Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957?

[KiteRunner]

I've just been sent a copy of an overseas army birth certificate and I'm a bit confused. The heading says "An entry in the Army Register Book of Births, Baptisms and Marriages - Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth", then "Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957". Then it states the father's regiment, date of the child's birth (4 Nov 1898), place and date of the child's baptism (19 Nov 1898), Christian name of child, name of chaplain and signature of adjutant certifying correctness of each entry.

Underneath all that, it says "Recorded as a child of the marriage of ..." and the parents' names.

But the mother is unmarried on the 1901 census staying with her sister (and doesn't have a child with her, though maybe he died young?) and she didn't marry the father until after that census - their marriage is listed as 1901, also overseas.

So I'm wondering if anybody knows what the significance of the 1957 Act would be in this case, if any? Was he re-registered a long time after the parents' marriage - it doesn't give the actual date of registration on the cert?

[Richard in Perth]

I would say that it was as a result of legitimisation of the child following the parents marriage. The act is online here:

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957 (c.58) - Statute Law Database

This extract from the above relates to legitimisation of a child's birth:

5. Registration of births of legitimated persons in the service departments registers.
(1) Where in the case of—
(a)a person whose birth is recorded in the Service Departments Registers, or
(b)a person born outside the United Kingdom whose father at the time of the birth was a member of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces or a person of a description falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act,
evidence is produced to the appropriate Registrar General which appears to him to be satisfactory that that person was, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents, the said Registrar General may authorise at any time the re-registration or, as the case may be, the registration of that person’s birth, and the re-registration or registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as may be provided by an Order in Council under this Act:
Provided that, except where—
(i) the paternity of the legitimated person has been established by an affiliation order or otherwise by a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, or
(ii) a declaration of the legitimacy of the legitimated person has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom,

the said Registrar General shall not authorise re-registration or registration unless information with a view to obtaining it is furnished by both parents.

So, I would suggest that the parents applied for re-registration of the child following their marriage in 1901. Doesn't explain where he was in 1901 though! Maybe with the grandparents?

[Janet in Yorkshire]

"So, I would suggest that the parents applied for re-registration of the child following their marriage in 1901. Doesn't explain where he was in 1901 though! Maybe with the grandparents?"

Earliest reference I can find so far for a Legitimacy Act in England is 1926??

Jay

[Olde Crone Holden]

Sounds as if he applied for his own legitimisation in 1957, rather than his parents doing it. Maybe it was important to him for some legal reason? A bequest is the obvious first thought.

OC

[KiteRunner]

Thanks for the info. I was thinking he must have died young as he isn't with the mother on the 1901 census, but maybe he was abroad with his father or something. The GRO overseas index that his birth appears on says 1896-1900 at the top and his name is listed in the main (typed) part of it under the father's surname, not a handwritten addition, but I suppose it's possible the index wasn't typed up until after 1901. Before I saw the cert, I thought my relly was the second wife and this child was the son of the first wife, but it seems there was no first wife!

[KiteRunner]

Oh, it turns out he died in 1987, so it could be that he had his own birth re-registered. The birth doesn't seem to be listed under the mother's maiden name on the GRO army index as it would be if they registered him under both surnames, but maybe I haven't found the right page yet, or maybe army indexes work differently.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Do you want anyone to have a second look for the child in 1901, or would you rather I finish writing my Xmas cards?

[KiteRunner]

Thanks for the offer, Merry, but I've just found him in 1901. I don't think I ever looked for him before because I didn't think he was related to me until I saw the birth cert last night - it is the "mother" who is my relly but I thought he was her stepson.

Now I'm very confused indeed, because he is with his grandparents on the 1901 but they are the parents of the first wife.

But on that birth certificate it says he was a son of the marriage of .... my relly, and it says the father was a bachelor when he married her.

I'm wondering whether the child grew up thinking my relly was his mother and found out he was born before the marriage, didn't realise his father had been married before, then got his own birth re-registered thinking he was making himself legitimate although he already was?

But this doesn't make much sense if he was brought up by his maternal grandparents!! I found the father and the second wife coming back to England from abroad in about 1910 and I'm sure this child wasn't with them. What a muddle.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Hmmm....do you know when the parents of the first wife died?

[KiteRunner]

No. I'll have to see if I can find out. Maybe I should explain I didn't order the birth cert, it's a contact of mine who did (who is more closely related to the people in question) and they kindly sent me a copy of it. I think they may end up having to get a couple of marriage certificates too!

