Changing names on a birth certificate
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gavin Weaver
Changing names on a birth certificate
Hello everyone,
Can anyone answer this question for me?!
My partner and her ex had a child and at a time when they weren't married.
So the child's birth certificate would have the mothers maiden name.
However, my partner has a copy of a full birth certificate for her child
that was issued after her and her ex were married and on this certificate
the entry for mother clearly states her married name and NOT her maiden
name. My partner says there was a reason this happened but she can't
remember.
This confuses me because I would have thought that the whole point of a
birth certificate, or any certificate is that it certifies all details at
the time of the event that is being registered. I believe in this case any
birth certificate she obtains a copy of for her son should always state the
mother under her maiden name because this was how things were when her son
was born.
Can anyone shed any light??
Many thanks,
Gavin
Can anyone answer this question for me?!
My partner and her ex had a child and at a time when they weren't married.
So the child's birth certificate would have the mothers maiden name.
However, my partner has a copy of a full birth certificate for her child
that was issued after her and her ex were married and on this certificate
the entry for mother clearly states her married name and NOT her maiden
name. My partner says there was a reason this happened but she can't
remember.
This confuses me because I would have thought that the whole point of a
birth certificate, or any certificate is that it certifies all details at
the time of the event that is being registered. I believe in this case any
birth certificate she obtains a copy of for her son should always state the
mother under her maiden name because this was how things were when her son
was born.
Can anyone shed any light??
Many thanks,
Gavin
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:20:34 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Sounds like either the child was re-registered after your partner and
her ex married or that she was using her ex's surname as her own when
the child was born. It does happen that a woman will adopt her
partner's surname for a variety of reasons. Was her ex named on the
birth certificate??
It doesn't matter when the certificate was issued; the details on it
will be those that were given at the time the birth was registered by
the person registering the birth. If she didn't give her maiden name
at the time of registration, it won't appear on any subsequent
certificates unless she applies to have the alteration made. I don't
know how easy it would be to do that or even if it would be possible.
Can anyone answer this question for me?!
My partner and her ex had a child and at a time when they weren't married.
So the child's birth certificate would have the mothers maiden name.
However, my partner has a copy of a full birth certificate for her child
that was issued after her and her ex were married and on this certificate
the entry for mother clearly states her married name and NOT her maiden
name. My partner says there was a reason this happened but she can't
remember.
This confuses me because I would have thought that the whole point of a
birth certificate, or any certificate is that it certifies all details at
the time of the event that is being registered. I believe in this case any
birth certificate she obtains a copy of for her son should always state the
mother under her maiden name because this was how things were when her son
was born.
Sounds like either the child was re-registered after your partner and
her ex married or that she was using her ex's surname as her own when
the child was born. It does happen that a woman will adopt her
partner's surname for a variety of reasons. Was her ex named on the
birth certificate??
It doesn't matter when the certificate was issued; the details on it
will be those that were given at the time the birth was registered by
the person registering the birth. If she didn't give her maiden name
at the time of registration, it won't appear on any subsequent
certificates unless she applies to have the alteration made. I don't
know how easy it would be to do that or even if it would be possible.
-
Gavin Weaver
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname, but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ajrbF48ecelU1@individual.net...
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname, but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ajrbF48ecelU1@individual.net...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:20:34 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Can anyone answer this question for me?!
My partner and her ex had a child and at a time when they weren't
married.
So the child's birth certificate would have the mothers maiden name.
However, my partner has a copy of a full birth certificate for her child
that was issued after her and her ex were married and on this certificate
the entry for mother clearly states her married name and NOT her maiden
name. My partner says there was a reason this happened but she can't
remember.
This confuses me because I would have thought that the whole point of a
birth certificate, or any certificate is that it certifies all details at
the time of the event that is being registered. I believe in this case
any
birth certificate she obtains a copy of for her son should always state
the
mother under her maiden name because this was how things were when her
son
was born.
Sounds like either the child was re-registered after your partner and
her ex married or that she was using her ex's surname as her own when
the child was born. It does happen that a woman will adopt her
partner's surname for a variety of reasons. Was her ex named on the
birth certificate??
