Guest post: 'Why aren't mothers included on marriage certificates?'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

Did you know that marriage certificates in England and Wales include a section for the names and occupations of the fathers of the bride and groom, but the names and occupations of their mothers are not allowed to be recorded?

In Scotland and Northern Ireland information about mothers is included. Civil Partnerships also recognise mothers, unlike same sex marriages, which mirror their heterosexual counterparts.

‘So what?’ I hear some corners of the internet cry – ‘haven't we got bigger fish to fry?’ But imagine you've brought up your child on your own – when the most important day of their life comes along you won't be legally acknowledged, and the absent father will be. And if you've raised a child together, imagine that only he is considered important enough to give his blessing to the union.

And it's about more than a hurtful snub - it's about the erasing of women from the civil and legal system of which marriage is a central part. We're writing women out of history, and it seems indicative of a society where decisions are made by men to suit men.

As a consequence of women being under-represented on every platform, it often takes a petition to get any progress. So, I set one up. I am campaigning for a change in the law so that those who want to can record information about their mothers, and more than 33,000 people have signed it so far.


They, like I, find it astonishing that a legal document in 2014 discriminates against women in this way, particularly when you consider that public bodies are supposed to be following the Equality Act regardless of cost. When the UK signed up to the global convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, it committed to: “incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women.”

Many would argue it's astonishing that a couple should need any 'sign-off' from their parents at all, but at least if it's both parents it feels less like a transfer of property from father-of-the-bride to father-of-the-groom.

Supporters of the petition are young and old, women and men, and include lots of vicars and registrars. Younger people are astonished to learn about this inequality, and older people are amazed that nothing has changed since they got married. Family historians have pointed out the difficulties they have in tracing the maternal line without being able to find corroborating information from certificates.

One vicar said: "I'm tired of apologising for the sexism in marriage paperwork”, and a registrar commented: "I have been campaigning for this within my role for many years. It is a competition between bureaucracy and equality." Last week Caroline Criado-Perez, who was successful in her campaign to keep a woman on English bank notes, wrote that she will not be marrying her fiancé until equality wins out.

As with Caroline's campaign, this may seem like a little thing, but the visibility of women is essential in the fight for equality – we need to be seen as agents in our marriages, rather than just bit players. And in answer to the people who groan "not another petition" - I am proud to continue the feminist suffragette history of gathering signatures. It's just a little easier now - unlike our pioneering fore-sisters who won us the vote, I don't have to trudge around door to door due to change.org, Mumsnet and social media.

Because I'm already married, I'm going to add the information about my mother and mother-in-law to my original marriage certificate so that I can pass it on to my son and future generations will know who we are. The £9.25 for a duplicate copy (as I will invalidate the original with my pesky quest for acknowledgement!) isn't an enormous sum, but I shouldn't have to pay to right this wrong - they should have been included in the first place. If you agree, do sign and share the petition here.

[GoblinMarket]

i am as yet unmarried but would never ever ever want my 'father' s name on any certificate
please tell me i don't have to

[GoblinMarket]

velve and ladyintheradiator I've just remembered a similar issue arose when i registered our baby - there was a bit of a cuffuffle (sp) but the registrar agreed to leave the section blank

[Andrewofgg]

GoblinMarket A certificate is a record of fact, not of what you would like to be fact, so in principle I think parties to a marriage should be asked for both parents' names and occupations and they should be recorded. It's not just about the people concerned, it's about future generations who will never know those people or their personal issues.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

andrew - yes, but while for some people the important 'face' is the father's name and profession, for other it may be equally important to be clear that the father is not more important than the mother.

Both of those are factual, though in different ways. IMO this is why we need equal recognition, so I agree with you there, but I think it is important not to be selective about what we deem to be 'factual'.

[GoblinMarket]

andrew i therefore would be unable to marry so think i may ask my solicitor if what you say is true

[Velve]

You really don't have to have your father's name on the marriage certificate. When they ask you for his name and occupation just say "I don't want my father on the certificate." And they'll leave it blank.

[LowCloudsForming]

Thank you. Have signed.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

As psychic suggests we had mothers as witnesses - though actually it may have just been MIL with DF - but as she brought up DH that only seemed right that she should have a role and a mention. In the speeches I thanked them both and gave them each a bunch of flowers too.

