RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: mckha489 on Thursday 01 September 22 01:56 BST (UK)
-
My daughter is friends with a couple who had a baby a year ago. (In Wales). Both parents are named on the birth certificate. Next month they are getting married and they have been told they will need to re-register the birth after the marriage to legitimise the child.
Does that make sense to anyone at all? I could understand it if the father wasn’t named on the cert but a new cert is not going to have a single bit of different information on it.
And what is the advantage of doing it anyway?
-
There must have been a change in the law since 1960, which is when I knew two singletons who had a baby but weren't allowed to marry until they were 21. The baby's father was named on the certificate.
The parents married when they were 21 and went to register the baby but were told that because the baby was under three years old, the baby didn't need to be registered again because she became legitimate as soon as her parents married each other - and 60+ years later the parents are still together.
-
Thanks Rena, that makes much more sense. Perhaps they have just been given the wrong information by someone.
-
The difference is, the child will no longer be 'illegitimate' ;)
I see what you're saying but the 're-registration' will show the parents as being married as the mother will have the surname of the father with 'formerly' X (Maiden surname), a technical formality but it's obviously important for whatever reason.
It would be worth an email to GRO for an explanation although the same applies here in Scotland.
AntonyMMM will probably see your post & comment as he's a retired Registrar.
Annie
-
I see what you're saying but the 're-registration' will show the parents as being married as the mother will have the surname of the father with 'formerly' X (Maiden surname)
It won’t if the mother is keeping her maiden name. And there isn’t a space on an English cert that gives details of the marriage is there?
-
I see what you're saying but the 're-registration' will show the parents as being married as the mother will have the surname of the father with 'formerly' X (Maiden surname)
It won’t if the mother is keeping her maiden name. And there isn’t a space on an English cert that gives details of the marriage is there?
You didn't state the mother was keeping her maiden name in your initial post i.e. an explanation from GRO would help as I doubt there are many (if any) on RC with that experience.
There's no space (like on a Scottish MC) for details of parents' marriage.
I (think) my niece kept her maiden name when she married & it may be double-barrelled (maiden & married) or (married & maiden) ??? although to be honest I've never looked it up & as it's quite recent in yrs, it may not even be available on FreeBMD?
Annie
-
I don’t know if she is keeping her maiden name or not. I was just thinking out loud. I just cannot see the point of issuing a new certificate either way.
-
I don’t know if she is keeping her maiden name or not. I was just thinking out loud. I just cannot see the point of issuing a new certificate either way.
Neither can I - unless the mother is changing her surname, when the 'formerly' bit may be added. But plenty of women go through life with double identities these days (as far as I know) without needing any second certificates.
-
Thank you Andrew.
-
Just found
https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/register-and-re-register-a-childs-birth/
“Application to re-register a child’s birth following marriage or the entering into of a civil partnership of natural birth parents
If the parents have married or enter into a civil partnership after the child was born, they are legally required to re-register the birth. This is the case even if the father is already on the child’s birth certificate. This particular requirement stems from The Legitimacy Act, section 9. “
It’s crackers!
-
I suppose it may depend on which parent's surname the child was given originally ?
-
I wonder if the child registration after the parents married had to change due to legal requirements of which child could inherit what when the parents died. Maybe there was a question of legitimacy if the child was not registered again after its parents married. On the other hand maybe "The law is an ass" after all. ::)
-
Might it be in-case the mother married a man of the same name & not the father of the child?
The info. on the legislation isn't clear at all.
Annie
-
A child being made legitimate by the later marriage of the parents was introduced by the Legitimacy Act 1926. At that time it was optional to re-register the birth, but there was a condition that both the parents had to have been free to marry at the time of the child's birth (this was to prevent the law being seen to condone adultery apparently). The birth registers of 1927 and 1928 are full of re-registrations under this act, with some of the births having taken place many years before. I have an example of a child born in 1892 whose parents married in 1894 and who eventually got around to re-registering the birth in 1939.
The couple have to be the parents of the child - a re-registration can't be used to legitimise a step-parent relationship, nor does it ever have anything to do with adoption.
Even if the birth wasn't re-registered the child would still be regarded as legitimate under the provisions of the act.
That "free to marry" condition was removed in the Legitimacy Act of 1959, but re-registration was still optional.
The 1976 Legitimacy Act (s9) made it a legal requirement that the children must be re-registered, this is why a registrar will remind a couple who already have children when they come to give notice to marry, and usually also again at the ceremony itself. However many couples forget, or just don't bother, so it doesn't always get done.
Apart from the stigma, illegitimacy still mattered in terms of inheritance rules right up to The Family Law Reform Act in 1987.
The way the information on a birth certificate is shown makes it immediately clear whether the child is that of a married couple or not so the new certificate issued from the re-registration clearly shows that the child is legitimate and born to a married couple. Whether the mother has changed her name or not is irrelevant - a maiden name will be shown, even if it is the same as the married name she is using ( using "formerly" to indicate a maiden name hasn't been done for many years - the maiden name now goes into a separate space on the entry).
The child's name and surname can also, in some circumstances, be changed at the time of re-registration, although subject to quite a few restrictions.
As many couples do now marry after having children, these re-registrations are very common and happen all the time.
-
My daughter had her first child in 2011. Both parents were named on the cert and the child took her father's surname. The parents married in 2012 and had to re-register the child (or go through some such official process) so that she would no longer be illegitimate. I suppose it's to do with inheritances etc. I was surprised when they told me.
Pat
-
Thank you!
The way the information on a birth certificate is shown makes it immediately clear whether the child is that of a married couple or not so the new certificate issued from the re-registration clearly shows that the child is legitimate and born to a married couple. Whether the mother has changed her name or not is irrelevant - a maiden name will be shown, even if it is the same as the married name she is using ( using "formerly" to indicate a maiden name hasn't been done for many years - the maiden name now goes into a separate space on the entry).
That is the crucial piece of information I could not find anywhere.