RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Davedrave on Wednesday 28 November 18 16:49 GMT (UK)
-
I wonder how the birth registration index entry post 1911 in the U.K. of a child born to an unmarried mother would record the mother’s name? (The only birth registration index entry I have seen of a child born to an unmarried mother records only the mother’s name, but it dates from 1910 before the practice of including maiden name began). If the surname of a child in 1929 is the same as the name in the mother’s maiden name column, is that likely to be an illegitimate birth (independent evidence suggests it probably was).
-
Generally, the mother's maiden name and the surname under which the birth is indexed will be identical, i.e. the surname will appear twice.
Example from FreeBMD:
http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=uCMrXionCg4o%2Fy%2FYI9rLDQ&scan=1 (http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=uCMrXionCg4o%2Fy%2FYI9rLDQ&scan=1)
If I'm correct this is true up to (?)1965(?) when the format of the birth register changed and the current long-format certificate form started to be used, after this point the child's surname(s) began to be explicitly stated on the certificate rather than being inferred from the parents' surname(s), so you get more examples of the birth being indexed under other surnames, sometimes both the mother's and the natural father's surname.
So if the surname of a child in 1929 is the same as the name in the mother’s maiden name column, that is likely to show either be an illegitimate birth, or that the mother's maiden name and the father's surname were identical i.e. Smith married Smith.
-
Thank you for the clarification. It therefore seems that apart from the initial of the middle name of the child not matching what I’d expect, everything else would suggest that I’ve found the birth record I’m looking for.
Dave :)
-
Mother's Maiden Name now appears on almost all entries on the GRO Index Search, 1837-1916 ;D
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp
You have to register, but the Index Search is free to use.
-
also if the child was born to an unmarried mother but the father attended the registration then his name could be entered too
Also if the father (more recent times) decided to add his name at a later date (often if the parents married after the birth reg) he could add his name before the child was aged 11 - the original registration would stay but a note would be made on the index to see a later date
Suz
-
It is a little known fact but parents of an illegitimate child are required by law to re-register the birth if they later marry.
"If the parents have married after the child was born, they are required to re-register the birth to have the natural father’s details added to the birth record." from Re-register Illegitimate Child (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents)
Added This may also be of interest;- add the natural fathers details (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-and-add-the-natural-fathers-details) even if they don't subsequently marry.
-
It is a little known fact but parents of an illegitimate child are required by law to re-register the birth if they later marry.
"If the parents have married after the child was born, they are required to re-register the birth to have the natural father’s details added to the birth record." from Re-register Illegitimate Child (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents)
There is no such thing as an illegitimate child.
That unpleasant term was removed from the law more than a quarter century ago. You have given an incorrect and inappropriate name to an official web page which is actually called Application to re-register a child’s birth following marriage of natural parents
-
It is a little known fact but parents of an illegitimate child are required by law to re-register the birth if they later marry.
I don't think it is law - but the parents or father can apply to have their name added
in our family we have a child who was born 30 years ago and the parents married when the child was 2 years old but the father didn't have his name added until the child was 10 years old and then it was at his request but the mother (as I was told by both parents)also had to agree to it being added as the new registration - note new registration - but the original registration is not removed from the records
Suz
-
It is a little known fact but parents of an illegitimate child are required by law to re-register the birth if they later marry.
"If the parents have married after the child was born, they are required to re-register the birth to have the natural father’s details added to the birth record." from Re-register Illegitimate Child (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents)
Added This may also be of interest;- add the natural fathers details (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-and-add-the-natural-fathers-details) even if they don't subsequently marry.
Sorry but you are wrong parents are not required by law to re-register the birth of their illegitimate children
Unfortunately what you have quoted is not the legislation but simply the office policy for re-registering the birth of illegitimate children laid out by the Passport Office, if the parents wish to re-register their illegitimate children.
The legislation is shown here for the Legitimacy Act, 1926.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01n3m/
and here for the Legitimation (Re-registration of Birth) Act, 1957.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01n3n/
the Legitimacy Act 1976
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01n3p/
Cheers
Guy
P.S. The Church tried to change the law in 1235 to allow bastards (probably the term Johninsussex alludes to as having been dropped from legislation) to be recognised as legitimate.
Guy
-
Re-registration to add an unmarried father to an entry where he wasn't originally named is done under s10A of the Births & Deaths Registration Act 1953. It doesn't add to the original registration, but creates a new register entry, which can be months/years later.
It is an option, and not legally required, but a very common thing to do. It was introduced as a specific process in the 1953 Act, although you do see cases that were allowed previous to that by application to the Registrar General (who can authorise any re-registration, for any reason they deem appropriate).
Re-registering after the later marriage of the parents is done under s14 of the B& D Act 1953. Again it creates a new entry, it doesn't change the original one (other than a marginal note).
The Schedule to the 1926 Legitimacy Act said it was the "duty" of the parents to re-register the birth, but set no penalty for not doing so.
The current requirement for parents who marry to re-register is in s9(1) of the 1976 Legitimacy Act and states it should be done within 3 months of the marriage, s9(4) sets a penalty on conviction for not doing so. However the Act also makes clear that it is the marriage that makes the child legitimate, not the re-registration, so failure to re-register doesn't affect that. Many couples don't realise it is required or just don't bother to do it, but there is no mechanism to enforce the provision so no action is going to happen.
Although it is required within 3 months, it can be much later - the longest example I have is of a child born in 1892, whose parents married in 1894. The "child" was 47 years old when the birth was eventually re-registered by the father in 1939.
