Knowingly lying on a birth certificate

[Zaphod99]

Galium, the mother used her own unusual middle name as her surname.  The mother's five siblings all had a fairly common surname, but the elder daughter was given what is probably a distant family name as a middle name.  The elder daughter, the one who gave birth, either chose to use her middle name as her surname or was encouraged to by her own mother.

I will be buying the certificate, once I have ensured that nobody else in the family has already got it in their possession.

Zaph

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Or do you mean that the index is showing a mother's maiden name as well as the surname the birth is indexed by?  In which case  the birth has been registered as if the child was born to a married couple
and there will be father's details, albeit (probably) with the wrong surname.

Just because a birth registration looks as if the child was born to a married couple that does not mean a father will be named on the certificate. My birth index entry and cert are examples of that.  As Anthony has said on many threads there is no way to know what is on a cert based on the index.

[Galium]

Sorry Glen. I didn't read your post properly, and I had understood that a married woman's husband's name would always be recorded as the father, no matter what the truth was, or what she happened to tell the registrar.
 
Thanks for the information.   

[jorose]

There are a very small number of cases where this sort of thing went to court.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t18700131-243?text=%22false%20entry%22
 - False entry in the birth register (passing off another child as her own)

https://newspapers.library.wales/view/4121452/4121459/108/false%2BOR%2Bentry?from=search
 - False birth entry (same sort of case as above)

https://newspapers.library.wales/view/4607409/4607411/6/false%2BOR%2Bentry?from=search
 - another one of these....


The communality in all cases is that someone would have to report the false info. In each of these, there was a motive and intent to decieve, and an injured party who would have reported when they found out about the deception.

[coombs]

I have a ancestor's sister born 1813 who had 4 illegitimate children inbetween 1840 and 1855 in London and she lied on all the certs to make out she was married. And I feel this ancestor's sister was actually my direct ancestor, and her first baseborn child (my 3xgreat gran) was born late 1835 and the documented mother (probably the grandmother) was 51 at the time, yet the baby had the "much older sister"'s forename as a middle name. She was baptised as the last child of her likely grandparents in 1836. Previous child was born 1827.

[Wexflyer]

Sorry Glen. I didn't read your post properly, and I had understood that a married woman's husband's name would always be recorded as the father, no matter what the truth was, or what she happened to tell the registrar.

A registrar only knows what he is told by the registrant. No more, no less.

[Andrew Tarr]

.... I feel this ancestor's sister was actually my direct ancestor, and her first baseborn child (my 3xgreat gran) was born late 1835 and the documented mother (probably the grandmother) was 51 at the time, yet the baby had the "much older sister"'s forename as a middle name. She was baptised as the last child of her likely grandparents in 1836. Previous child was born 1827.

I am pretty certain that your supposition is correct, especially given the age and the long 'gap'.  Genuine births after the age of about 45 are uncommon when the mother began producing in her early twenties (or earlier).  I recently discovered a similar situation when chasing up the history of my wife's cousins who had just identified their adopted mother.

[Zaphod99]

In a world obsessed with crazy political correctness it's so refreshing to see the word baseborn.

Zaph