While I hesitate to take issue with Caroline (whose posts to this list are a regular source of sensible advice) or wth Jennifer (likewise), what happens when a single mother registers a birth has changed over the years. Prior to the Birth and Death Act 1874 the mother could name anyone as the father wihout him being present or agreeing. I have a certificate from the mid 1850s found via FreeBMD using the unmarried mother's surname which (to my surprise when I first saw it) named someone I'd never heard of as the father. And I have another very early one (1838) for Hannah Boden where the informant is identified as "Elizabeth Dolmans, Occupier, and present at the birth" - so neither parent was involved in the registration. So, sadly, John Galley's birth registration is unlikely to identify his father - but the Quarter Sessions records for bastardy might provide a clue!. Dick Mathews On 30/05/2011 15:59, [email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 30/05/2011 15:44:45 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Although it was, theoretically, > possible for the fathers of illegitimate children to be named, this would > only happen if they fessed up and agreed to attend the child's > registration. > On the rare occasion that this happened, the child would be listed in the > GRO index under the father's surname, not the mother's > > > I would like to add a small correction to this. If the father attended > registration and is named on the birth certificate, the child is indexed under > both the mother and the father's names. > > Regards, > Jennifer > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message