Genealogy Chat

Helen, Before 1875 there was nothing to prevent an informant of a birth naming or inventing a father of an illegitimate child. After that, only if the the father agreed and was either present in person at the registration of the birth, or his written or sworn declaration of paternity was produced, could his name be inserted. After the introduction of the Legitimacy Act 1926, once the parents of such a child were married, the child became legitimate, and the birth was frequently re-registered a second time under the married name. Dierdre X

Thank you everyone for your imput into this thread, I presume that the parents were free to marry and that the father was also the man that the child's mother married but I suppose there is no way of being sure about the latter! I will order the marriage cert and see whether either party were married previously and go from there. Gerald, I fully agree with you that the child is not at fault but, as Gwynne mentioned, this was the term used at the time and for legal purposes now (and slightly more preferable to other terms!). Kind regards to all Helen

Hi Gerald, I'm not sure semantics come into it. I don't like the word any more than I like "base born" or "bastard" but that was the legal term. Not only was it (or one like it) the term used in law, it also featured in the Parish records. When I transcribe the records I accurately write what is there. It's not my job to edit them. Such terms wouldn't be found in today's PRs (at least I hope not) but we cannot rewrite history. Please don't think I would use the term today. I was using it in the historical context in the same way as the original questioner. This site is about history not current events. I certainly wouldn't use it in any conversation that wasn't historical. Gwynne

Hi, I think the child could only be "legitimised" if the parents were free to marry at the time the child was born. If the father was married to someone else at the time then the child remianed illegitimate. Gwynne

yes, the marriage would make him legally legitimate, assuming of course that the man his mother married really was his father

After many months of fruitless searching I have eventually found my great, great grandparents' marriage - only problem was they were married in 1885 but they had my great grandfather in 1879 (shock horror!). I have his birthcert that shows his mother with her 'married' surname and nee her 'maiden' name so they must have lied to the registrar. I just wonder as, seeing as his parent were married after his birth, whether this would make him legitimate in the eyes of the law? Thanks. Helen.