Genealogy Chat

My g grandmother had a child before she was married and he was registered with her maiden name (as expected) She later married Mr Sam A. They must have split up, as several years later she lived with and had four children by Mr Ben B. The birth certs for these children read as if she was married to Mr B (only she is listed as informant). The family were known by and used her husband's name of A - the children who later married named their father as Ben A. and when she died (aged 44 yrs) on her death cert she was Mrs A wife of Ben A. I have been in touch with a second cousin who knew all about the two names and she thought that maybe to try and avoid being held financially responsible for his children Ben B decided to call himself Ben A. It gets quite complicted and it is difficult to find the logic behind this - if there is any !? I hope this makes sense.

along the same lines, does anyone know if it illegal not to enter the father on a childs birth certificate if the parents were married? Linda

Accordingly, that explains more clearly, why the middle child got the fathers name Merry............right timeline, and both parents obviously must have attended. Thankyou all for the very informative advice. Jen

Sorry Helen......I got interupted and so lots of other posts since I began the last message!! See the last bit I wrote under the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Merry

From this site: http://www.dixons(.)clara(.)co.uk/Certificates/births.htm ''Whether father is entered in the register depends on two factors - were the couple married (always entered) and what date the registration was made (maybe - maybe not). The early registrations between 1837 and approximately 1850 are a little mixed. The Act of Parliament of 1836 reads 'And it be enacted that the father or mother of every child born in England................shall within 42 days next after the day of every such birth give information upon being requested so to do to the Registrar, according to the best of his or her knowledge and belief of the several particulars hereby required to be known and registered touching the birth of such child provided always that it shall not be necessary to register the name of any father of a bastard child.' Now some registrars interpreted that quite freely and put father in even where the couple were not married and only mother or someone else was signing the register and some did not allow fathers details to be entered in the register. By about 1850 the situation had been clarified and the instructions read quite clearly 'No putative father is to be allowed to sign an entry in the character of 'Father' '. From that time, therefore there are 2 kinds of entries in the register (1) Where the parents were married to one another, fathers details must be entered in the register and only one parent will sign the register (or some other informant) (2) Where the parents were not married to one another there will be blanks in Column 4 (fathers name) and Column 6 (his occupation). This situation lasted until the Registration Act of 1875 where the instruction read 'The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants'. '' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, before 1850 you might get a dad's name even if he wasn't present at the registrars (we have one like this from 1846) From 1850 to 1875 the father could not be added if the parents were not married - end of story. From 1875 to date, the father could be added if he attended the registrars with the mother. (we have one like this from 1897) If both parents are on the cert and they have different surnames, there should be two entries in the GRO index. Merry

Debbie, Sounds like quite a strange custom, though I suppose not that far removed from a divorcee here in England, continuing to go by their married name or reverting back to their maiden name, as long as they continue to use whichever is chosen? Perhaps someone will know about the custom in England then Debbie? Thankyou for that little snipett. Jen

Alter, I'm with you there, that's precisely what had crossed my mind but, it would appear that they may have lied about being married. Only the cert will tell I suppose, depending on what column the fathers name appears in? That's the way I am interpreting it at the moment. Jen

I must come back to this once I have the certs, as all this about taking the fathers name or the mothers name, still begs the question of whether or not one or more of the children would have subsequently been legally married themselves, were they NOT aware of whichever name they were registered under? Hope that makes sense or am I just Blathering lol? Not that it would make no odds now.......but does raise some interesting issues, which I would love to understand. Thanks Helen, Merry, Eileen and everyone for your very revealing input. Jen

This is a wild stab in the dark,but maybe the fatherhad to register the second in person himself because the mother was unwell at the time.

My goodness, I didn't think that what was such a standard question, would generate so much interest but, it all makes for very interesting reading and all the better for being discussed. Eileen, sorry about your dog, hope he recovers. As far as I'm aware, there was no inheritance at stake, though having said as much, my g grandfather was the eldest son of an entrepreneurial businessman for those times. I think he just married too young and discovered early on, that it wasn't working. His wife I found, was actually living with someone else after the split. He must have then met g grandmother and started his family. His wife whether unfortunate, unlucky or planned........never had any children to anyone, as far as I can discover. Their children were born in 1886, 1888, 1890. The eldest being my gran. G grandad died very young at 33 with pneumonia. And G grandmother always called herself Mrs and widow afterwards. There is NO marriage recorded for her with anyone. When he died in 1892, within a couple of weeks, his legal wife had re~married to the man she was with and in the 1901, I traced them to their new address. That's how it became so apparant, what had happened. Therefore, there was never any chance for my g grandfather and g grandmother to marry, which I'm sure they would have done given all the circumstances.........I suppose it wasn't meant to be for them. I can understand, how and why, this skeleton was well hidden. Jen

