Genealogy Chat

Helen - I think you've got it quite wrong. There are some quite specific rules abt what can appear on a b.cert, and where.
Sylvia's not quite right in saying a guy can only be named as father if he gave permission for that. True, his permission's usually the sticking point, but actually both the mother and father have to give written permission for a non-husband to be named as father. IGP's not right in implying it could only be done by them both attending and signing the register as informants, although this was the usual mechanism. He could actually go to any rego office, and sign a form which would be sent to the registrar holding the birth rego. He could even be abroad, in which case his signature on the form would have to be notarized (or something similar depending on local custom).
There are also specific rules abt who can be an informant, but they're much laxer - being present at the birth is one allowable category, and close relative of the child is another. In a similar vein, finding a stranger's dead body lying around on the foreshore, say, enables you to be an allowable informant on a death registration.

Helen, Here is a useful site to use for info on BMD certs

How what is recorded and how to interpret the info can be very interesting

http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm

Roy

thank you all so much it has been really helpful so there seem's to no specific rules and to what you could or couldn t have written on a birth certificate around 1928
each was individual

thanks again to you all

helen x

I have a copy of a birth certificate for 1882 for an illegitimate child.
She is registered with her mother's surname and her father is not named in column 4.
Column 7 however shows that the registration informant was Edward, her father and he is noted as father in that column.

You just never know what will turn up on certificates.

Edward and his later wife ( not the child's mother ) raised the child and she has their surname in 1891 and 1901 census, but married after that using her birth surname.....father not noted.

Gwyn

Between 1875 and 1953, the following rules applied:-

The child will take its surname from that of father in Column 4 where the parents were married and from mother in Column 5 if they were not married and fathers name is not entered.

However, where the parents are not married to one another but both attended the register office together, fathers details are entered in Column 4 and Column 6 and both parents sign in Column 7 as informants. In this case, the child could take either surname.

thank you i thought this was the case

As SylviaInCanada said, But bear in mind that in 1928 a child wasn't given a surname on the birth cert, The surname was inferred, usually taken from the fathers surname as listed on the cert, if the index has the child and mother sharing the same surname its unlikely that the father will be named on the cert

Roy

Only if he gave permission for it to be on.



although she might have been sneaky enough to try to get it put on.

if in 1928 in england the parent's were not married and the child took the mother's maiden name could the father's name still appear on the birth certificate

thanks
helen