It doesn't matter when the certificate was issued; the details on it
will be those that were given at the time the birth was registered by
the person registering the birth. If she didn't give her maiden name
at the time of registration, it won't appear on any subsequent
certificates unless she applies to have the alteration made. I don't
know how easy it would be to do that or even if it would be possible.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:39:50 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
The reason for the change was because she had married and therefore
"legitimsed" her child. The GRO registers will be marked to show the
change. The original reference will be replace with "See xx" (where
xx represents the quarter (if applicable) and the year.
This site, which Colin originally posted up, will explain the whys and
wherefores:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Marriage confers various rights and responsibilities on the father
which an unmarried one doesn't have. The main one is parental
responsibility.
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname, but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
The reason for the change was because she had married and therefore
"legitimsed" her child. The GRO registers will be marked to show the
change. The original reference will be replace with "See xx" (where
xx represents the quarter (if applicable) and the year.
This site, which Colin originally posted up, will explain the whys and
wherefores:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Marriage confers various rights and responsibilities on the father
which an unmarried one doesn't have. The main one is parental
responsibility.
-
CWatters
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
"Gavin Weaver" <aujv96@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:jIGdncsXCIVhtX3cRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
Yes that's allowed.
Official rules...
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
news:jIGdncsXCIVhtX3cRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son
had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname,
but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has
her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
Yes that's allowed.
Official rules...
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
-
Gavin Weaver
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Thanks for your help!
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Thanks again,
Gavin
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ar90F42bgthU1@individual.net...
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Thanks again,
Gavin
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ar90F42bgthU1@individual.net...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:39:50 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son
had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname,
but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has
her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
The reason for the change was because she had married and therefore
"legitimsed" her child. The GRO registers will be marked to show the
change. The original reference will be replace with "See xx" (where
xx represents the quarter (if applicable) and the year.
This site, which Colin originally posted up, will explain the whys and
wherefores:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Marriage confers various rights and responsibilities on the father
which an unmarried one doesn't have. The main one is parental
responsibility.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 09:09:34 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
You're welcome
)
Not as far as I know. The original entry will be replace by the
revised/corrected one.
One of my cousins can't get hold of his original birth certificate,
only the revised one which shows his mother as "now the wife of . . ."
Thanks for your help!
You're welcome
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Not as far as I know. The original entry will be replace by the
revised/corrected one.
One of my cousins can't get hold of his original birth certificate,
only the revised one which shows his mother as "now the wife of . . ."
-
Otto Jørgensen
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:09:37 +0000, in alt.genealogy Charani
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
but should it not be any information that the basic information is
changed on a certain date.
This is IMO a false treatment of the fact
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 09:09:34 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Thanks for your help!
You're welcome)
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Not as far as I know. The original entry will be replace by the
revised/corrected one.
One of my cousins can't get hold of his original birth certificate,
only the revised one which shows his mother as "now the wife of . . ."
but should it not be any information that the basic information is
changed on a certain date.
This is IMO a false treatment of the fact
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:09:55 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
That's what the OP was querying but in the UK that's the way the
system is, as per this from the official government site:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
but should it not be any information that the basic information is
changed on a certain date.
This is IMO a false treatment of the fact
That's what the OP was querying but in the UK that's the way the
system is, as per this from the official government site:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
-
singhals
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
If you mean, will the original piece of paper given to the parents
exist, that'll pretty much depend on whether they kept it then and can
find it now.
If you mean, will the original ENTRY exist, yes, but it'll be whatever
the local equivalent of "locked-away" is and not available to anyone.
There are blind-luck exceptions, of course, discovery of which is left
to the reader.
Cheryl
Gavin Weaver wrote:
exist, that'll pretty much depend on whether they kept it then and can
find it now.
If you mean, will the original ENTRY exist, yes, but it'll be whatever
the local equivalent of "locked-away" is and not available to anyone.
There are blind-luck exceptions, of course, discovery of which is left
to the reader.
Cheryl
Gavin Weaver wrote:
Thanks for your help!
