What do you think?

[Daisy Loo]

Hi

I have a slightly different case...where my GGG-grandfather was born 2 months before his mother married his father who was listed as his father on his birth cert. The child was registered with his father's name, even though he wasn't married.  So if the father really was the father, and they were unmarried, it was most certainly possible for the baby to be registered under the father's name, and not as illigitimate.

In Ireland (where laws seems to be extremely old!), even today, when I had my two children, with my partner (we are not married), for me to register my partner as the father (even though I could name my children with his surname without him), he HAD to be present at the registration.

I think, if the baby is not registered with a name of a father, then the man that marries the mother is unlikely to be the father.  There could have been all sorts of reasons why a man would marry a woman who had just had a baby...he could have been a friend of the family, even related to a degree, he could actually have been friends with the lady...there were decent men around then too!

Just thought I would add my ha'penny's worth

Daisy Loo

Ps.  If the man took on the child from the age of a baby, and raised him as his own, isn't he every bit as much a father to him?  So the man's ancestry could prove just as important as a biological father's would.

[silvery]

I think the other way, to be getting married to a woman so soon after a birth would indicate to me that he was the father of the child.

I can't find them in the records, or the censuses.  Are they in Scotland?

[Evie]

In my case I feel this man was good enough to bring up this child, was part of his family, although not by blood, and so I have included the rest of the family in my tree although made a note of the relationships.
Evie

Ps. If the man took on the child from the age of a baby, and raised him as his own, isn't he every bit as much a father to him? So the man's ancestry could prove just as important as a biological father's would.

That was my thinking too.

Evie

[Daisy Loo]

I think the other way, to be getting married to a woman so soon after a birth would indicate to me that he was the father of the child.

I can't find them in the records, or the censuses.  Are they in Scotland?

If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father?  Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name?  I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?

[Evie]

I can't find them in the records, or the censuses.  Are they in Scotland?

There were only 2 marriages I could see in England in 1885 were at Hendon - possible Charles Mantle or a John Chase. The woman however was called Mary Jane Lathwell

Unless as you say they were elsewhere other than England.

Evie

[Galium]

If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father?  Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name?  I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?

Since 1875 in England and Wales (I don't know the law on this in other countries), the father of a child born out of wedlock can not be named on the birth certificate unless he is present at the registration to give his consent to this.  Some mothers partly got around this by giving the father's surname as a forename.

The child does not have a surname given on the birth certificate, there is a space only for the forename/s (this changed after 1969).   Thus the child's name will be indexed on the GRO index under the mother's surname if she is unmarried.   In a case where the father's name appears although he is not married to  the mother, the child will appear in the index twice, once with each surname.

If the parents were unaware of the law about not naming the father, so that the father didn't go along to the registration,  the child would be registered without the father's name, regardless of anyone's wishes.  A later amendment to the registration is possible, but perhaps it didn't always seem important to the parents.

[Daisy Loo]

If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father?  Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name?  I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?

The child does not have a surname given on the birth certificate, there is a space only for the forename/s (this changed after 1969).   Thus the child's name will be indexed on the GRO index under the mother's surname if she is unmarried.   In a case where the father's name appears although he is not married to  the mother, the child will appear in the index twice, once with each surname.

In the case I have (you are totally correct ...no surname for baby never really took note!), James Barnett was born in early Dec 1843, the parents married late Jan 1844.  On the birth cert, the mother's surname was BARNETT, formerly Cock...hence they must have lied to the Registrar.

[coombs]

Hi

I agree with Silvery here. I think if a man married a woman soon after having a baby then it is more likely he was the childs father. Normally you only married a woman with a baby if it was yours. If he said he was the dad then that is good enough, especially in a baptism. I am sceptical that there are many men who would admit paternity of another mans child. A few might, but not many I dont think. It is rare that the father appears on an illegitimate childs birth cert, whether or not he is known. If the mother was honest to the registrar about the illegitimacy and planned to marry the father then the registrar would still have probably noted the truth. There were many reasons for illegitimacy. If a man admitted paternity of an illegitimate child, then I think that is pretty conclusive. He was doing the right thing.

If the father was still married into the mothers pregnancy, then that is a strong suggestion as to why the baby was illegitimate.

Ben

[Diablo]

Hi all

Thanks for your input on this problem.  I obtained the marriage certificate of Frederick George Lathwell who married Miriam Perkins on 31 March 1907 in Hendon.  On the marriage certificate the fathers name is George Lathwell deceased.  If this is correct then on his birth certificate Jane Lathwell, his mother, is her married name and her maiden name is unknown(no father on the birth cert).  I suppose there is a small chance they both had the same surname.  So with that above  and the birth certificate of Frederick George Lathwell b 15 April 1885 in Leighton Buzzard that is all I have to go on.  I cannot find any trace of Jane Lathwell after this date but I can find George Lathwell in the census's of Hendon living with his parents(William Lewington & Emma) in the 1901 census and in the 1881 census. In the 1871 census he lived with his parents in Leighton Buzzard.  I cannot find a marriage between George Lathwell and Jane either.

I have attached the certificates. ^(*)

Any help is appreciated.



^(*) Moderator Comment:  images deleted