Fathers on birth certificates

[romy21]

Hello, I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the possibilities around naming fathers on birth certificates! I'm trying to track down my g-grandfather (which is pretty impossible) - g-grandmother's first husband James Leak died in WW1 - she didn't remarry & went on to have 5 more children between 1918 & 1929. The first 4 still have James Leak listed as father (definitely dead so it wasn't him!), and the 5th has George Leak listed as father. Many theories as to whether George was the actual father of all of them, but either way I'm pretty sure his surname wouldn't have been Leak & she's claimed that it was to look like he was her husband.

So my question really is about how she would have registered the births (all 5 registered by mother) - would she have needed any proof of who the father was when she went to register, or could she have just popped down whichever name she wanted regardless of whether they were dead or actually had a different name?! For the first 4 I suppose she would have had her marriage certificate but not sure for the last?

[christanel]

Welcome to the British-Genealogy forums
This is an old thread on the same subject.

My great great grandmother did exactly the same as yours but it was in the mid 1800's. Some women gave their children a middle name which could be a clue to their father's identity eg: Joe Brown Smith mmn Smith which may indicate his father's surname is Smith but my great grandmother wasn't that helpful. Did any of the children give a father's name on their marriage certificate?
Christina

[romy21]

Thankyou, I'll have a look through!
No middle names unfortunately (though my g-grandmother's own birth certificate has her father as a middle name so her mother was more obliging!!). I've just ordered a few of the marriage certificates actually, so fingers crossed for those... thanks again

[Peter Goodey]

Who? what? when? where?

Who was she living with? Electoral registers, rating records, school registers...

[Sandyhall]

Who? what? when? where?

Who was she living with? Electoral registers, rating records, school registers...

Also how long after the birth where they registered, more information needed

Taken from Wikipedia
1850, instructions to registrars were clarified to state that, "No putative father is allowed to sign an entry in the character of 'Father'." However, the law was changed again 1875 to allow a father of an illegitimate child to record his name on his child's birth certificate if he attended the register office with the mother.

[Elwyn Soutter]

Hello, I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the possibilities around naming fathers on birth certificates! I'm trying to track down my g-grandfather (which is pretty impossible) - g-grandmother's first husband James Leak died in WW1 - she didn't remarry & went on to have 5 more children between 1918 & 1929. The first 4 still have James Leak listed as father (definitely dead so it wasn't him!), and the 5th has George Leak listed as father. Many theories as to whether George was the actual father of all of them, but either way I'm pretty sure his surname wouldn't have been Leak & she's claimed that it was to look like he was her husband.

So my question really is about how she would have registered the births (all 5 registered by mother) - would she have needed any proof of who the father was when she went to register, or could she have just popped down whichever name she wanted regardless of whether they were dead or actually had a different name?! For the first 4 I suppose she would have had her marriage certificate but not sure for the last?

My understanding is that if the mother admitted to the Registrar that she was not married to the child’s father, his name could only appear on the birth certificate if he was present and confirmed paternity. However if she said she was married, then there was/is a presumption of paternity, and the birth could be registered with the father’s name but without the father being present. Of course to carry that off, his and her surname ought to be the same. Which they are. In the 1920s, I don’t think any paperwork was required. The information was taken on trust.

From what you have described, I suspect she told the Registrar she was a married woman.

[Lesley Robertson]

I'm not sure about England, but in Scotland a child born to a married could be registered with the names of both parents - I've seen births registered by another family member or a medic so they presumably took the marriage lines with them. With an unmarried couple, the father could only be registered if he was physically present at the registrar's office.
It sounds as though she neglected to mention that James was dead. I suppose that immediately after the War she could have claimed that he was missing (btw does he have a named grave, or is he on a memorial somewhere?). Did James have a brother called a George?

It pays to say where people were living in queries - the laws could differ quite a lot in different parts of the U.K.

[AntonyMMM]

In England/Wales a woman claiming to be married can name her "husband" as the father on a birth registration without him being present. She would not have to provide any proof of the marriage or that her husband was living. Likewise a man claiming to be married can register a birth and name his wife as the mother without her being present.

But anyone who knowingly makes a false statement to the registrar commits the offence of perjury.

That situation still essentially applies today - although people going to register births and deaths are encouraged to take ID documents (such as marriage certs) with them, it isn't a legal requirement and the registration is still done on the word of the informant.

An unmarried father has to be present to sign as a joint informant to be named on the register.