Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

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

What proof was required.

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Libby22

Libby22 Report 14 Jan 2008 21:11

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.

Gwyn in Kent

Gwyn in Kent Report 14 Jan 2008 20:19

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

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 14 Jan 2008 18:22

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

Margaret

Margaret Report 14 Jan 2008 17:59

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



Kay????

Kay???? Report 14 Jan 2008 17:52

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

Margaret

Margaret Report 14 Jan 2008 17:40

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

ErikaH

ErikaH Report 14 Jan 2008 17:22

Not so.........

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

Reg

Margaret

Margaret Report 14 Jan 2008 17:20

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

ErikaH

ErikaH Report 14 Jan 2008 17:16

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

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 14 Jan 2008 17:11

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.

Margaret

Margaret Report 14 Jan 2008 16:58

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

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 14 Jan 2008 16:40

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

 Lindsey*

Lindsey* Report 14 Jan 2008 16:37

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

Thelma

Thelma Report 14 Jan 2008 16:35

Well I registered all my children.

ErikaH

ErikaH Report 14 Jan 2008 16:33

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

Margaret

Margaret Report 14 Jan 2008 16:32

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