Genealogy Chat

RG - no, it's not necessarily the case that no father would be named on the b.cert. I would guess there's a significant fraction of births that were later legitimized where the father is named (although this wasn't the case with our Amy).

I would be interested to know how Martha is described on a re-registered b.cert.
Is her name left as Martha Taulbut, or is she named as Martha Mallender formerly Taulbut? - The latter is my guess.

Kath - re "The marriage of the parents on it's own wouldn't legitimize the birth.".
You are just plain wrong - the Legitimacy Act, 1926 would be the one affecting this birth. Here's some sections from that act - note the last one below::

1 - (2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born.
12 - (2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS OF LEGITIMATED PERSONS.
4. The failure of the parents or either of them to furnish information as required by this schedule in respect of any legitimated person shall not affect the legitimation of that person
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1926legitAct.htm

You are right rootgatherer. No father's name would be entered on the original birth certificate so without the re-registration the child would not be able to prove that the woman's subsequent husband was indeed the father. The original birth certificate, without a father named, would be the only one available to the child.

The marriage of the parents on it's own wouldn't legitimize the birth.

Kath. x

Is it not the case, as the birth was registered firstly, with the mother's surname that there would be no father named on the birth certificate? By re-registering the father would be named and in the event of him dying intestate the child would be able to claim the same rights of inheritance as any children born after the parents married.

Kath - roughly correct, but actually it's the marriage that legitimizes the birth. The re-registration is to hide the fact the birth was ever considered illegitimate.

Thanks again.

The second registration of the birth was to "legitimize" the birth.

As it was, the child was illegitimate at birth but because the parents re-registered the birth after they married, this, in the eyes of the law, made the birth legitimate - which in those days was an important thing.

Kath. x

Was the "second birth certificate" a formality after the marriage just a formal way of recognising the birth? You can only be born once?? Probably need this explained to me too.

Many thanks.

Her original birth reg:

Births Sep 1926 (>99%)
Taulbut Amy G Taulbut Winchester 2c 250

I've just added the birth reference to my post above.

Kath. x

Kath

Thanks so much. I had no idea what it meant. I've got Dec qtr for their marriage, so that's all sorted now.

The "seeM30" means look at the March quarter of 1930. She was probably re-registered, possibly after her parents married.

This is the GRO reference for the birth certificate:-

First name(s) AMY G
Last name MALLENDER
Birth year 1930
Birth quarter 1
Registration month -
Mother's last name TAULBUT
District WINCHESTER
County Hampshire
Country England
Volume 2C
Page 214

EDIT - yes, this looks like her parent's marriage:-

First name(s) FREDERICK
Last name MALLENDER
Marriage quarter 4
Marriage year 1929
Registration month -
MarriageFinder™ FREDERICK MALLENDER married
MARTHA G TAULBUT
Spouse's last name TAULBUT
District WINCHESTER
District number -
County Hampshire
Country England
Volume 2C
Page 363

Kath. x

Amy G Mallender b: Sept Qtr 1926 is the handwritten birth record I was investigating. I think she was born before Martha Mallender nee Taulbut married.

Hope that clarifies what I am after.

Cheers

I have looked up a transcription for 1926 and the volume is given as 2c at Winchester, but the page reference says "seeM30"

It is a handwritten entry at the end of a typed page. Does anyone have an explanation for this?