ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2003-10 > 1066122011


From: "ruth" <>
Subject: Re: birth certs with unmarried parents?
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:02:22 +0100
References: <468437FE.0FFFE847.006A19F4@aol.com> <006601c92d6c$8427f9a0$2433fea9@janetbuck>


I am not married to my younger daughter's father, and he could not attend
the registrar's office with me because of illness, so could not be named as
her father on her birth certificate. You can add the father on later if you
wish, and a new certificate will be issued with the father's name included.
However, I could give her any surname I chose - my own, the father's or
anything else I wanted. This was four and a half years ago.
However, eight years ago I registered my elder daughter. I was married to
her father and he attended the registrar's with me, and I wasn't asked for
any proof of identity or our marriage.
I suspect that less checks would have been made years ago rather than more.
Without computer links, and with illiterate or semi-literate informants, it
would have been much more difficult to check records, and prove if a woman
was really married or not. I imagine a lot of people told porkies to save
embarrassment.
Ruth
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Buck" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: birth certs with unmarried parents?


> This was the case with my granddaughters. My daughter and her partner
both
> attended the Registrars office. The father's name is on their birth
> certificates.
>
> Jan.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: birth certs with unmarried parents?
>
>
> > > Depends what you mean? My paternal grandparents were not
> > > married, but my father's surname was taken from his father and
> > > no-one objected. I was allowed to put the father's name on
> > > the birth certificate of my own son, even though I was not
> > > married. My son is not married but has a son, and his
> > > ex-girlfriend allowed my son's surname on the birth
> > > certificate. Where my grandparents were concerned, only my
> > > grandmother went to register the birth.
> > > Where my grandson is concerned, his mother went to register
> > > the birth, my son didn't go with her, yet she was allowed to
> > > put my son's surname on the birth certificate and not her own
> > > surname. A flaw in the system - possibly.
> >
> > Whilst waiting to order a certificate from my local Registrar, I
overheard
> several phone calls where the first question from the Registrar was 'Are
you
> married to the father?'. The explanation that followed was 'If you are
> married to the father then only one of you needs to be present. If you are
> not married to him then both of you must be present'
> >
> > So far as I am aware, this is the normal requirement in all cases. After
> all, it is possible for a woman to give the name of the father as someone
> she hardly knew, let alone get close enough to be pregnant by him. If that
> man was married and was falsely 'accused', it could cause all sorts of
> complications and embarrassment if that registration became public
> >
> > Perhaps in your case(s) the Registrar made a judgement call and decided
> the risk of false information was slight.
> >
> > Dave D
> >
> >
> >
> > Message has been scanned by Webshield
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Message has been scanned by Webshield
>
>
>

This thread: