LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2005-01 > 1105455431


From: "Jack Earnshaw" <>
Subject: RE: [Lon] No birth registration?
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:57:11 -0000
In-Reply-To: <1fa.2de733d.2f1523ff@aol.com>


It just means that either the birth wasn't registered, or you haven't yet
found the surname that was used (it could be in a partner's name?). By 1890
most births would be registered, in fact it was illegal not to. But that
still didn't stop some people avoiding it for a variety of reasons. I don't
think you can jump to any conclusions about workhouses. Is he in the 1891
census? If so is it with married parents?

ps I presume you mean he would have been 28 at the end of the war.

Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: 11 January 2005 12:44
To:
Subject: [Lon] No birth registration?


Dear All
Have been reading with interest the debate about workhouse births. I have a
couple with a child in 1890 but there is no birth record at all for him and
have trawled the birth index to even find a child registered in a known
family
name. Would this mean that he was born in a workhouse. His father is
classed
as hairdresser unemployed on the census but in a shared property.
Unfortunatlely he was in a childrens home in 1901away from his mother who
was
with a new partner, there is also no trace of his marriage or death in this
country and not in Canada or US or on the CWGC . He would have been 18 at
the
very end of the war

Any ideas/


This thread: