Amended Birth Certificate, is it an infant death?

[reneh46]

I have a birth certificate from 1891 that shows the date of birth (20th September) and under the date the number 25 and a cross has been added. The words "Twenty five" have been added to the margin and initialled by the registrar. I have uploaded an attachment. I have also determined that the baby's mother died the following day (I have the certificate). I have been unable to find any record of the baby's death nor any record of him elsewhere. I addition a baby born to the father and his second wife was given the same names some years later.

I think, but am not sure, that the amended certificate records the death on the 25th. Could anyone tell me if this was a common way, at that time, of recording infant deaths? Does anyone have any experience of this sort of amended certificate?

Thanks for any help you can give.

Peter

[grangers14]

I think it is a correction of the birth date.
I have never known a date of death to be added to a birth certificate. They are separate things.
Could Albert be living with relatives if his mother had just died?

[reneh46]

Sorry for the delay in replying. That explanation doesn't work; how can the date of birth be after the registrar recorded the birth in the first place if it hadn't happened? The registration date is clearly 22nd two days after the birth and 3 days before the amendment. Also the mother's death was on the 21st the day after the birth, I have the original certificate for that registered the same day.

As the birth was in September 1891 the next chance of him appearing would be the 1901 census and he is not with his father then. I do have a marriage of his older sister and she was living with her father and new wife at the time. Also my mother recalls being told by her grandmother (the "new" wife) that when she married she took responsibility for two children from her husband earlier marriage Emily and Florence. (She also had one of her own already and they had 9 more between them, all but one lived to adulthood). One of their boys was called Albert Edward born 1903.

At the time the deaths of any baby born live had to be registered (since 1854) but stillbirth registration was not required until 1929. I realise that doesn't help except to make it more odd!

[rockyfowler]

Have you checked the mother`s grave? the baby was usually buried with her

[reneh46]

Thanks, a good call and not something that occurred to me.

[reneh46]

I have obtained the entry from the burial register (attached) and it shows no child with the mother. I think it will remain a mystery!

[gardener]

That is dated the 22nd though, so if the baby died on the 25th the burial would be later.

At first I agreed with grangers, that a death would not be entered on a birth certificate, but as you say the dates simply don't work for that explanation.

I wonder if it was done as a matter of economy? To avoid the cost of a third certificate for the family. Death certificates were still not required the for burials (I think). Did you check the burial register for the 25th and a few days after?

If it is a record of the baby's death then the registrar could have saved everyone a headache and written "death" in the margin too!


Added: mind you, 22 September 1891 was a Tuesday, and the burial took place on the Saturday - which would have allowed time to "pop" the baby in with the mother and again save money. So perhaps that happened as well.

[BC Wench]

I'm presuming the burial register for Emma you obtained from Deceased Online. Even though it says in the register that the burial took place on 22nd Sept, it says on the info on Deceased Online that the burial was the 26th, which ties in with what gardener says.

Name: Emma Bourne
Register Type: Burial
Death Date: abt 1891
Burial or Cremation Date: 26 Sep 1891
Burial or Cremation Place: Camden, London, England