Re-registration after marriage ( or civil partnership) can also now be done to add a "second female parent" and not just the father.
It is also not uncommon now for a birth to be registered 3 times over a period - once with the just the mother named (unmarried), again to add the father's details (still unmarried) and again once they do marry.
Re-registrations can also be done for other reasons such as in some cases of surrogacy, or gender change, and are allowed by the relevant legislation.
-
Thank you for the clarification. It therefore seems that apart from the initial of the middle name of the child not matching what I’d expect, everything else would suggest that I’ve found the birth record I’m looking for.
Dave :)
Dave
You mention an initial for the middle name of an illegitimate child. This can be important, as some unmarried mothers used the surname of the child's father as its middle name. I have a couple of examples of this in my tree.
-
If a birth cert gives child's name as William Brown. Mother Lilian Maud Brown, formerly Smith. But the father's name is blank. What do we deduce?
Was the mother married but divorced or separated from Mr Brown, who therefore was not the father?
This was in 1932. ( names not the real names in the case)
-
Thats pretty much it (although she may also be widowed) - but her husband was not the baby's father
However on the index he would still be William Brown mmn Smith
-
Thank you for the clarification. It therefore seems that apart from the initial of the middle name of the child not matching what I’d expect, everything else would suggest that I’ve found the birth record I’m looking for.
Dave :)
Dave
You mention an initial for the middle name of an illegitimate child. This can be important, as some unmarried mothers used the surname of the child's father as its middle name. I have a couple of examples of this in my tree.
Thanks. In this case I think that “M” simply stood for Margaret, the name by which the lady (actually probably my second cousin, I think) was known.
-
The current requirement for parents who marry to re-register is in s9(1) of the 1976 Legitimacy Act and states it should be done within 3 months of the marriage, s9(4) sets a penalty on conviction for not doing so. However the Act also makes clear that it is the marriage that makes the child legitimate, not the re-registration, so failure to re-register doesn't affect that. Many couples don't realise it is required or just don't bother to do it, but there is no mechanism to enforce the provision so no action is going to happen.
Although it is required within 3 months, it can be much later - the longest example I have is of a child born in 1892, whose parents married in 1894. The "child" was 47 years old when the birth was eventually re-registered by the father in 1939.
Yes, my apologies to Macwil I had completely missed s9(1) & s9(4) of the 1976 Legitimacy Act which does require parents to re-register the birth if they later marry.
Cheers
Guy
-
Bykerlads. ..in the example you gave on marriage cert
" formally "
Could also refer to taking on step or foster parents name
* so in the example you gave he could be baptised as William Smith if his mothere took on her stepfamilies or birth name later
my grandmas 1925 marriage.had birth mothers surname as maiden name
"otherwise known as"
Was name of family who.d brought her up
her middle name was birth fathers Surname !
DavedaveCould my example help in your search ?
-
So if the surname of a child in 1929 is the same as the name in the mother’s maiden name column, that is likely to show either be an illegitimate birth, or that the mother's maiden name and the father's surname were identical i.e. Smith married Smith.
It's frustrating if you have a relative who married a distant cousin with the same surname and it's hard to identify who their children are from the birth index!
It's easier to identify illegitimate births on the GRO index, where the mother's maiden name is usually indexed as "----". (Always worth buying the PDF though, since "----" sometimes means the surname was unreadable). For relatives born 1911-1917, you can cross-reference records from FreeBMD with the GRO index, to see if "Smith mother Smith" is the child of a Smith-Smith marriage or an unmarried Miss Smith.
-
Bykerlads. ..in the example you gave on marriage cert
The formally
Could also refer to taking on step or foster parents name
I presume you meant to write "Formerly"? ;D
Formerly meaning before; in the past.
Formally means officially, or in accordance with etiquette/convention.
-
Yes KG
sorry I blame predictive Text
I write from smart phone & visual problems
don't spot mistakes til later which is why I go back and modify texts ..
I formally apologise for formerly posting odd words
-
Sorry! Didn't mean to get at you.
But I am constantly amazed by how often people write "formally" instead of "formerly" ;)
-
Ha ha I disn't take it personally
don't tell anoyone I'm an English teacher and Linguistics graduate
But speaking of language acceptable terms.have changed over the years and have different connotations in different languages
For example in English Lunatic has very negative connotations but French use lunatique.to describe mood swings ..ups and downs with the moon
I this modern day how should we classify children of single mothers
My grandmotherS Affiliation Order is a beautiful document even if she is referred to as bastard child
My parents generation were illegitimate on paper work
I think there are some references to love child
I d avoided the those terms for the generation below me and tend to say birth child
-
.
For genealogy purposes it's helpful to have a term but in life ...they are all just children
-
I this modern day how should we classify children of single mothers
My grandmotherS Affiliation Order is a beautiful document even if she is referred to as bastard child
My parents generation were illegitimate on paper work
I think there are some references to love child
I d avoided the those terms for the generation below me and tend to say birth child
I prefer the original legal term bastard, but I am aware of the "modern" connotations attached to it.
I have never liked the term illegitimate as that mean the child is not authorised by the law.
Which if the child was conceived in the UK is absolutely ridiculous as no one above the age of 16 has to get authorisation in law to conceive a child. That meaning is more accurate if given to a child conceived in rape.
You ask "how should we classify children of single mothers?" How about child or children there should be no need to mention the parents marital state.
Cheers
Guy
-
Marrived or not doesn't matter but for DNA paths it's necessary to know which are relevant birth parents and which are step parents