unmarried father named on birth certificate

[suellen]

I have a birth certificate for a family member born in Glasgow in 1909 where the parents are unmarried but the father's name is recorded. Under what circumstances could this happen? Does it mean that both parents would have been present at the registration, as I believe is the case now?

[johnniegarve]

I don't think so Sue-ellen, just whoever registered the birth named him.

[Elwyn 1]

According to this site, for the father to be named on an illegitimate child's birth certificate, the father had to be present and acknowledge paternity:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/scotti ... ath/birth/

[AndrewP]

Hi Suellen,

If you look at the certificate, you should see signatures from both parties in the informant column. Hence they were both present at the registration. As said above, for an unmarried couple, the father had to be there at the registrar's for his name to go on the certificate.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Rockford]

Hi,

I think have maybe posted this elsewhere, but when my 2 x great grandparents' first child was born, they were not married. On the child's birth certificate, the father was present to sign, but the mother was represented by her father. It's probably not the way it happened, but I have always had a vision of my great great grandfather being led by the ear by my 3xG grandfather to make sure the birth was recorded properly!

Best wishes

Brian

[suellen]

Thanks for your replies. In this case the parents are both named in the 'parent' column, but only the mother appears in the 'informant' column. I don't think I've seen a certificate with more than one informant signature ? - it's usually the father but often the mother.