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Thanks again,
Gavin
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ar90F42bgthU1@individual.net...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:39:50 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son
had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname,
but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has
her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
The reason for the change was because she had married and therefore
"legitimsed" her child. The GRO registers will be marked to show the
change. The original reference will be replace with "See xx" (where
xx represents the quarter (if applicable) and the year.
This site, which Colin originally posted up, will explain the whys and
wherefores:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Marriage confers various rights and responsibilities on the father
which an unmarried one doesn't have. The main one is parental
responsibility.
-
CWatters
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34cv3sF45ioseU1@individual.net...
3f.asp
The site talks about creating "a new birth record". I wonder if this means
someone physically changes the original record or if a new entry out of
sequence is created? It would be interesting to know.
Unfortunately this page doesn't say if it's possible to get a copy of the
first entry.
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... cercha.asp
news:34cv3sF45ioseU1@individual.net...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:09:55 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
but should it not be any information that the basic information is
changed on a certain date.
This is IMO a false treatment of the fact
That's what the OP was querying but in the UK that's the way the
system is, as per this from the official government site:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... date/birth
3f.asp
The site talks about creating "a new birth record". I wonder if this means
someone physically changes the original record or if a new entry out of
sequence is created? It would be interesting to know.
Unfortunately this page doesn't say if it's possible to get a copy of the
first entry.
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... cercha.asp
-
Otto Jørgensen
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:58:55 +0000, in alt.genealogy Charani
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
in a way as I understand it, is seems stupid.
A child is the result of a man and a woman. what ever does it matter
that they are married or not?
What is the reason, to show that the child is born after a marriage or
to cover the fact that the child is born when it is born and given the
name as it is.
It should be no problem if the child have the last name equal to the
mother or to the father.
We can use them both even in marriage
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:09:55 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
but should it not be any information that the basic information is
changed on a certain date.
This is IMO a false treatment of the fact
That's what the OP was querying but in the UK that's the way the
system is, as per this from the official government site:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
in a way as I understand it, is seems stupid.
A child is the result of a man and a woman. what ever does it matter
that they are married or not?
What is the reason, to show that the child is born after a marriage or
to cover the fact that the child is born when it is born and given the
name as it is.
It should be no problem if the child have the last name equal to the
mother or to the father.
We can use them both even in marriage
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:57:29 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
I agree it doesn't make sense.
Exactly but some people get "funny" about it
) There's still a
slight stigma for some people about having an illegitimate child.
Contrary to popular belief, a woman does *not* have to take her
husband's name. It's convention, not a legal requirement - unless of
course the law has been changed recently!!
in a way as I understand it, is seems stupid.
I agree it doesn't make sense.
A child is the result of a man and a woman. what ever does it matter
that they are married or not?
What is the reason, to show that the child is born after a marriage or
to cover the fact that the child is born when it is born and given the
name as it is.
It should be no problem if the child have the last name equal to the
mother or to the father.
Exactly but some people get "funny" about it
slight stigma for some people about having an illegitimate child.
We can use them both even in marriage
Contrary to popular belief, a woman does *not* have to take her
husband's name. It's convention, not a legal requirement - unless of
course the law has been changed recently!!
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Charani wrote:
second, a boy, has my last name. Keeps people guessing.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:57:29 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
in a way as I understand it, is seems stupid.
I agree it doesn't make sense.
A child is the result of a man and a woman. what ever does it matter
that they are married or not?
What is the reason, to show that the child is born after a marriage or
to cover the fact that the child is born when it is born and given the
name as it is.
It should be no problem if the child have the last name equal to the
mother or to the father.
Exactly but some people get "funny" about it) There's still a
slight stigma for some people about having an illegitimate child.
We can use them both even in marriage
Contrary to popular belief, a woman does *not* have to take her
husband's name. It's convention, not a legal requirement - unless of
course the law has been changed recently!!
My wife kept her maiden name. Our first, a girl, has her last name. Our
second, a boy, has my last name. Keeps people guessing.
-
Otto Jørgensen
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800, in alt.genealogy Doug Chadduck
<dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
hehe, my sister in law did keep her name for the first child, even if
they was married and also her girl name for her selves. But it was not
easy.
