Searching for children of a relative outside of marriage

[AntonyMMM]

To trace a child in this sort if circumstances  it is very important to understand some of the rules around how birth indexes work.

Ultimately, you can't be sure of the marital status of the parents(s) nor even whether both are named with 100% certainty just from the index entry alone, but you can sometimes narrow the possibilities down a little ....if you know the following:


The child has no surname itself on a birth register entry (before 1969), so you need to remember that the surnames in the index are those of one or both of the parents named on the entry, depending on  their marital status.

So it is never a question of a woman "giving" a child a previous husbands surname - if she is still using that surname herself, then that is the name the entry will be indexed under, as appears to be the case for the 1945 registration.

A maiden name appearing in the index, does not necessarily mean that a father is named on the entry or that the parents are married.

Nor (for registration purposes) is a woman's husband automatically deemed to be the father of her child - she CAN name him as such without him being present, but if she does that knowing it to be false then she commits perjury.

She subsequently had a second child (my father) who was born in 1945. His birth was original registered under her married name with father unknown which was subsequently updated in 1947 when she married my grandfather.

It wouldn't  say unknown, it would be blank - an unmarried father can't be entered on the birth register entry unless he is present to sign the register with the mother as a joint informant.

The 1947 entry will be a re-registration (under the Legitimacy Act) after the parents marriage.

[iolaus]

So from what I can tell his name was registered under her first married name purely because thats what she was using - she then registered him

Am I right in thinking this is an Islington birth?

[Josephine]

That's remarkable!

Josephine...

I was in awe when I saw that BC, I couldn't believe it! 

I've pondered over posting this for a few yrs now but it is 'remarkable' & worth posting if only to highlight the need to see 'original' documents!

The trouble here is, there were 2 candidates, father & son both named George, both Shoemakers i.e. we're not 100% sure yet of which was the 'Daddy'.

Annie

Yikes!

[TPH]

TPH,

Have you found all people concerned in 1939?

Have you looked for a death for your father' brother?

Annie

Yes. I traced my Father's brother. He died in 2019. I have a copy of his will which mentions his two children.

[TPH]

The marriage certificate (1946) list her married name (1st marriage) formerly Brundle, with the conditions 'formerly the wife of (something) (1st husband), from whom she (something) divorce.

Is it possible to post a snip with the above info. only to see if others can work out exactly what the MC records?

Annie

[TPH]

To trace a child in this sort if circumstances  it is very important to understand some of the rules around how birth indexes work.

Ultimately, you can't be sure of the marital status of the parents(s) nor even whether both are named with 100% certainty just from the index entry alone, but you can sometimes narrow the possibilities down a little ....if you know the following:


The child has no surname itself on a birth register entry (before 1969), so you need to remember that the surnames in the index are those of one or both of the parents named on the entry, depending on  their marital status.

So it is never a question of a woman "giving" a child a previous husbands surname - if she is still using that surname herself, then that is the name the entry will be indexed under, as appears to be the case for the 1945 registration.

A maiden name appearing in the index, does not necessarily mean that a father is named on the entry or that the parents are married.

Nor (for registration purposes) is a woman's husband automatically deemed to be the father of her child - she CAN name him as such without him being present, but if she does that knowing it to be false then she commits perjury.

She subsequently had a second child (my father) who was born in 1945. His birth was original registered under her married name with father unknown which was subsequently updated in 1947 when she married my grandfather.

It wouldn't  say unknown, it would be blank - an unmarried father can't be entered on the birth register entry unless he is present to sign the register with the mother as a joint informant.

The 1947 entry will be a re-registration (under the Legitimacy Act) after the parents marriage.

Thanks this makes. So if a women is not married and has a child with a named father who signs the register, would the child take on the mother or fathers surname?

[Rosinish]

"The 1947 entry will be a re-registration (under the Legitimacy Act) after the parents marriage."

"So if a women is not married and has a child with a named father who signs the register, would the child take on the mother or fathers surname?"

The child would be registered in the father's surname hence the reason he has to be there at registration or the child would automatically be registered in the mother's name.

However, an illegitimate child registered in the father's name (where the parents didn't subsequently marry), may revert to the mother's name if there was no contact between father & child from early days.

The child may even marry by the mother's surname.

Annie

[AntonyMMM]

So if a women is not married and has a child with a named father who signs the register, would the child take on the mother or fathers surname?

As I wrote before - before 1969 children are not registered with any surname at all. In the above circumstances in the old printed index, as used on FreeBMD etc. the entry would be INDEXED under both surnames (father and mother).

Which surname the child grew up using would be a decision for the parent(s) and depend on their circumstances.

[Rosinish]

"The marriage certificate (1946) list her married name (1st marriage) formerly Brundle, with the conditions 'formerly the wife of (something) (1st husband), from whom she (something) divorce."

I'm not sure if the image you posted has been stretched/magnified but it's difficult to read?

The only word I can get to fit although it doesn't look like it is...

from whom she subsequently divorced

Annie