Genealogy Chat

From my personal experience it's almost always been the Mother that has registered the birth of a child.

It would seem that regardless of the Marital Status of the Mother or the Father of the child, the Mother could say anything to the Registrar.

I may be wrong but even today, only one parent is required to Register the birth of a child.

M. Steer

If the parents are not married, the father must either attend the registratiion, or provide a sworn statement of paternity

On at least 60% of all birth certs I have, the father registered the birth. I registered my son's birth...........

If the woman is married, it is assumed that her husband fathered her children.......even if he didn't....unless information to the contrary is provided when the birth is registered.

Reg

Well I registered all my children.

In some cases the father is long gone, in my family granny registered all the children as hers even way past child bearing age

I have birth certificates where the birth is registered in some cases by the mother and in other cases by the father - and on the odd occasion by someone who was present at the birth.

Kath. x

Reg & Jim, thanks.

I have to say that my Father registered my
birth.

I'm talking about late 19thC - all the Birth Certs., I have the Mother has Registered the birth.

Even so, I'm an unmarried Mother c1870. I go and Register my child - I could tell the Registrar anything, the Father of my child is Tom, Dick, Harry or even the Prince of Wales.

M. Steer

No, I don't think you could do that, Margaret unless Tom, Dick, Harry or the Prince of Wales was with you to acknowledge paternity.

As stated above, unmarried parents must both be present at the registration. Or the father must state in writing that the child is his........

Reg

Margaret, exactly my point. What proof would I have to give - as far as I can see, none. I could say anything to the Registrar and he would have to accept it.

M. Steer

Not so.........

The mother's maiden name has to be recorded............

Reg

Reg, what would that prove?

I could give my Maiden Name and my presumed Married Name but what proof would I have to give of either?

M. Steer

Margaret S,

None,,,and suspect there were cases where children back then were registered with a father showing and mum as married,,,,,but people were also fearful of the Law &false information as it could have resulted in a prison sentance for giving false information,,registering an event was part of the Law late 1800's

It seems, from my research, that one of my Gt.Grandmothers was not married to my Gt.Grandfather.

She registered the birth of both children from that 'union' in the name of their Father. She appears as 'wife' on the Census, her Death Certificate is in her 'married' name and states her as 'wife of...'

M. Steer

You are right in that if a mother said she was Mrs. Smith, maiden names Jones, then the child would have the surname Smith (as if the mother was married). She wouldn't have to provide a marriage certificate. My own mother-in-law did this in the 1940's when registering her children.

However the mother would have to lie about being married and most wouldn't put down a father's name and pretend to be married unless she was living with the child's father. In this case the child would almost certainly use the "father's" name on a subsequent marriage certificate.

Kath. x

I have a copy of an 1839 birth certificate, where the mother registered the child in her 'married' name and names the father.

She obviously wasn't so brazen when it came to dealing with the vicar though. The child was in the baptism register ( 15 days old ) with mother's surname and no father mentioned.

In subsequent census the mother still was living with the father but was shown as 'housekeeper'.

Gwyn

When helping someone else with a tangled web, we discovered that a baby born c.1890 was registered in the father's name, even though the couple weren't married..............well at least not to each other! However, on the census the baby was recorded with his mother's maiden name. I can only presume..........back then one wasn't asked for proof of a baby's legal surname. Possibly it was considered that citizen's would be in awe of authority , and too fearful to lie, if that's the case how naive of registrars.