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
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.
and my 'annyonomous' [sic] guru.
Peterhead Genealogy at http://users.bigpond.net.au/phdgen/
To unsubscribe send a messaged to: Peterheademail@example.com
Yahoo! Groups Links