My child do have both the name of me and my wife
It was good to know that it was not so stupid as I believed
It is a good rule; "the fist child is born when it is born, the next
does always have nine month pregnancy"
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
<dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
Charani wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:57:29 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
in a way as I understand it, is seems stupid.
I agree it doesn't make sense.
A child is the result of a man and a woman. what ever does it matter
that they are married or not?
What is the reason, to show that the child is born after a marriage or
to cover the fact that the child is born when it is born and given the
name as it is.
It should be no problem if the child have the last name equal to the
mother or to the father.
Exactly but some people get "funny" about it) There's still a
slight stigma for some people about having an illegitimate child.
We can use them both even in marriage
Contrary to popular belief, a woman does *not* have to take her
husband's name. It's convention, not a legal requirement - unless of
course the law has been changed recently!!
My wife kept her maiden name. Our first, a girl, has her last name. Our
second, a boy, has my last name. Keeps people guessing.
hehe, my sister in law did keep her name for the first child, even if
they was married and also her girl name for her selves. But it was not
easy.
My child do have both the name of me and my wife
It was good to know that it was not so stupid as I believed
It is a good rule; "the fist child is born when it is born, the next
does always have nine month pregnancy"
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:27:40 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
lolol
I like that
)
It is a good rule; "the fist child is born when it is born, the next
does always have nine month pregnancy"
lolol
I like that
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800, Doug Chadduck wrote:
Both my children have my name but that's partly because the ex changed
his name to mine and, it has to be said, for less than honest reasons
although I didn't know that at the time of course!!
My wife kept her maiden name. Our first, a girl, has her last name. Our
second, a boy, has my last name. Keeps people guessing.
Both my children have my name but that's partly because the ex changed
his name to mine and, it has to be said, for less than honest reasons
although I didn't know that at the time of course!!
- Margit Bakke
- Innlegg: 6309
- Registrert: 31 mai 2006 02:50:42
- Sted: USA
- Kontakt:
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Yes as they say in Minnesota, "The first one comes anytime, the rest take 9
months"
If a child is born without the benefit of marriage of the parents in
Minnesota, yes the birth certificate can be changed legally to show a legit
birth if the parents later marry and it will then always be listed as a
legit birth.
Margit
months"
If a child is born without the benefit of marriage of the parents in
Minnesota, yes the birth certificate can be changed legally to show a legit
birth if the parents later marry and it will then always be listed as a
legit birth.
Margit
From: Charani <me@privacy.net
Organization: charani at mail2nowhere dot com
Newsgroups: alt.genealogy
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:12:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:27:40 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
It is a good rule; "the fist child is born when it is born, the next
does always have nine month pregnancy"
lolol
I like that)
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:04:37 GMT, Margit wrote:
Like the UK. I wonder how many more countries/states have the same
ruling.
If a child is born without the benefit of marriage of the parents in
Minnesota, yes the birth certificate can be changed legally to show a legit
birth if the parents later marry and it will then always be listed as a
legit birth.
Like the UK. I wonder how many more countries/states have the same
ruling.
-
Otto Jørgensen
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:09:56 +0000, in alt.genealogy Charani
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
It is funny and nonsense. Everybody knew that a pregnancy is about 9
month, and you should not be special intelligent to calculate the fact
if the marriage is on a later date. To be inside the "moral" rules,
there should not be any child born before 9 month after marriage
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:04:37 GMT, Margit wrote:
If a child is born without the benefit of marriage of the parents in
Minnesota, yes the birth certificate can be changed legally to show a legit
birth if the parents later marry and it will then always be listed as a
legit birth.
Like the UK. I wonder how many more countries/states have the same
ruling.
