Birth registration 17 years late?

[Maiden Stone]

Leslie was the oldest - two daughters followed him. Found their birth registrations, no similar issues with them. 

 

If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

[bibliotaphist]

My niece registered her 2 children at birth and then again after she married in the 2000's, can't see the point myself as they were already registered in her married name, if they were a tad ashamed at the children being born out of wedlock it won't make any difference as they will have been registered twice anyway as Lisajb discovered

Louisa Maud

Re-registration of children after the marriage of the parents is a legal requirement, at least in England/Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents

[AntonyMMM]

My niece registered her 2 children at birth and then again after she married in the 2000's, can't see the point myself as they were already registered in her married name

It is  a legal requirement to re-register the birth of children after the later marriage of their parents, not an option (although many don't actually bother)  - they were probably reminded by the registrar when they got married.

..The children were born and registered in the late 1920s under their mother's married surname. He married the mother in 1938, after the death of her first estranged husband. The children were then re-registered under his surname.

Children aren't registered under any surname at all before 1969 - the entries are indexed by mother or father's surname (or both) according to their marital status.



Late registrations are quite a rare thing, although they do occur - nearly all the ones I've looked at turn out to be re-registrations for one reason or another.

[louisa maud]

Well I have learnt something today after researching for donkeys years, I never knew  the children had to be re-registered and legitimised my nieces were registered in their mothers  marriage name (to be) anyway , if they were in her maiden name I could understand that, I also think that not many do re-register their children

Thank you for clarifying that point even though I was not the originator

Louisa Maud

[Lisajb]

I have one couple who married in their 50s, after the birth of 7 children, they don’t seem to have bothered re-registering the children.

[iolaus]

been married 17 years probably should redo the 18 year old but I don't see why, the record is true from when she was born

[Melbell]

Well I have learnt something today after researching for donkeys years, I never knew  the children had to be re-registered and legitimised my nieces were registered in their mothers  marriage name (to be) anyway , if they were in her maiden name I could understand that, I also think that not many do re-register their children

Thank you for clarifying that point even though I was not the originator

Louisa Maud

Registrars arranging a couple's marriage will advise about re-registration of children and hand out the appropriate forms, but for religious marriages this is unlikely to happen, so the procedure gets missed. 

Melbell

[CaroleW]

If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

Leslie was born 3.2.1911 as per earlier reply.  Parents marriage was in the March qtr so anytime between 1st Jan and 31st March.  If the parents only married between 4.2.1911 and 31.3.1911 then the explanations above would apply

[Maiden Stone]

If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

Leslie was born 3.2.1911 as per earlier reply.  Parents marriage was in the March qtr so anytime between 1st Jan and 31st March.  If the parents only married between 4.2.1911 and 31.3.1911 then the explanations above would apply

I meant that Leslie's younger sisters were legitimate, having been born after parents' marriage. I was referring to the girls when I wrote "they".