RootsChat.Com
Ireland (Historical Counties) => Ireland => Topic started by: Anyhows on Sunday 04 May 14 19:38 BST (UK)
-
I was wondering if anyone could please help me with a question?
My ancestor was born in Ireland in 1877 and we have a certified copy of his birth certificate. We now think that his parents married several months after he was born, but there is no mention of him being illegitimate on his birth certificate and both his parents names are listed on it??
Would Irish birth certificates at that time not contain any detail on whether a child was illegitimate, and would they contain both parents names, regardless of whether or not they were married?
-
Where a child was illegitimate the birth certificate would normally only have the mother’s name. The father’s name would only be entered if he was present at the registration and acknowledged paternity. If he wasn’t there or didn’t acknowledge paternity, the father’s name section would be left blank.
The birth certificate won’t contain any direct information about whether the parents were married nor whether the child was illegitimate, but you can usually infer it if the mother doesn’t have a maiden name (there’s a section that says: “formerly…..” and that will usually be blank).
In this particular case it looks as though the father acknowledged paternity.
-
It is highly likely that they just didn't bother telling the registrar that they weren't in fact quite married when the child was born. Presumably they had planned to do so ,and thought that a few months didn't make much difference :)
-
One set of my ancestors' wedding was only officially registered 5 months after the actual wedding service. I don't know why and I suppose I will never find out ::)
-
It is highly likely that they just didn't bother telling the registrar that they weren't in fact quite married when the child was born. Presumably they had planned to do so ,and thought that a few months didn't make much difference :)
The Registrar will have asked the mother if she was married. If she said yes, then you would expect to see her maiden name against “formerly”. If she said no, then the certificate should just have the 2 parents names. So that way you may be able to work out what happened.
-
Sometimes the priests recorded illigitimacy on baptisms of children.
-
Thanks for all of your help everyone. Greatly appreciated.
It just seemed very strange to me. He was born in May 1877 and his parents appear to have been married in January 1878. His mother’s name is also listed on his birth certificate and it was a civil marriage, not a religious one, even though the family were all brought up as Roman Catholic.
I guess if we can find a copy of his baptism record that might shed some light on this.
-
Just a thought - is the 'certified copy' an original entry photocopied/digitally copied onto a modern day certificate by the registrars office, or is it a transcription of the original certificate and either handwritten or typed onto a modern day certificate by the registrars office? If the latter, could 1879 have been entered mistakenly as 1877? Did you find him on the Civil Index for 1877 or did you ask for a search 5 yrs either side of a certain year, that could have picked up both 1877 and 1879 entries?
-
My great grandparents were married in 1914, 21 years after the birth of all of their 10 children.
On every single birth cert they just said yes they were married- no one checked. ;D
-
If you haven't gotten the marriage cert do get it!! Some certs I've come across have been registered months after the marriage took place, some of the time the marriage only took place a few months before the first child was born, so while the index might say January 1878 it might have actully taken place months before hand...
-
My Grandmother is the youngest of six children and the only one still living.
Like myself, she was highly amused, when I discovered that she was the only one born in wedlock! :o ;D
On all six of the children's birth certs, my Great-Grandmother is recorded as 'formerly....' and my Great-Grandfather appears on all of them too.
My Great-Grandmother wore an engagement and wedding ring, and none of the living members of the family knew about the marriage - which took place 11 years after the first child was born, and not in the local church, but the registry office, of a neighbouring town!
It's my impression that it was quite easy to pull off the pretence of being married. I don't think the Registrar would ask for any kind of proof??
Kind regards, Glen.
-
My grandma is number 7 out of 10 children,her parents only married when she was 14,21 years after the first of their 10 children was born.
Every birth cert says Amy Rogers formerly Rapkin (except they fibbed!)
I'd love to know why they didn't marry till 1914,and then why they chose then to marry.
No checks were made then,nor were they when I married in 1973,no one asked to see proof of marital status of even our birth certs.
-
Just recently discovered an illegitamate birth thanks to the new Irish Genealogy site giving mothers maiden name,fathers name on cert giving appearance of married couple however no marriage recorded for them and the mother later got married to a different spouse within 3 years,no sign of the child after her birth,no death recorded for her.
-
Also my grand uncle Hugh O'Neill married Kathleen Gillespie in 1920 it took me years to find his marriage because it does not appear on Family Search till 1946 in Dublin North which i bought to show he was indeed married in 1920 no idea why registered so late.
Searching the new Irish Genealogy civil index shows his marriage reg in 1920.