It is funny and nonsense. Everybody knew that a pregnancy is about 9
month, and you should not be special intelligent to calculate the fact
if the marriage is on a later date. To be inside the "moral" rules,
there should not be any child born before 9 month after marriage
--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:38:26 +0100, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
I think it's as much to do with legal issues such as inheritance as
being "proper"
)
There could be health reasons why a child who was conceived in wedlock
is born before the 9 months is up
)
It is funny and nonsense. Everybody knew that a pregnancy is about 9
month, and you should not be special intelligent to calculate the fact
if the marriage is on a later date. To be inside the "moral" rules,
there should not be any child born before 9 month after marriage
I think it's as much to do with legal issues such as inheritance as
being "proper"
There could be health reasons why a child who was conceived in wedlock
is born before the 9 months is up
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Charani wrote:
Now that sounds like a story for the grand kids.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800, Doug Chadduck wrote:
My wife kept her maiden name. Our first, a girl, has her last name. Our
second, a boy, has my last name. Keeps people guessing.
Both my children have my name but that's partly because the ex changed
his name to mine and, it has to be said, for less than honest reasons
although I didn't know that at the time of course!!
Now that sounds like a story for the grand kids.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:05:31 -0800, Doug Chadduck wrote:
The least said about the ex, the better
) He turned out to be a
thorough nasty piece of work. He hasn't seen the children in over 2
years and as far as they are concerned their stepfather is their dad.
My son calls his biological father his grandad!!
Now that sounds like a story for the grand kids.
The least said about the ex, the better
thorough nasty piece of work. He hasn't seen the children in over 2
years and as far as they are concerned their stepfather is their dad.
My son calls his biological father his grandad!!
-
CWatters
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34d6ldF49g8f6U1@individual.net...
Here in Belgium they think I live with my sister.
news:34d6ldF49g8f6U1@individual.net...
Contrary to popular belief, a woman does *not* have to take her
husband's name. It's convention, not a legal requirement - unless of
course the law has been changed recently!!
Here in Belgium they think I live with my sister.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:39:49 GMT, CWatters wrote:
lolol
I imagine that could get complicated at times
)
Here in Belgium they think I live with my sister.
lolol
I imagine that could get complicated at times
-
D. Stussy
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Gavin Weaver wrote:
[Why would that be any different? ALL birth certificates I have ever seen from
any jurisdiction list the mother's maiden name somewhere....]
Reason: ERROR. I cannot say if it was an error made by the parents or by the
government clerks.
Your insight is wrong. It should state the mother's maiden name because that
is what is required per the law of the jurisdiction that the birth occurred in.
However, in this case, if that jurisdiction doesn't follow that rule, it should
still state the maiden name because that was the name in use at the time of the
birth event since the mother was unmarried.
Something is wrong.
Hello everyone,
Can anyone answer this question for me?!
My partner and her ex had a child and at a time when they weren't married.
So the child's birth certificate would have the mothers maiden name.
[Why would that be any different? ALL birth certificates I have ever seen from
any jurisdiction list the mother's maiden name somewhere....]
However, my partner has a copy of a full birth certificate for her child
that was issued after her and her ex were married and on this certificate
the entry for mother clearly states her married name and NOT her maiden
name. My partner says there was a reason this happened but she can't
remember.
Reason: ERROR. I cannot say if it was an error made by the parents or by the
government clerks.
This confuses me because I would have thought that the whole point of a
birth certificate, or any certificate is that it certifies all details at
the time of the event that is being registered. I believe in this case any
birth certificate she obtains a copy of for her son should always state the
mother under her maiden name because this was how things were when her son
was born.
Your insight is wrong. It should state the mother's maiden name because that
is what is required per the law of the jurisdiction that the birth occurred in.
However, in this case, if that jurisdiction doesn't follow that rule, it should
still state the maiden name because that was the name in use at the time of the
birth event since the mother was unmarried.
Can anyone shed any light??
Something is wrong.
-
Carole
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
It shouldn't matter whether the mother was married or not. Every birth
certificate I have ever seen lists the mother's maiden name, even if
married. If this one didn't it was likely a clerical error.
I wonder if this person has a birth certificate or a birth extract. I
once ordered a certified bc from a small Minnesota county and got an
extract..the parents names were someone we had never heard of...the
clerk preparing the extract looked at the wrong line when entering the
information. Since I had paid for a certified bc, not an extract, when
they eventually corrected their error and supplied me with a certified
copy of the actual bc, the correct info was on it.
certificate I have ever seen lists the mother's maiden name, even if
married. If this one didn't it was likely a clerical error.
