Unmarried mother on birth registration

[AntonyMMM]

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.

[Gillg]

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. 

[bykerlads]

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)

[iolaus]

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

[Davedrave]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[brigidmac]

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 ?

[clairec666]

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.

[KGarrad]

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"?

Formerly meaning before; in the past.
Formally means officially, or in accordance with etiquette/convention.