OK, details from 'Birth Certificate Tutorial' 'In the Registration Act of 1875 where the instruction read 'The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants'. Where the parents are not married to one another but both attended the register office together, fathers details are entered in Column 4 and Column 6 and both parents sign. Looked at a different way - if both parents have signed in Column 7 regardless of what names they are using then the parents were not married to one another at the time of the birth of the child. This situation lasted until 1953 when there were other ways in which father when not married to mother could be included in the entry without being present to sign but I don't think this later period will be of interest to most family historians so I haven't included it. If a mother was widowed before the birth of her legitimate baby the entry will show (deceased) after fathers name. The child will take its surname from that of father in Column 4 where the parents were married and from mother in Column 5 if they were not married and fathers name is not entered. The child could take either surname if it was a joint entry and both mother and fathers surnames are shown but are different. The name given for father is the name he was known by at the time of the birth of the baby. These days if the father has changed his name between his own birth and that of his child he could be entered in the register as John SMITH formerly known as John GRAY but that was not the case until fairly recently. If a man adopted his stepfather's name or that of the family who brought him up or used his fathers name even though only mothers was shown on his birth certificate, you are going to have a problem going back any more generations. You have to remember that until the recent advances in fertility treatment - the maternity of the child has never been in doubt but the paternity is known only to the mother! Seriously - it is the reason why the mother has always been the prime informant for the birth of a child even since 1837' Clear as mud isn't it?

Merry I just copied and pasted from GRO site so assume this is correct. I'll have another google and see if anyone else says different.

This sems to be quite general. I have several certificates giving the father's name and showing the mother with his name then saying ' formally----- '. Haven't yet found their marriage though and beginning to doubt I ever will as several of the children were born before the 1837 registration, so even allowing for a much later marriage it still doesn't seem to exist unless the name was badly mis-spelled. One day, perhaps.

In my family, I had 2 uncles that were registered in both surnames on the birth index as the parents were not actually married at the time, though they lived as if they were married and my grandma used my grandfather's surname. I don't think that the uncles knew that their births had been registered in both names, I've found them in the birth index on Ancestry under both surnames which surprised me. Another daughter was registered in her father's (my grandfather's) name but they had gone to another country and said that they were married and so that was why she had his name and was not registered also in the mother's surname. Is it common for illegitimate births to be registered under both surnames? Claire

Helen (Smith)......Are you sure it was 1953 before the father could be named for unmarried parents?? Trying to find the bit of paper I had about this!! (LOL back in 100 days!) Merry

Another few thoughts - divorce took ages in the 1800s - at least seven years, and I think back then even longer, also the grounds were slightly differently applied. There is also the point about inheritance, it is not so long ago that girls did not inherit the same way as boys, so maybe an inheritance was being protected. Was there a war on then, if the absent husband was missing in a war it would be a long time before he could be declared dead and a remarriage allowed. Just a few possibilities that came to be whilst up half the night with sick dog. Eileen

Hi Paul, That was my initial interpretation of the whole set up Paul. Particularly as this info never came through the family. I think that the subsequent generation, my mum, aunts and uncle, were blissfully unaware of the true facts. I was surprised to discover this info, the first skeleton in my family cupboard so to speak lol! Thanks everyone for all your advice and information. I am definately going to get the certs now.......I can't NOT sate my curiosity after all this. Jen

Hi In one branch of the family I am researching, the mother although still married to but seperated from her husband (Mr X) had several children by the man she lived with (Mr Y). The first few birth certificates show that she registered herself as Mrs Y and the children were registered under Mr Y's name. On the 4th occassion she must have been questioned by the registrar because there is a line through her surname as Mrs Y and her married surname Mrs X appears below it. The child was still registered under the Mr Y's surname. Finally she married the Mr Y and all further children were registered under his name. I think someone said a while ago that it was probably because everyone thought that with them living together they must be married so they probably went along with it. Cheers Paul

Just had a look at my BC as I knew my parents were not marrried when I was born....... Daddy told fibs whoops......!! mum has his surname and formally xxxx when I know and have the certificate that they got married nearly 3 years later.......... Double check everything using other sources and don't always believe what's on those certs! I'm so glad I paid attention to where my other half was born or else our children would have wrong info on their certs.

Thanks for that Helen, very informative. Still mystified how they got away with listing the middle child under his name though? I'm even more curious now, I'm going to get the certs to double check, as this is interesting. I can understand how no-one in the family was aware of this situation until I turned it up, as they would have been protecting the children from the stigma. As their youngest child was a boy and we always knew him by his fathers name, and if he had definately been registered under his mothers name...................but he never knew, I wonder what name went on his marriage cert..................and would he have been legally married???? Come to think of it, IF my gran, their eldest daughter was registered under mothers name though, as I know, married under fathers name..........would she have been legally married??? The mind boggles doesn't it lol??? Must get those certs............ Thanks again everyone. Jen