I wonder if this person has a birth certificate or a birth extract. I
once ordered a certified bc from a small Minnesota county and got an
extract..the parents names were someone we had never heard of...the
clerk preparing the extract looked at the wrong line when entering the
information. Since I had paid for a certified bc, not an extract, when
they eventually corrected their error and supplied me with a certified
copy of the actual bc, the correct info was on it.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:49:53 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
There isn't necessarily anything wrong at all nor an error. This
explains:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
It's the *official* explanation.
Reason: ERROR. I cannot say if it was an error made by the parents or by the
government clerks.
8>< snipped
However, in this case, if that jurisdiction doesn't follow that rule, it should
still state the maiden name because that was the name in use at the time of the
birth event since the mother was unmarried.
Something is wrong.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong at all nor an error. This
explains:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
It's the *official* explanation.
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On 12 Jan 2005 20:46:04 -0800, Carole wrote:
This explains why there was a change and how it happened:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Gavin's query was why the mother was shown on the second certificate
under her married name when the first one had been under her maiden
name. The child's parents weren't married at the time of the birth
but subsequently were, therefore the parents were given the chance to
"legitimise" the child. It would still remain obvious, of course,
that the marriage took place *after* the child's birth if anyone were
to look.
It shouldn't matter whether the mother was married or not. Every birth
certificate I have ever seen lists the mother's maiden name, even if
married. If this one didn't it was likely a clerical error.
I wonder if this person has a birth certificate or a birth extract. I
once ordered a certified bc from a small Minnesota county and got an
extract..the parents names were someone we had never heard of...the
clerk preparing the extract looked at the wrong line when entering the
information. Since I had paid for a certified bc, not an extract, when
they eventually corrected their error and supplied me with a certified
copy of the actual bc, the correct info was on it.
This explains why there was a change and how it happened:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Gavin's query was why the mother was shown on the second certificate
under her married name when the first one had been under her maiden
name. The child's parents weren't married at the time of the birth
but subsequently were, therefore the parents were given the chance to
"legitimise" the child. It would still remain obvious, of course,
that the marriage took place *after* the child's birth if anyone were
to look.
-
Ralph Bailey
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charani" <me@privacy.net>
To: <ALT-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
Doesn't matter. In most states the marriages of the parents after the birth
of the child makes the child legitimate.
Ralph
From: "Charani" <me@privacy.net>
To: <ALT-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On 12 Jan 2005 20:46:04 -0800, Carole wrote:
It shouldn't matter whether the mother was married or not. Every birth
certificate I have ever seen lists the mother's maiden name, even if
married. If this one didn't it was likely a clerical error.
I wonder if this person has a birth certificate or a birth extract. I
once ordered a certified bc from a small Minnesota county and got an
extract..the parents names were someone we had never heard of...the
clerk preparing the extract looked at the wrong line when entering the
information. Since I had paid for a certified bc, not an extract, when
they eventually corrected their error and supplied me with a certified
copy of the actual bc, the correct info was on it.
This explains why there was a change and how it happened:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Gavin's query was why the mother was shown on the second certificate
under her married name when the first one had been under her maiden
name. The child's parents weren't married at the time of the birth
but subsequently were, therefore the parents were given the chance to
"legitimise" the child. It would still remain obvious, of course,
that the marriage took place *after* the child's birth if anyone were
to look.
Doesn't matter. In most states the marriages of the parents after the birth
of the child makes the child legitimate.
Ralph
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:46:47 +0000 (UTC), "Ralph Bailey" wrote:
given the chance to change the child's surname if it was previously
given as the mother's and/or show both parents if only the mother was
previously recorded and/or show the parents as married if it they were
previously shown as unmarried. It's down the couple's pride, sense of
conforming, etc; plus things like an illegitimate child not being able
to inherit - not so much of a concern in most circles these days, I
don't think.
Doesn't matter. In most states the marriages of the parents after the birth
of the child makes the child legitimate.
