Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not really get why we would "legitimise" our DC?

71 replies

SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:29

Me and DH had our DDs before we were married, but when we went to register DD2 and mentioned that we were getting married soon, the registrar made a fuss about how we should come back after the wedding and, for a fee, we could "legitimise" the children.

Why?

I can only think it would be useful for maybe inheriting titles or something, and there is no danger of that in our families.

OP posts:
RagamuffinAndFidget · 20/12/2011 22:31

We were told this too. DS1 was born before DH and I married but still has DH's surname so I'm not entirely sure what 'legitimising' him would do? DS2 is, apparently, already legit.

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:32

I should add that said registrar made a huge fuss about getting our occupations exactly right (right down to what I was studying), and fretting about my name (I had changed it by deed pool, and he thought that might confuse future family tree researchers - there was no legal issue) So he could quite easily have just been a bit of a jobsworth.

OP posts:
ouryve · 20/12/2011 22:33

We never got round to legitimising DS1 - we didn't get married until he was 6 months old. When we registered DS2's birth, we were told we should go and legitimise DS1. Never did and no one ever chased us. We'd already given him DH's surname, anyhow.

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:34

Exactly - the children both have DH down as "father" and we all have the same surname (although I changed mine shortly after DD1 was born, so on her certificate we have different surnames) , so I'm not sure what the point would be.

OP posts:
slavetofilofax · 20/12/2011 22:35

What is legitimising? What difference does it make if both parents are already on the birth certificate?

HoBloodyHo · 20/12/2011 22:38

I think it's to ensure that children born before you are married have equal rights to those born after the parents are married. Especially if the parents die without making a will.

This may not be correct. But I'm sure that's the reason DH gave me.

edam · 20/12/2011 22:38

My parents were offered this for me -born 3 before the wedding. They didn't bother and I haven't noticed any dire consequences. Or any consequences at all.

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:39

I have literally no idea. I asked him and he just said it was so they would be recognised as children of the marriage, in case they ever felt they wanted to be recognised as such.

Technically, though, they aren't - they were conceived and born outside of "the marriage". Not that we care, but we can't go back in time and make them be born in wedlock.

OP posts:
edam · 20/12/2011 22:39

Darn phone that's 3 months before

izzywhizzysmincepies · 20/12/2011 22:40

Do you or dh intend to stand as Leader of the Labour Party?

If there's even a remote chance of the 'legitimisation' of dd1 being required at some future date I would suggest you do it now as whatever fee you have been quoted will inevitably increase in leaps and bounds over the years.

Prince William Charming may be divorced by the time dd1's of marriageable age and it would be a shame if the glass slipper wasn't considered a good fit merely because of the absence of a piece of paper.

Splinters · 20/12/2011 22:42

Flintshire CC (just picking councils at random because it came up first on Google) claim that you are "required by law to legitimise the child by applying for a re-registration."

However Flintshire CC has no grasp at all of basic punctuation, which makes it all a bit harder to take seriously. Also the idea that childern of unmarried parents are not 'legitimate' is outdated and insulting claptrap, so if you can get away with not doing it you should, IMO, just to make the point.

mrsjay · 20/12/2011 22:46

oh my eldest daughter must be illegitimate ? as i wasnt married at the time of registration , thats weird ive never heard of that , maybe its different in scotland , although i can change my name on her birth certificate if i want , which i think is a bit silly to do as ive nothing to be ashamed of , seems really victorian , legitimise children PFFT !

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:47

To make matters worse, DH was still technically married to someone else when DD1 was born (neither of them could be bothered getting the paperwork together - they had broken up ages before and she was fully aware of me and DD)

How will she cope with the shame?

I'm a ruined woman! My poor children will never be accepted in polite society! :)

If she is in a situation where she would even meet royalty, she can pay for her own legitimacy, frankly.

Although we do have them pencilled in to be the president and prime minister of the moon at some point...

OP posts:
RagamuffinAndFidget · 20/12/2011 22:48

edam your first post had me thinking your parents were real shotgun types! and that your mother must be a total machine for leaping up and getting married three minutes post partum!

Finallygotaroundtoit · 20/12/2011 22:49

HoBloodyHo is right - it's about ensuring children are treated equally if a parent dies

Not doing it to 'make a point' would only disadvantage your own child in this (fortunately) unlikely event

hocuspontas · 20/12/2011 22:51

Lol at 'confusing future family tree researchers'! What in Heaven's name has that got to do with anything?!

mrsjay · 20/12/2011 22:51

senseofentitllement
I think you should wander about with a scarlett A round your neck and hide your children away Grin

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:51

DH has had the snip though, and I can't carry any more children, so there will be no "legitimate" children to compete with.

What a strange quirk of law.

OP posts:
RandomMess · 20/12/2011 22:51

Yes it's something to do with inheritance Confused

We've married 4 years, have filled the forms in just still not taken to the registry office!

BarbaraMillicentR0berts · 20/12/2011 22:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mrsjay · 20/12/2011 22:53

Its weird im googiling scottish law i might need to legtimise My eldest if she wants to inherit my riches .

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:53

So, imagine we did have another baby, but in marriage this time, then we both died suddenly. Assuming we had any money to leave, would it just go to the legitimate child?

OP posts:
tiredteddy · 20/12/2011 22:53

We had this too. Ds1 was born 8 months before we got married, we registered him with DH surname. When ds2 cane along 3 years after the wedding the registrar took great pleasure telling us that ds1 was illegitimate and technically a bastard! We have yet to re-register him. Oops?

Original poster
SenseofEntitlement · 20/12/2011 22:54

Also, if DH was some kind of hereditary lord and the girls were boys, would his title go to an obscure legitimate relation?

OP posts:
ShengdanRoad · 20/12/2011 22:55

It shocks me that a child is considered "legitimate" only if its parents are married. What century are we living in?

Swipe left for the next trending thread