> Depends what you mean? My paternal grandparents were not > married, but my father's surname was taken from his father and > no-one objected. I was allowed to put the father's name on > the birth certificate of my own son, even though I was not > married. My son is not married but has a son, and his > ex-girlfriend allowed my son's surname on the birth > certificate. Where my grandparents were concerned, only my > grandmother went to register the birth. > Where my grandson is concerned, his mother went to register > the birth, my son didn't go with her, yet she was allowed to > put my son's surname on the birth certificate and not her own > surname. A flaw in the system - possibly. Whilst waiting to order a certificate from my local Registrar, I overheard several phone calls where the first question from the Registrar was 'Are you married to the father?'. The explanation that followed was 'If you are married to the father then only one of you needs to be present. If you are not married to him then both of you must be present' So far as I am aware, this is the normal requirement in all cases. After all, it is possible for a woman to give the name of the father as someone she hardly knew, let alone get close enough to be pregnant by him. If that man was married and was falsely 'accused', it could cause all sorts of complications and embarrassment if that registration became public Perhaps in your case(s) the Registrar made a judgement call and decided the risk of false information was slight. Dave D

This was the case with my granddaughters. My daughter and her partner both attended the Registrars office. The father's name is on their birth certificates. Jan. ----- Original Message ----- From: <DVDobbin@aol.com> To: <ESSEX-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: Re: birth certs with unmarried parents? > > Depends what you mean? My paternal grandparents were not > > married, but my father's surname was taken from his father and > > no-one objected. I was allowed to put the father's name on > > the birth certificate of my own son, even though I was not > > married. My son is not married but has a son, and his > > ex-girlfriend allowed my son's surname on the birth > > certificate. Where my grandparents were concerned, only my > > grandmother went to register the birth. > > Where my grandson is concerned, his mother went to register > > the birth, my son didn't go with her, yet she was allowed to > > put my son's surname on the birth certificate and not her own > > surname. A flaw in the system - possibly. > > Whilst waiting to order a certificate from my local Registrar, I overheard several phone calls where the first question from the Registrar was 'Are you married to the father?'. The explanation that followed was 'If you are married to the father then only one of you needs to be present. If you are not married to him then both of you must be present' > > So far as I am aware, this is the normal requirement in all cases. After all, it is possible for a woman to give the name of the father as someone she hardly knew, let alone get close enough to be pregnant by him. If that man was married and was falsely 'accused', it could cause all sorts of complications and embarrassment if that registration became public > > Perhaps in your case(s) the Registrar made a judgement call and decided the risk of false information was slight. > > Dave D > > > > Message has been scanned by Webshield > > > > Message has been scanned by Webshield