Illegitimate children

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:29 pm

Hi all,

If a child was born illegitimately at England in the 1870's but the parents were partners would it be like Scottish registered births - both parents signing the register?

I have a family, Robert Balgarnie and Ann Stewart who never seemed to marry. I have them on all census records, under a variety of Balgarnie derivations, living at Scotland. When Robert's first wife, Isabella, died he met and lived with Ann Stewart and they didn't appear to marry despite having at least 4 children together.

The 1881 census shows 2 of the girls were English and my colleague would love to know where in England they were born but I've had no luck with my searches.

Here they are in 1881 ( Ancestry has it correctly as Balgarnie strangely enough) -

Dwelling: 1149 Dumbarton Road
Census Place: Govan, Lanark, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203689 GRO Ref Volume 646-2 EnumDist 16 Page 4
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Robert BALGARVIE W 40 M Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Head
Occ: Fitter At Works
James BALGARVIE 11 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
Ann BALGARVIE 9 F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Mary BALGARVIE 7 F England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Elizabeth BALGARVIE 4 F England
Rel: Daur
Ann STEWART 32 F Port Glasgow, Renfrew, Scotland
Rel: Servant
Occ: Domestic Servant
Rebecca HABKENS 23 F Nitshill, Renfrew, Scotland

Regards,
Annette

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:13 am

Hello Annette,

Here’s a very informative page http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/births.htm which says in part

By about 1850 the situation had been clarified and the instructions read quite clearly "No putative father is to be allowed to sign an entry in the character of "Father" ". From that time, therefore there are 2 kinds of entries in the register
(1) Where the parents were married to one another, fathers details must be entered in the register and only one parent will sign the register (or some other informant)
(2) Where the parents were not married to one another there will be blanks in Column 4 (fathers name) and Column 6 (his occupation).

This situation lasted until the Registration Act of 1875 where the instruction read "The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. 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". There are therefore 3 kinds of entry after this Act:
(1) Described above
(2) Described above
(3) 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. Looked at a different way - if both parents have signed in Column 7 regardless of what names they are using then the parents were not married to one another at the time of the birth of the child.
This situation lasted until 1953

Looks like it,
Alan

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:06 pm

Hello Alan,

Thanks a lot for the comprehensive information. It would explain why Mary is not registered as Balgarnie but I would have thought Elizabeth might have been. Then again FREE BMD isn't complete.

Much appreciated,
Annette

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:06 am

That’s okay Annette,

Although FreeBMD doesn’t claim completeness the graphical representations show completeness for a great range of years with a possible error up to 3% but more likely less than 2%. This means that the prospect of a particular individual cropping up later in those ‘complete’ years is fairly minimal. http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/progressB.shtml

Three cheers for FreeBMD.
Alan

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:05 am

There didn't appear to be any reason why the couple couldn't say they were married. I have one birth in 1902 to a couple claiming to be married who clearly weren't - the father had a wife and children living elswhere! No date of marriage is given or asked for on English birth certificates so presumably no proof was required either!

Best wishes,
Meg

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:07 pm

Currie wrote:That’s okay Annette,

snipped....................

Three cheers for FreeBMD.

Alan

I wholeheartedly agree.

Regards,
Annette

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:39 pm

When someone turned up at the registrar's office to register a birth, while the registrar preferred to see a marriage certificate or 'marriage lines' he couldn't demand it, so often had to take the info on the date and place of marriage on trust.

And, of course, up to 1939 (or was it 1929?) if the marriage had been irregular and never formalised via a Sheriff's Warrant or similar process and subsequent register entry there couldn't be a certificate .............

I recently registered the death of my wife's uncle. The instructions appear to be very strict in terms of the info that one must present, but, for various reasons, I didn't have his birth or marriage certificates, and knew from experience of the registration system that all I was absolutely required to have was the medical certificate of death (needless to say I had all the other required info, but not in the form of statutory certificates).

mb