Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

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:

TeWiharaMeriKirihimete · 21/12/2011 09:17

I asked the registrar about this before DH and I's wedding. She couldn't really answer!

I think in exceptional circumstances it can make a difference in inheritance cases depending on how the will is worded. However, since I haven't get any rich relatives destined to hand DD a tidy sum I'll be honest and say I never got around to dealing with changing her birth certificate and don't really care.

I suppose I might ask if I can do it when I register DS.

hocuspontas · 21/12/2011 09:45

And those of you who have or are planning to have children and are not married, marry your parters. Someof us were 'brought up properly'.

RainboweBrite · 21/12/2011 10:17

Wow, I have not heard of this before. We married 5 months after DS was born, but the registrar didn't mention anything about legitimising him. I thought the concepts of legitimacy and illegitimacy were of the past.

ElaineReese · 21/12/2011 10:22

Dp and I aren't married, but he's named (and rightly so, I mean!) on both children's birth certificates.

My mother once asked me if he had 'adopted' them, to make it all legal or something. I still maintain that was a ludicrous thing to say and quite annoying.

memphis83 · 21/12/2011 10:25

We got told when we registered DS that if we had children once we were married then DS1 wouldnt be entitled to the same as future children when we die and leave anything to them, they would get a higher stake in out estate (that we dont have)
We just decided that we will have our kids and then get married and then i doesnt matter!

Tonksforthememories · 21/12/2011 10:38

We re registered DD1, who was 4m old when we got married. We weren't told about the fact that we should until we went to register DD2 though!

We eventually did it when DD1 was 6. The explanation we were given was that if we died intestate she would be considered as 'less' than her siblings born within the marriage. We paid £3.50 for a replacement Birth Certificate, that's all.

BarbaraMillicentR0berts · 21/12/2011 10:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PreviouslyonLost · 21/12/2011 11:11

My understanding is the same as youngermother1...a subsequent marriage of the parents 'legitimises' the child (Scots Law anyway). Didn't know about re - registering though.

Bit of a fan of Heir Hunters and recall when a young man's birth father died...young man couldn't receive father's estate of £100K as his mother had remarried and he'd been legally adopted by his step-father. Money went to very distant relatives instead. Inheritancy laws are strange!

pantspantspants · 21/12/2011 11:37

They said this at all 3DC registration. At DC3 registration we asked what they were on about. They said it was maiden name could be put in and surname could be altered so if DC use maiden name or married name to name me for anything it would be picked up but if I left it as un married and DC give married name as mine it wouldn't be found.

FizzyChristmasFairyDust · 21/12/2011 11:48

I thought that there some automatic thing in law that the child was legitimate if you married afterwards if the father was on the birth certificate? We were not married (shock horror!) when DD was born but got married 3 months later, he was on the birth certificate and I think the registry office said that we could go back and have my name changed on the birth certificate but we didn't bother.

TruthSweet · 21/12/2011 12:01

I think that if you wrote a will and left a bequest to the 'legitimate children of Mark and Sarah Bloggs' then any children born before the marriage of Mark and Sarah and not legimated would not be able to inherit in that case or I guess a bequest to 'any legimate children of Mark Bloggs' would also have the same effect.

I don't think many people would have clauses like this any more but it might be an issue if someone was trying to limit the number of claimants to the estate if someone had (or had the possibility of having) a lot of children by different partners.

No judgement on my part though.

youngermother1 · 21/12/2011 19:20

Truthsweet - I think you misunderstand, the marriage makes the children ligitimate whether you like it or not. Registering is a piece of paper that only documents it, in law they are legitimate.

TruthSweet · 21/12/2011 20:21

Possibly, I did read it quite while ago!

whackamole · 21/12/2011 21:21

Hmmm - strange.

We have double-barrelled our boys surnames as when we marry (in June) I will be keeping my name and their name will stay the same. Even so, the registrar told us we have to have all 3 of them re-registered. I really don't know why as none of the details on the short certificate will change, just the 'married' part on the long one!

ThoseClementineShoes · 21/12/2011 21:53

I think all people are legitimate.

midoriway · 22/12/2011 00:24

There is a real advantage of "legitimisation" in very limited circustances, e.g. mine.

My parents never registered my birth as a child, (dont ask, they just never got round to it). They got married years later. At the age of 20 I was able to register my own birth very easily by "legitimising" myself. If this process did not exist, life would have been very difficult for me.

The registry office told me the process of "legitimisation" was an old archaic way to keep the door open for couples to register children born before they were married, and "fix the mistake", as it was seen as in generations past. Some couples still like the idea, why shut the door?

Original poster

SenseofEntitlement · 22/12/2011 10:35

We're not talking about shutting the door, but this bizarre idea that it is legally required needs to go. The law needs changing, although it is such a minor and unenforced law it seems silly to make a fuss.

OP posts:

KouklaMoo · 22/12/2011 10:53

PreviouslyonLost poor bloke must have been gutted.

We 'legimitised' ds after marriage, although as far as I can tell the only thing that changed was that my married name went on the Birth Certificate instead of my maiden name.

The registrar very much presented it to us as our choice - and I wanted to because it just seemed to tie up all the loose ends. and I knew we would be having more children within the marriage as well.

I can't remember that the registrar bringing any actual legal disadvantages to not being legitimised to our attention though.

youngermother1 · 22/12/2011 13:31

When you married, the child was legitimised, whether you registered or not. The upside to registering is nil to you, although keeps the governments records in order. The downside of registering is nil.
If you don't register you risk a fine (of not more than £2.)

PreviouslyonLost · 22/12/2011 13:39

KouklaMoo Programme showed that he was devastated...but literally nothing he could do. Poor boy was late-teens/early 20's and needed the money (don't we all!)

If there hadn't been any other, even distant, relatives, the money would've gone to HM Treasury.

Don't even get me started on Primogeniture...hope Kate 'n' Will's first born IS a girl

biddysmama · 22/12/2011 14:46

my parents werent married when i ws born but later 'legitimised' me (i had forgotten i needed to do this for ds) VERY VERY confusing for me, as an adult to get a copy of my birth certificate for my passport and find out that it was dated 18 months after my birth! had thoughts of being adopted unfortuntely not tho

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread