Genealogy Chat

From GRO site The Act of Parliament of 1836 states 'And it be enacted that the father or mother or 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 the Register 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.' This was open to wide interpretation and some certificates entered the father's name even if they weren't married, while others omitted the father's name. In 1850 the situation changed and the law now said that 'No putative father is to be allowed to sign an entry in the character of Father.' This lasted until 1953 when the social situation regarding illegitimacy had shifted and the father could be acknowledged outside wedlock.

For unmarried couples I think it was only sometime in 20th century that a child could take the father's name if he was there at registration and consented. Before that the child had to have the mother's surname unless the couple lied about their marital status. I'm sure someone will know the date the rules changed but I'll try and google it up.

Eileen, how very sad that you and your sister were separated, I do hope your successful in your quest, and you meet up again some day. Thankyou for replying. Jen

In 1944 I was registered by my father as 'informant' - who was not my mother's husband. Fathers name rank regiment etc are all on my original birth cert. My full sister born in 1945 has no father named on her birth cert at all, only mother as 'informant'. As far as I know it was because when my sister was registered our father had been posted and was not there to be informant. Shortly afterwards we were both put up for adoption as mother's husband returned from overseas. Unfortunately we were separated and adopted to different families. If therefore my sister ever tries to search she will only have mother's maiden and married names to go on. If she searches under mother's married name, she will not receive a great reception as you can imagine. You will see many postings by me, trying to find my sister, - just another twist on the 'who registers whom' conundrum, which still goes on down the years. Eileen

Of course it does Tom and I take both yours and Merry's points, it does make good sense and I understand now how and why, in those days, that sort of thing came about. Thanks to both of you once again. Jen

No Merry, I understand what your explaining, and I think I have seen similar on other threads re this type of thing but, it's useful to have it explained by people more experienced, as this is part of my learning process. Thanks again. Jen

I just meant that if the mother was the informant, then maybe she said that she wasn't married - so the babies got her surname, but the father went to register the one with his surname and said they were married. (does that make sense lol)

Sorry, I've just realied....for the birth ''under the father's name'' I assumed you mean they were pretending to be married, but maybe you mean he was just listed as the father on that one? (but she didn't have his surname) If that's the case, then it's just that on that occassion he was able to attend the reg office. If he didn't attend and they were not married then he should not be on the cert (unless she lied and said they were wed) Gosh that reads back dreadfully!! Merry

No I haven't got the certs yet Tom but, why would whoever the witnesses were, make a difference? Thanks Merry. Jen

I think that if the parents were unmarried and the Father didn;t go with the mother, the baby had to take the mother's surname. In the case that they had the Father's surname maybe it was him who registered the birth and said they were married? Do you have the certs? Who were the witnesses?

This is only a guess, but maybe it depended on the questioning by the registrar??? You know how it's more difficult to lie to some people!! Merry

would my great grandparents who never married, because g grandad was actually married to someone else, though separated, have registered their first child under the mothers maiden name, their second child under the fathers name and their third child......yet again, under the mothers maiden name? I find this very odd, was it quite usual then in the late 1880's? Apparantly, they all went by their fathers name, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the family knew, until I uncovered it. Jen