Marriage "legitisises" a child in the UK as well, but parents are
given the chance to change the child's surname if it was previously
given as the mother's and/or show both parents if only the mother was
previously recorded and/or show the parents as married if it they were
previously shown as unmarried. It's down the couple's pride, sense of
conforming, etc; plus things like an illegitimate child not being able
to inherit - not so much of a concern in most circles these days, I
don't think.
-
William Barfieldsr
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
"Gavin Weaver" <aujv96@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:392dnU5ZWadTaX3cRVnysg@pipex.net...
When the child was born they asked for names and what ever the mother told them was what went on the original birth certificate. She, as in most states, didn't even have to prove her own name. Things may be done differently now, as I haven't parented a child in 35 years, but back then in Texas they just asked and that was the way it was recorded. If the named father protested, it was dealt with through the courts in a paternity suit.
--
William Barfieldsr
Thanks for your help!
One last question on this - will the original birth certificate still exist?
Thanks again,
Gavin
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34ar90F42bgthU1@individual.net...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:39:50 -0000, Gavin Weaver wrote:
Alison (the mother) says that the original birth certificate for her son
had
her as mother with her maiden name. She wasn't using her ex's surname,
but
her son was from birth.
The new certificate was issued after they were married and this one has
her
using her married name. So this birth certificate is altered from the
original one.
The reason for the change was because she had married and therefore
"legitimsed" her child. The GRO registers will be marked to show the
change. The original reference will be replace with "See xx" (where
xx represents the quarter (if applicable) and the year.
This site, which Colin originally posted up, will explain the whys and
wherefores:
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/birth ... irth3f.asp
Marriage confers various rights and responsibilities on the father
which an unmarried one doesn't have. The main one is parental
responsibility.
When the child was born they asked for names and what ever the mother told them was what went on the original birth certificate. She, as in most states, didn't even have to prove her own name. Things may be done differently now, as I haven't parented a child in 35 years, but back then in Texas they just asked and that was the way it was recorded. If the named father protested, it was dealt with through the courts in a paternity suit.
--
William Barfieldsr
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:12:49 -0600, William Barfieldsr wrote:
That's pretty much how it is in the UK, except that with an unmarried
couple, the father has to attend the registrar as well as the mother
if he wants to be included on the birth certificate, providing of
course that the mother wants him named at all.
That was the basis for Gavin's original query and he's UK based.
When the child was born they asked for names and what ever the mother told them was what went on the original birth certificate. She, as in most states, didn't even have to prove her own name. Things may be done differently now, as I haven't parented a child in 35 years, but back then in Texas they just asked and that was the way it was recorded. If the named father protested, it was dealt with through the courts in a paternity suit.
That's pretty much how it is in the UK, except that with an unmarried
couple, the father has to attend the registrar as well as the mother
if he wants to be included on the birth certificate, providing of
course that the mother wants him named at all.
That was the basis for Gavin's original query and he's UK based.
-
William Barfieldsr
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:357p14F4iihgvU1@individual.net...
Sorry, I guess I missed his UK origin. I didn't know that bit of information on the UK process. Here you don't go before anyone except the nurse who asked for the information and even then the nurse didn't ask my wife anything, she asked me if I was the father and what I had named my child. They then foot printed him and sent the information to the proper authorities. I'm sure some women afraid of their child being marked as illegitimate, stated they were married and picked a married name out of the air, although many didn't. Views have changed since then (before the 1960s), as more and more single women choose to have and raise children without a thought of being married or how that might affect their child in later life. I certainly am glad that 40 years ago my wife to be and I decided to wait until marriage. I just wish I had caught the genealogy bug back then, when our parents and families were still alive to help with the questions. God bless the younger generation that is involved with genealogy now. Even if you can't give anything else to your heirs, you can give your genealogy work so they can continue on.
--
William Barfieldsr
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:12:49 -0600, William Barfieldsr wrote:
When the child was born they asked for names and what ever the mother told them was what went on the original birth certificate. She, as in most states, didn't even have to prove her own name. Things may be done differently now, as I haven't parented a child in 35 years, but back then in Texas they just asked and that was the way it was recorded. If the named father protested, it was dealt with through the courts in a paternity suit.
