Genealogy Chat

I have a birth cert for 1872 where the child was given his fathers surname, the father was named (but only his surname) and the mother registered his birth using her maiden name. The parents married a couple of years later Jacqui

Georgina I think if they were known as a 'married' couple and the woman called herself Mrs Jones formerly Brown then a registrar would probably accept them as a married couple unless he knew the facts.As far as I know, no proof of marriage was required. We have a birth certificate for someone doing that in the 1800s but she was later in a census back in her maiden name( as was the child) but still with the child's father. We still haven't quite worked out the reasoning in that household!

Thanks :-)

The only man who can be automatically named is the mother's husband (although that doesn't mean he is the biological father, the law just asumes he is!). This is still true today.

I think Tracy's right. The father must be present at registration if the couple are not married (even today I think). Kath. x

I've received a couple of birth certificates for illegitimate births recently, neither of which lists the father's name. Both are Victorian, and I know that leaving a blank space in these circumstances was normal at that time. Was it illegal for the father's name to be given if the couple weren't married, or was that just the convention at the time? And when did illegitimate birth certificates start to include both the mother AND father's name? Has anybody ever had a Victorian or Edwardian birth certificate where both parents are listed, even though they're not married? None of this really matters to my research I guess, I'm just curious!