Legitimising a child in the modern day

[mckha489]

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?

[Rena]

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.

[mckha489]

Thanks Rena, that makes much more sense.  Perhaps they have just been given the wrong information by someone.   

[Rosinish]

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

[mckha489]

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?

[Rosinish]

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

[mckha489]

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.

[Andrew Tarr]

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.

[mckha489]

Thank you Andrew.