Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Births and Aliases

Expand Messages
  • Betty
    I have a mystery on my hands here and I am wondering if anyone would have suggestions. My question is: If an unmarried woman gave birth, did the birth mother
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a mystery on my hands here and I am wondering if anyone would have
      suggestions.
      My question is:
      If an unmarried woman gave birth, did the birth mother have to show
      proof of who she was, or is it possible she could have used an alias on the
      birth registration. This would have been around the early 1900's.
      I am hoping someone can give me the answer to this.

      Thanks
      Betty
    • Ray Hennessy
      ... _____________________________________________ Hi Betty Did you get any answers to your query? I didn t see one but my email server has been playing up
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 22 November Betty Murphy asked the Peterhead List:

        > If an unmarried woman gave birth, did she have to show
        > proof of who she was, or could she have used an alias on
        > the birth registration? This was around the early 1900's.
        _____________________________________________

        Hi Betty

        Did you get any answers to your query? I didn't see one
        but my email server has been playing up recently so ...

        I would be interested if anyone has an answer to this.

        Thanks

        Ray Hennessy
      • Betty
        Hi Ray Thank you for responding. No, I haven t received a reply to my query unfortunately. ... Betty ... _____________________________________________ Hi Betty
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 17, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Ray
          Thank you for responding. No, I haven't received a reply to my query
          unfortunately.
          :). If I do manage to find any information, I will post to the list.

          Betty



          On 22 November Betty Murphy asked the Peterhead List:

          > If an unmarried woman gave birth, did she have to show
          > proof of who she was, or could she have used an alias on
          > the birth registration? This was around the early 1900's.
          _____________________________________________

          Hi Betty

          Did you get any answers to your query? I didn't see one
          but my email server has been playing up recently so ...

          I would be interested if anyone has an answer to this.

          Thanks

          Ray Hennessy



          Peterhead Genealogy at http://users.bigpond.net.au/phdgen/

          To unsubscribe send a messaged to: Peterhead-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Ray Hennessy
          ... _____________________________________________ Hi again Betty I got this reponse from a shy guru: I m not certain what level of proof of identity was
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 17, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On 22 November Betty Murphy asked the Peterhead List:

            > If an unmarried woman gave birth, did she have to show
            > proof of who she was, or could she have used an alias on
            > the birth registration? This was around the early 1900's.
            _____________________________________________

            Hi again Betty

            I got this reponse from a shy guru:

            "I'm not certain what level of proof of identity was demanded
            of anyone at that date when registering a birth (or anything
            else), nor what kind of proof would have been available to the
            individual anyway. Possession of the so-called "Birth
            Certificate" was entirely voluntary, and all that the original
            1854 legislation required was that all births be reported, and
            that whoever reported them (it did not have to be the mother)
            should supply the information "... to the best of his or her
            knowledge and belief", which sounds a bit loop-holey.

            "On the other hand, in anywhere other than the bigger urban
            centres, people probably knew more about each other's
            business than we tend to, and as the Registrar often doubled
            as the schoolmaster, so would be in a position to know the
            local young. The Registrar did have some vague powers to
            inquire further in cases of doubt."

            That seems to cover it! Actually, when I think about it,
            one doesn't have to provide idenfying documentation in
            the UK when registering a birth or death today either.

            Best wishes

            Ray Hennessy
            and my 'annyonomous' [sic] guru.
          • Betty
            Hi Ray Thanks..:) On with my quest. The mother I was referring to was born in New Pitsligo, Aberdeenshire. The childs birth took place just oustide of
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Ray
              Thanks..:) On with my quest. The mother I was referring to was born
              in New Pitsligo, Aberdeenshire. The childs birth took place just oustide
              of Aberdeen, in Kildrummy. I would make a guess that the mother may not
              have been known in that area. It looks to me like she left the Peterhead
              area to give birth to the child, as she did go North again after the birth.
              At least now I know it is not a fruitless search.

              Thanks again Ray

              Betty



              On 22 November Betty Murphy asked the Peterhead List:

              > If an unmarried woman gave birth, did she have to show
              > proof of who she was, or could she have used an alias on
              > the birth registration? This was around the early 1900's.
              _____________________________________________

              Hi again Betty

              I got this reponse from a shy guru:

              "I'm not certain what level of proof of identity was demanded
              of anyone at that date when registering a birth (or anything
              else), nor what kind of proof would have been available to the
              individual anyway. Possession of the so-called "Birth
              Certificate" was entirely voluntary, and all that the original
              1854 legislation required was that all births be reported, and
              that whoever reported them (it did not have to be the mother)
              should supply the information "... to the best of his or her
              knowledge and belief", which sounds a bit loop-holey.

              "On the other hand, in anywhere other than the bigger urban
              centres, people probably knew more about each other's
              business than we tend to, and as the Registrar often doubled
              as the schoolmaster, so would be in a position to know the
              local young. The Registrar did have some vague powers to
              inquire further in cases of doubt."

              That seems to cover it! Actually, when I think about it,
              one doesn't have to provide idenfying documentation in
              the UK when registering a birth or death today either.

              Best wishes

              Ray Hennessy
              and my 'annyonomous' [sic] guru.



              Peterhead Genealogy at http://users.bigpond.net.au/phdgen/

              To unsubscribe send a messaged to: Peterhead-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.