[KiteRunner]

Also, wouldn't he have had to give in his original birth certificate for the re-registration? Or could it be that it doesn't give the mother's name on that?

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Also, wouldn't he have had to give in his original birth certificate for the re-registration? Or could it be that it doesn't give the mother's name on that?

If he was born abroad then his mother's name may well not be on the cert, though I've not seen one as late as 1900ish.

[KiteRunner]

Looks as though his maternal grandfather died in 1913. There are too many possibles for the grandmother. I suppose when the 1911 comes out we will see who he's with!

[Olde Crone Holden]

I think the words "child of the marriage of" don't actually mean the child was born within wedlock, but that the parents married at some point, not necessarily before the birth!

My understanding of the 1957 Legitimisation Act is that a child can be declared legitimate if the parents subsequently marry. The earlier (1926???) Act provided Legitimisation of a child if the parents subsequently married AND WERE FREE TO MARRY at the time of the child's birth.

The later (1957) Act removed the qualification that the parents had been free to marry - a child could still be legitimised if the parents married, even if they had both been married to other people.

Just a thought - as the Army is involved here, perhaps the couple married without Army permission before the child's birth and the 1901 marriage was a remarriage for army purposes.

The reregistration may "just" have been one man's determination to set the record straight. A man born when he was, would feel the stigma of illegitimacy.

I suppose an appeal to the GRO might bring forth a bit more explanation? (Or a useful date!)

OC

[KiteRunner]

I've found the death reg for the first wife on the GRO Army Death Indices, year given as 1899, station Malta, which is where the child was born. All the evidence so far, apart from the re-registered birth certificate, points to him being a legitimate child of the first marriage. If so, then of course he wouldn't have remembered his real mother, and maybe he didn't stay with his maternal grandparents for long after his father married again? Then if they never bothered to tell him about his real mother, I suppose he might have compared their date of marriage with his date of birth and concluded he was illegitimate. But I would have thought he would need to show their marriage certificate when he got his birth reregistered, and the marriage cert should state that his father was a widower. But possibly it says bachelor in error; I suppose we would need to get a copy of it to check.

I found his baptism (in Malta) listed in an index on this site:
Malta Family History

Does anybody know how you go about getting a copy of the full baptism entry, since the index on there doesn't give parents' names?

[Olde Crone Holden]

Kate

I have just realised the time scale involved here.

As he died in 1987, I am certain he didn't do the re-registration himself and therefore the obvious explanation is that it was to do with inheritance of some sort. Have you looked for a Will? Although it may not be HIS Will which is pertinent, it may be an earlier generation Will, or intestacy, as illegitimate children cannot inherit unless specifically named.

This is fascinating - please let us know what you discover!

(Don't know about Malta baptisms, but has the LDS filmed the register?)

OC

[KiteRunner]

Not sure why you say he didn't do the re-registration himself if he died in 1987? The Act was 1957, wasn't it, and he would have been just under 60 when the Act was passed, so it could be him that did the re-reg couldn't it? The stepmother's parents didn't leave wills, I'm sure, because I've looked!

[Olde Crone Holden]

Sorry, I was jumping to conclusions there, for some reason which now escapes me.

However, still applies - a need to prove legitimacy for an inheritance? Or perhaps a need to provide a birth certificate he never had, and as you say, erroneously thought he was illegitimate because he couldn't find a record of his parents marriage before his birth?

OC

[KiteRunner]

I see he is listed on both GRO Army Birth Indices 1896 - 1900 and GRO Regimental Birth Indices - Army Births and Baptisms, it says Malta 1898 for both but it could be that one gives the ref for his birth cert and the other for his baptism. But since the re-registered birth cert gives his baptism details on, I bet if we try to order a copy of the original baptism cert, we'll just get that reregistration again!

Maybe I should wait for my contact to get back to me in case they have more info!

[Guy]

The "Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957" is nothing to do with illegitimacy it is an Act to allow service men to register the birth deaths and marriages whilst overseas.

I am a little confused here though.
Are you saying you have been sent a “new” copy of the certificate from the National Archives or have you been sent an existing copy of the certificate which belonged to your friend’s family?
If the latter it could be a certificate that was bought after the death of the person for inheritance purposes
Cheers
Guy