Genealogy Chat

I had my daughter in 1999 and the registra didnt come to our hosiptal. However, we did get given a brown envelope with details of where to register the birth, opening times etc and a piece of paper with baby's birth details on etc. My friend was in and out within a couple of hours for her third baby, dropped her girls off at school in the morning and home with baby for about half 10. Although she does have a severe laytex allergy bless her.

That's a good point, Reggie, I had forgotten that! OC

Perhaps they stopped doing it, then. The idea was, I think, to save new mothers having to trek miles to register a birth. Certainly, the hospital where my children were born, drew mothers from a ninety mile radius, and from even further afield now, so goodness knows how some people manage to register, when it requires a cross-county trip! OC

They don't stay in hospital long enough for anyone to catch them nowadays!! OH's g/dau was back home less than 24 hrs after going into hospital when she had her two.......... Reg

Hello The registrar visited me in hospital in 1987 for my daughters registration but I don't remember that option being available in 1990 and 1993 for my sons. I was a bit befuzzled at the time though so wouldn't like to say for sure :) Kate

Margaret, That's right - you have to go to the register office within 6 weeks to register a birth. Other than that, sometimes the registrar would visit the hospital so new mothers could register the births. This happened in my case when I had my two boys in the 1970's. I'm not sure whether or not it still happens now. Kath. x

Margaret It is a long time since I have had to register the birth of a child, lol, but basically, yes, you have to go in person to do the registration. However many large hospitals have regular visits from the Registrar, who will do the registration there and then, for those who wish to do so. OC

When our son was born, someone from the registrar's office visited the hospital on a weekly basis to do the paperwork. Mind you, new mothers stayed in hospital for 10 days at that time. Reg

From what I am reading in this thread about registering births - it seems that you have to go to an office in person to do that. Is that correct? Over here, I just got a form that we completed and signed and mailed in to the relevant department of the government. They do check with the hospital etc. about the birth before accepting the application (this I know because I made a mistake with my second son's birth date - I got mixed up with the spaces for date and month on the form)

just to add if the parents marry after the birth, they legitimise the birth and the birth can be re registered with the father added. My twins were registered (1995) with no father, as he couldn't get time off work to attend with me, however youngest (1998) has his father on his cert. All three were registered with my maiden name. When we married 2002 we re-registerd all three births. Now if we apply for one of the boys certs, we will only get the latest one showing them with the married surname.

Hi Beryl I have a relative who died during his wife pregnancy , on the birth cert. it states Father's name and' Deceased ' below his name.

It would depend on whether or not he had been married to the child's mother. If he was her husband, he would, as OC said, have been automatically assumed to be the child's father........unless the mother indicated otherwise. Reg

Star Yes, that's right, except that the law of the land states that the husband of a married woman is ALWAYS (and legally) the father of her children. If he isn't, and knows he isn't, he has to go to the Registrar and kick up a big fuss, and provide proof that he is not the father of the child. OC

Ok, thankyou people...I get it now. They weren't married at the time and maybe the Father was at work for example when the Mother registered the baby, so therefore the Father wouldn't have gone onto the Birth certificate unless married at the time, which then legally she is allowed to do without him being there?

Victoria It was very common for a child to be given the name of his biological father as his two forenames - indeed, it was often encouraged by Vicars, and later by Registrars, who felt sympathetic towards the woman, but whose hands were tied by the law of the land. A nice compromise. The fathers of most illegitimate children are well known, both to the mother AND to the wider community. OC

Star, I suppose one can never be 100% sure - but if the child you are talking about has the name of the man you think is his father as his given names, it implies he is, indeed the father. I know of one case, back in the 1700s where an illigitimate child is baptised as William Wix and with his mother's surname. The baptism immediately prior to the child's baptism was the child of William and Eliner Wix. I don't think it is drawing too long a bow to think that William Wix was the child's father. Victoria

The word illegitimate also has legal implications, mostly to do with inheritance rights. An illegitimate child cannot automatically inherit any property etc from the Estate of his biological father, and has no inheritance rights unless the biological father specifically names the child in his Will. This was an important distinction when the laws of Primogeniture were in operation in England, up until the late 1800s. OC

Definition illegitimate adjective 1 born of parents not married to each other Reg

Star Parents not married = child illegitimate. Illegitimate = father's name cannot go in the space for 'father' UNLESS he attends registration with the mother. surname = anything you want to call yourself, as long as you are not doing it to defraud or deceive. OC

Star It still happens now days If my OH wasn't there with me to register our 2 children then his name wouldn't of gone down, and all because we're not married. Julie Adding this on to go with what Reg has put. My 2 were born in 1997 & 2000 and they are both illegitimate