Registering a birth in the 1920s published by on Sun, 04/03/2018 - 13:21
I'm trying to find out if both parents had to be present at the registration of a birth in the 1920s, or if one parent could do the registration on their own. The applicable law at the time was the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874. This states:
"1 Information concerning birth to be given to registrar within forty-two days
In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, information of the particulars required to be registered concerning such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register."
The 1874 Act specifically states that the father of an illegitimate child should be present and sign the register if he wishes to be acknowledged as the child's father.
The current situation (under the 1953 Act) is that either parent may register the birth on their own and can include both parents' details if they were married when the baby was born or conceived.
Does anyone know if one parent could register the birth in the 1920s - or where could I try and get a definitive answer? If both parents had to be present at all birth registrations, this would be important to my research as it would mean that my grandfather was still around when my father's birth was registered.
As the informant could be any person present at the birth other than the parents it would seem that one parent could do the registration on their own. It was only if the child was illegitimate that in order for the real father to be named he had to be present and then I think you will find the child registered with both surnames and indexed twice.
I have an example in the 1880s of the husband of the informant being named as the father but he had died 4 years before! The same woman registered another child in the 1890s and still named her (dead) husband as the father. I can see no reason why this couldn't have happened in the 1920s.
You asked for a definitive answer - the nearest I can get to one would be this site but here again a lot depends of the individual's interpretation of the rules
Thank you for your reply, Pat. I find it rather amusing that someone named her dead husband not once, but twice, as the father of her children!
I don't want to make shaky assumptions in my research, so I'm not going to take the birth certificate as proof that my grandfather was actually still with my grandmother. I shall keep looking in the hope of finding more decisive evidence.
login
print
