Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

No father on a birth cert

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Ann

Ann Report 1 Dec 2003 17:40

I've just started looking at my husband's side of the family. I have a birth in 1933 where there is no father recorded just a line. Yet the mother is identified as Jane Smith formerly Brown. (These are not the right names, but as the person involved is still alive, I'd rather not use them). Smith is the name the child was known by, and was as far as we knew the name of the father. Jane and the child certainly lived with Mr Smith until Jane's death a few years later. So is there any reason the father wouldn't be recorded unless the child was illegitimate ?

Margaret

Margaret Report 1 Dec 2003 17:47

Ann It could be that the marriage took place after the birth. Therefore there would be a line for the father's name. My husband's gg grandmother was the same. Her birth and marriage were under her mother's name and line for father

Ann

Ann Report 1 Dec 2003 21:39

Mary, Thanks for the reply - but the mother does appear to have been married at least when the birth was registered as she is identified as "Smith formerly Brown". Unless of course she wasn't married to the father.....

Keith

Keith Report 1 Dec 2003 23:04

Hello Ann. If Mr S was the father then his name should appear in the appropriate space. Were the Mother and Mr S married at the time of the birth - if so then he would appear not to be the father - and after that the imagination takes over. Keith

Ann

Ann Report 2 Dec 2003 00:32

Thanks Keith, Thats more or less the conclusion I'd come to. Mother is calling herself Mrs S, so presumably she and Mr S were married at the time of the birth, unless she is just using the name S. So it does look as though S wasn't the father. Oh goody. Ann

Montmorency

Montmorency Report 2 Dec 2003 09:45

Rules and practices have varied, but I believe, if the parents weren't legally married, the father couldn't be named, unless both parents attended the RO together and signed. Usually this didn't happen because people didn't know However, if Jane were normally going under the name of Jane Smith, for whatever reason, it would be correct to show that On the other hand, if Jane were legally married at the time of the birth, there would be a presumption that the husband was the father and his name would go down. Married women often do play away, but mostly they don't tell and registrars don't want to know All seems consistent with Mr Smith being the father and the couple living together as husband and wife but not having tied the knot (yet)

Paul

Paul Report 2 Dec 2003 13:04

I think you had better take cover Robin!!!!!!!!! "Married women often do play away" Paul

BobClayton

BobClayton Report 2 Dec 2003 15:29

I think Robin meant "sometimes" not "often"(I hope) Bob