Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Registering still births in 1909
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Brian | Report | 25 Aug 2009 09:17 |
Thanks for all your help. |
|||
|
Richard in Perth | Report | 25 Aug 2009 04:04 |
Family stories tend to get twisted a bit. Maybe the two deaths that you found, in 1901 & 1903, have become two "twins" in family legend? My mum always thought that her mum's eldest sister died "at birth" - however I have since proved that she lived until nearly 2 years old - and she wasn't the eldest either, she was the 2nd child. |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 24 Aug 2009 23:26 |
I think that the column in 1911 asks about live births. |
|||
|
Brian | Report | 24 Aug 2009 22:45 |
Thankyou for your help. |
|||
|
Janet 693215 | Report | 24 Aug 2009 22:30 |
However there are some births of stillborn babies that were registered in the normal birth registers because parents knew there were penalties for non registration but didn't understand the intricacies. |
|||
|
KeithInFujairah | Report | 24 Aug 2009 19:52 |
Stillbirth registration began on 1 July 1927, so no it would not have been registered. If it took a breath, there should be a death cert. |
|||
|
Brian | Report | 24 Aug 2009 19:42 |
Hi, |