Genealogy Chat
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
What proof was required.
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Libby22 | Report | 14 Jan 2008 21:11 |
When helping someone else with a tangled web, we discovered that a baby born c.1890 was registered in the father's name, even though the couple weren't married..............well at least not to each other! However, on the census the baby was recorded with his mother's maiden name. I can only presume..........back then one wasn't asked for proof of a baby's legal surname. Possibly it was considered that citizen's would be in awe of authority , and too fearful to lie, if that's the case how naive of registrars. |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 14 Jan 2008 20:19 |
I have a copy of an 1839 birth certificate, where the mother registered the child in her 'married' name and names the father. |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 14 Jan 2008 18:22 |
You are right in that if a mother said she was Mrs. Smith, maiden names Jones, then the child would have the surname Smith (as if the mother was married). She wouldn't have to provide a marriage certificate. My own mother-in-law did this in the 1940's when registering her children. |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:59 |
It seems, from my research, that one of my Gt.Grandmothers was not married to my Gt.Grandfather. |
|||
|
Kay???? | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:52 |
Margaret S, |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:40 |
Reg, what would that prove? |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:22 |
Not so......... |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:20 |
Margaret, exactly my point. What proof would I have to give - as far as I can see, none. I could say anything to the Registrar and he would have to accept it. |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:16 |
As stated above, unmarried parents must both be present at the registration. Or the father must state in writing that the child is his........ |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 14 Jan 2008 17:11 |
No, I don't think you could do that, Margaret unless Tom, Dick, Harry or the Prince of Wales was with you to acknowledge paternity. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:58 |
Reg & Jim, thanks. |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:40 |
I have birth certificates where the birth is registered in some cases by the mother and in other cases by the father - and on the odd occasion by someone who was present at the birth. |
|||
|
Lindsey* | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:37 |
In some cases the father is long gone, in my family granny registered all the children as hers even way past child bearing age |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Thelma | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:35 |
Well I registered all my children. |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:33 |
If the parents are not married, the father must either attend the registratiion, or provide a sworn statement of paternity |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 14 Jan 2008 16:32 |
From my personal experience it's almost always been the Mother that has registered the birth of a child. |