the Registrar? Do you need to take a piece of paper from a Doctor/Midwife? What is to stop someone walking into the Register Office and registering a birth when no child exists. My specific question relates to the 1920's maybe the system has changed now.

So, couple marry in 1916 while he's on leave from the war. 1920 they have a child. He then moves to a different part of the country and meets another women, she assumes the name of his legal wife. They then have 5 children of their own he registers all the births but gives the mothers name as his his wife's maiden name....is that possible? I know I'm being vague with actual names, this is just a theory and I haven't yet put this to the family members, and of course it could all be illegal. Is there a sound reason for doing such a thing (don't think there was state child benefit back then? Stop neighbours gossip maybe? It would certainly make the children illegitimate. It also makes genealogy research difficult if true!

TIA

[Northern Lass]

moving to misc. section.

[Tempest]

moving to misc. section.

Fair enough
Surprised after 26 viewings know one can answer it? (Do “guest” viewings get counted?)

[Jimmy]

My first thoughts would be, "why would he want to register children in his wife's maiden name", is it possible that his new partner had the same maiden name as his first wife.?

[Tempest]

My first thoughts would be, "why would he want to register children in his wife's maiden name", is it possible that his new partner had the same maiden name as his first wife.?

Hi jimmy, thanks. Believe me in this search I have asked myself "why?" so many times, hence me now looking for curved balls!! So, different Maiden names but the new women changes her christian name to match the married wife!
Here goes, I'm going to show my problem

James BAYLISS (B.1894 in leicester) M.Winifred Isabel NEAL (B.1896 Northamptonshire) in1916 at Wellingborough R.O.
In 1920 they have son Gordon Richard Abraham BAYLISS. On 1921 census all three are living Rushden, N'ants
In 1925 James has 2nd child, Emma but mother now Winifred (Maiden name HILL) in Nottingham
In 1927 James has 3rd child Walter, as previous mother HILL
In 1928 4th child, Winifred mother maiden name back to NEAL
Then five more children all in Nottingham all on birth certificate mother NEAL. Frank B.1929, Florence B. 1930, George B.1932, Margaret B.1935 and last John Henry B.1936.
Its my belief his wife never leaves Rushden, on 1939 register she is living with her parents and the 1st born Gordon
James with Winifred (HILL) on the 1939 Register is in Nottingham with all the remaining children apart from Florence who died in infancy). After James died Winifred (HILL) marries a Charles BRETT in 1958 on that marriage she claims to be a Widow (although should be spinster) she gives her name as Winifred BAYLISS (formally known as Millicent Louise Bayliss) her father is HILL.
Can you see why I asked my question? with wife down in N'ants are all the children actually Winifred (Millicent) (HILL)'s and for whatever reason they falsely recorded the birth mother as his legal wife. Is that possibly?
My head hurts!!!

[gardener]

Hi
I'm one of the people who viewed and did not comment! But now I have had a bit of look...

As far as I know there would have been no need to produce the baby as proof that one existed. It all seems to have been done on the basis of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874, and it was the duty of the parents to register the birth:

"In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, information of the particulars required to be registered concerning such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register."

I don't see anything in there about proof, I mean if it was a home birth then there would be no proof other than the baby. And I know that in my case Dad registered me on his own - and spelled my name "wrong" Mum always said.

Who was the informant on your certificates? Is it always the father? The information is intended to be given in good faith. I know that it was made so that a father's name could only be on there by mutual consent of the mother and father, so in theory both would have to be present, though I know people have found clear examples where the father was not present but his name is still on there. Obviously they wanted that to be correct because of child support.

I can't think of any obvious reason why they would pretend about the mother's identity, other than for appearances sake. Family Allowance did not come in until 1945. What was the father's occupation? A few companies paid men extra for the children they supported, and as the years ticked by various unions talked about doing it. Is it possible that a "front" was maintained to hide the fact that the children were really illegitimate? It looks as though Ms Bayliss went along with it.

[Tempest]

Many thanks for your thorough reply Gardener, it does seem to fit my theory. The father was a labourer, in 1939 that was at the Sugar Beet factory.
Because of the costs I only obtained two birth certs. Walter’s and Winifred’s children 3 and 4. Walter with mother Hill was reported by her, but Winifred with mother Neal was reported by James. So it could be him not being truthful to the Registrar!

[Tempest]

So, my current theory (I have no proof at all) James wife Winifred (Neal) wouldn’t move to Nottingham. He met Millicent Hil and convinced her to become Winifred Bayliss when she got pregnant. They kept that pretence all their life, he registered the last 6 children in his wife’s name to prevent the illegitimate tag and stop the neighbours gossip.

[Jimmy]

Do you have a fathers name and occupation for Millicent / Winifred.

Marriages Mar 1958.
BAYLISS Millicent L BRETT Nottingham 3c 1054.
BAYLISS Winifred BRETT Nottingham 3c 1054.
BRETT Charles BAYLISS Nottingham 3c 1054.

[Tempest]

Hi Jimmy, yes I obtained that marriage cert. her father was Charles HILL he was a Coal Miner, deceased by the time of this marriage. Most likely he was born Kenton, Suffolk, 1854, married a Sarah Terry (Terrey) in Nottingham in 1876. They had six children including Millicent Louise, she was born in Bolsover 1898 (despite the DoB on the 1939 register)! Although Millicent gives her fathers occupation as "Coal Miner" on the 1921 Census he is the Colliery Deputy for the Bolsover Colliery Company.