That's pretty much how it is in the UK, except that with an unmarried
couple, the father has to attend the registrar as well as the mother
if he wants to be included on the birth certificate, providing of
course that the mother wants him named at all.
That was the basis for Gavin's original query and he's UK based.
Sorry, I guess I missed his UK origin. I didn't know that bit of information on the UK process. Here you don't go before anyone except the nurse who asked for the information and even then the nurse didn't ask my wife anything, she asked me if I was the father and what I had named my child. They then foot printed him and sent the information to the proper authorities. I'm sure some women afraid of their child being marked as illegitimate, stated they were married and picked a married name out of the air, although many didn't. Views have changed since then (before the 1960s), as more and more single women choose to have and raise children without a thought of being married or how that might affect their child in later life. I certainly am glad that 40 years ago my wife to be and I decided to wait until marriage. I just wish I had caught the genealogy bug back then, when our parents and families were still alive to help with the questions. God bless the younger generation that is involved with genealogy now. Even if you can't give anything else to your heirs, you can give your genealogy work so they can continue on.
--
William Barfieldsr
-
Charani
Re: Changing names on a birth certificate
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:15:35 -0600, William Barfieldsr wrote:
SOK
)
Here, one or both the parents have to go to the registrar, who's
already been informed of the birth, to register the child and to get
the birth certificate. At one time the registrars would go round the
hospital maternity ward, but that was when mothers stayed in for a
week to 10 days; now it's out in 6 hours if all's well and dependent
on the time the child was born. After a certain time and it means an
overnight stay. The nurses will ask if there's a name for the child
but they aren't responsible for anything other than the care of mother
and child.
Views and attitudes started changing in the 1960s and, TBH, it wasn't
for the better either. I think there's a very selfish attitude
dominating today, no thought to the future of the child and how s/he
might feel about the situation. It's all wrong in my opinion.
I started doing my father's family in 1968 but have just started doing
my maternal grandmother's family. Of course, she's not alive now nor
any of her generation. There's no one to ask now
(
My dau helps now and then with some of my genealogical stuff. Her
eyes are sharper than mine and, she might only be 9, but she's a whizz
at reading a lot of the old handwriting
)
She'll know her roots all right
)
Sorry, I guess I missed his UK origin.
SOK
I didn't know that bit of information on the UK process. Here you
don't go before anyone except the nurse who asked for the information
and even then the nurse didn't ask my wife anything, she asked me if I
was the father and what I had named my child. They then foot printed
him and sent the information to the proper authorities. I'm sure some
women afraid of their child being marked as illegitimate, stated they
were married and picked a married name out of the air, although many
didn't. Views have changed since then (before the 1960s), as more and
more single women choose to have and raise children without a thought
of being married or how that might affect their child in later life. I
certainly am glad that 40 years ago my wife to be and I decided to wait
until marriage. I just wish I had caught the genealogy bug back then,
when our parents and families were still alive to help with the questions.
God bless the younger generation that is involved with genealogy now.
Even if you can't give anything else to your heirs, you can give your
genealogy work so they can continue on.
Here, one or both the parents have to go to the registrar, who's
already been informed of the birth, to register the child and to get
the birth certificate. At one time the registrars would go round the
hospital maternity ward, but that was when mothers stayed in for a
week to 10 days; now it's out in 6 hours if all's well and dependent
on the time the child was born. After a certain time and it means an
overnight stay. The nurses will ask if there's a name for the child
but they aren't responsible for anything other than the care of mother
and child.
Views and attitudes started changing in the 1960s and, TBH, it wasn't
for the better either. I think there's a very selfish attitude
dominating today, no thought to the future of the child and how s/he
might feel about the situation. It's all wrong in my opinion.
I started doing my father's family in 1968 but have just started doing
my maternal grandmother's family. Of course, she's not alive now nor
any of her generation. There's no one to ask now
My dau helps now and then with some of my genealogical stuff. Her
eyes are sharper than mine and, she might only be 9, but she's a whizz
at reading a lot of the old handwriting
She'll know her roots all right