Informant theory on Birth Certificate

[Karenph]

Hi
I have a birth certificate from 1913 with no father listed but the informant is the name of all the following children. The mother and the informant married after having 7 other children but there is a big gap between this one and the 2nd.
Is it possible that the informant is the father but as he and the mother were not married he was not put on the certificate? or, could he just have taken the child on after meeting the pregnant mother?
I feel the first option is just as likely as unlikely because all the other children have been named after the father and he is on the certificates despite not being married until a year after the last child was born?
Thoughts please

Thank you
Karen

[sandiep]

that's a difficult one, I have my hubbies grandfather who has been registered in 1874 as grandmothers 1st husband yet in 1871 she is down as a widow, grandfather has always been known by name of all her future children's father for marriage army and death, and as grandmother didn't marry grandfather till after all children were born it leaves a few questions like yours!
Back to yours do you know if your child was known by informants name or if he was named as father on marriage? not that it is proof and I think you will never know for sure but perhaps ,as we so often have to do with research, a leap of faith will be needed to legitimise your child.

[Karenph]

Thank you for replying
The informant has been put as the father on her wedding certificate and she took his surname at some point between birth and marriage.
Again doesn't prove anything as she could have been unofficially adopted by him.
Mystery! but was it common in the very early 1900's to not put the fathers name if you were unmarried?

karen

[Dundee10]

.....was it common in the very early 1900's to not put the fathers name if you were unmarried?

It was not legal for an unmarried couple to name a father unless both signed as informants. The 1878 Births and Deaths Registration Act stated "The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants."

If the informant was the biological father then there was no legal reason why he couldn't name himself as such as long as both parents signed as informants. The question is, did the average man in the street know all the ins and outs of legal birth registration of illegitimate children? Probably not. Perhaps it was explained to him by the registrar but the mother was unable to be present so he registered the birth in the only legal manner to avoid paying a late registration fine. Do you have any of the other birth certificates? Did they both sign as informants?

The mother and the informant married after having 7 other children but there is a big gap between this one and the 2nd.

The gap is concerning. What are the date of birth and date of registration of the 1913 birth? Are the dates reasonably close together? Are you sure there were not more children in between who were registered with the mother's surname?

[Peter Goodey]

What's important about the subsequent children is the way the mother's name was shown - was it presented as if it were a married name (even though they weren't married)? Or was it presented as if she were single?

There's a world of difference between...
(a) Mother: Mary Smith formerly Jones; father: John Smith
and
(b) Mother: Mary Jones; father: John Smith

Why didn't you use the real names? You would probably get better answers that way.

[AntonyMMM]

A person has to be a qualified informant to allow them to register a birth - and being the father is not one of them (unless married to the mother).

The qualification claimed will be in the informant column - what was shown ?

[Karenph]

All the certificate shows is that the mother and suspected father are living together and the informant (suspected father) is listed as the occupier. It is just the mark of though.
I am waiting for another certificate of one of the siblings and will see how they are presented.

Thanks for your responses!

[AntonyMMM]

The occupier of the premises where a birth took place is a qualification that allows someone to register a birth - so if the parents were living together, but not married, it could be used by the father to allow him to register. He may well even have told the registrar he was the father, but that doesn't mean he can be shown as such on the register.

Evidentially it doesn't prove parentage, but is a strong indication.

[Peter Goodey]

They may have boxed clever after the first bungled registration and simply claimed to be married for subsequent births.

[Karenph]

It certainly does show a strong link and sounds very likely!
Thank you for your help everyone

Karen