For some reason this note was diverted to the list admin. Any replies
to the author and not to me please.
Re: RE: Birth registration and baptism
Actually this assumption is also wrong and I have had this argument with you
before. The act of 1836 says that a parent, householder, etc MAY wish to
register the birth of a child. Even if the registrar found the birth of a
child it was not necessarily registered. About 40% of births were not
registered in the 1840's and part of the 1860's was a bad time in some
places. By the time the act was changed in 1874, taking effect in 1875,
making it a legal requirement to register the birth, more than 90% of births
were being registered. This was also when, if the mother was not married she
could not declare the name of the father without him being present and
signing the register (before this there were many records of The Prince of
Wales as the father). This non-registration gave huge problems with the
introduction of the Old Age Pension in 1908 and the census had to be
consulted. The act is online but I have a very nice copy that I could send
to anyone, just email me off list. Dave
On 13/09/2011 22:32, Charani wrote:
John Ball wrote:
> I've been reading Huw Edwards's recent book "Capeli Llanelli - Our Rich
> Heritage", published in 2009 by Carmarthenshire County Council Libraries and
> Heritage Section; ISBN 978-0-906821-77-0.
> At the bottom of page 4, the author states, "Nonconformist ministers,
> leading their working class congregations, had also been fighting for their
> own freedoms. BIRTHS COULD ONLY BE REGISTERED IF A CHILD HAD BEEN BAPTISED
> BY AN ANGLICAN CLERGYMAN. If not, the baby was a non-person."
> [The capitals are mine]
> Mr Edwards does not cite a source for his statement. I understand him to
> mean that Anglican baptism was an essential qualification for the civil
> registration of a birth, which seems very hard to believe.