Registering a childs surname - 1940s

[Anette Flewers]

Hi all

does anyone know the ins and outs of what fathers details could be put on birth certificates and what names children had to be registed as?

The Situation Was This:
My gran "had to get married" as my mum was on the way in 1939/40. I'm led to believe that the couple seperated when my mum was very young.

My gran met another man shortly after she seperated from her husband and Gran went on to have 4 more children, all of which were (allegedly) fathered by this man.   The 1st 2 children, born in 1942 and 1944 were registered in the surname of her estranged husband although they've always been known by the lovers surname.

My mum assures me that these 2 children were fathered by grans lover and not by her husband (ie my mums dad).

The 3rd and 4th children were born in 1946 and 1948 registered in the surname of my grans lover. My gran married her lover shortly after the birth of this 4th child. Presumably her divorce had come through by this time and she was free to marry?

The surviving children (my uncles) had no idea they were born out of wedlock until after my gran had died in 1977 and were shocked to say the least!    

My question is this:
Assuming my gran and her lover went to register the first 2 births together in 1942 and 1944 is there any reason why those children would have had to take her married surname rather than that of their father (grans lover)   I've not seen a copy of the certificates so I'm assuming the lover was listed as the father. 

Could my grans husband have been listed as the father simply because he was still married to her even though he wasnt the father? 
  
Would the lover have to have been present with gran to register the birth if she were naming him as the father of her child?

Netty

PS The "lover" was the most wonderful man in the world. The man I called Granddad. I'm ROFLing lots at the thought of my beloved granddad being my grans Live In Lover!    Bless him!

[MaryA]

Hi, I just noticed that you hadn't as yet received any replies so thought I'd give it a go, although I'm not an expert on these matters. 

To the best of my belief if parents are married to each other then either may register the child.

If the parents were not married to each other then the mother alone registered the birth and the father details could only be entered if he was present at the time.

So I think it's not fair to make such an assumption as the father being there until you see the actual certificate, but as far as the children taking the first husband's surname, well it was actually your gran's name at that time, so they were registered with the same name as she was using for herself. 

Hope this helps a little
Mary

[Guy Etchells]

All children born during a marriage are assumed to have been fathered by the woman's husband unless proof to the contrary is shown.

Even if the father was present when the birth was registered proof would be required (such as the husband being abroad at the appropriate time) that the child could not possibly be the husband's child before he/she could be registered in the lover's name.

By the time the 3rd and 4th children were born your gran had probably stopped mentioning her husband and simply stated that the lover was the child's father. They could then register the birth together.
Cheers
Guy

[Anette Flewers]

Hi
Thanks Guy and Mary for your comments. Very helpful    

I'm also inclined to agree that by the time child number 3 came along my gran and granddad were well established as a couple and gave up mentioning that they weren't married. It might be interesting to send off for that childs certificate just to see if gran was actually claiming to have remarried by that time! (which I know she wasn't)
Netty