I might well bring this up through Quaker channels as we have a testimony to equality and would be likely to take it on board I think, perhaps alongside our recent campaigning for equal or same sex marriage.

[LifeOfBriony]

Signed.

I'm another one who asked both my mother and mother-in-law to be to be witnesses to our marriage so that their names were on the marriage certificate too.

I'm also tracing my family tree and this would be so useful - although of course it can't be applied retrospectively it is righting a wrong.

[PartialFancy]

I am the future generation to my ancestors, and I'm very interested in their personal issues.

Several were born out of wedlock or to marriages that broke down. The naming of people on certificates gives a lot of insight into those relationships - whose surname did the children take? Were they named in honour of someone? Have the children given their STEPfather's name at marriage, and was that deliberate or a misunderstanding?

Someone going to the trouble of crossing out "father" and writing in "mother" would give me way more facts than just filling in the form.

[PartialFancy]

I wonder what would happen if a mother signing as a witness snuck in profession and (mother) after their signature?

The celebrant might be pissed off, but I'm not sure they can do anything about it.

[PartialFancy]

Because without a designation, later researchers don't know whether "Mary Jones (witness)" is Mary Jones (mother), Mary Jones (sister) or Mary Jones (1st cousin once removed).

At least one would know if the mother is still alive to see her child's wedding.

[thatwouldbeanecumenicalmatter]

Signed. Thank you for starting the petition Alisa, although it's ridiculous that in this day and age such actions are necessary!

[nameequality]

Goblin - I have good news to you.

Have a look at this guide book www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-for-authorised-persons at section 4.22 'if either of the couple do not wish to supply this information then a line should be placed in the box'.

And to be clear - I fully support people's choice to omit the father, mother or both. This choice is more important than the future records and is of itself information.

It is worth me saying here that they will "allow" a sole adoptive mother to be written in. Not sure when this change was made. Allowing people to "squeeze" in or substitute the mother's details would cost £nil before a change to the certificates and registers can be made.

[eurochick]

I signed ages ago. It seems like a complete no brainer.

I don't understand the response about looking into it and it being an expensive change (on phone so can't look back at exactly what the response was now) - it really can't be.

Come on Tories. This is a chance to distinguish yourselves from those sexist buffoons at ukip.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I hope my signature counted. You don't have to log in to the page do you? Just put in the details and press "sign"? It doesn't seem very reassuring that it's worked afterwards!

[nameequality]

Shoc

[nameequality]

Shockingly you can substitute step father for father (by annotation) but not mother!
A sole adoptive mother CAN be included by annotation (I.E a state sanctioned reason why no man-Father involved)!
informing

[nameequality]

Juggling if you refresh the page you should see your signature in tgevsection 'recent signatures'. If you log in then you provide an email and get updates and info about other petitions.

[nameequality]

See guide linked above as that photo is not very clear.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Thanks nameequality - I expect it did work then. Would be a nice touch if they could tweek things so that it came up with a message saying "Thanks for your signature" or "Thanks, signatures are now up to 30,001" or something!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I would say, as a historian-ish person, it matters hugely that people are routinely asked to give name and occupation, not just that they could choose to sign as witnesses. Because if you require people to give information, by and large they will unless they have a strong reason against. The vast majority of historical gaps in the record concerning women are because women could have entered the record but weren't required to.

This leads to (bad) historians claiming 'oh, women never did x,' and good historians can't say for certain. And this perpetuates the idea of women as incapable or unambitious, as well as meaning that individual women's memories can be lost very fast (eg., if you want to find out about a great-aunt you loved as a child but who died, you may actually find it very difficult to learn much about her life).

(Sorry for the waffly post, just think it's relevant to the 'they can sign as witnesses' bit.)

[Panga63]

I noticed this before we married and thought it unfair so we made our mothers the witnesses. Sorted!

[Sinkingfeeling]

Not really sorted, though Panga, because as someone mentioned upthread, your mothers can be recorded as witnesses, but their full names, their designations and their occupations will not be recorded

[nameequality]

Yes in the newsletter to clergy (number 5 here www.gov.uk/government/publications/clergy-newsletters) the General Register Office says that info on marriage certs "creates national records, informs debates on social policy".

Father's occupations are being transferred onto an electronic system and passed to UK National Statistics hmm and I wonder who else - something for another day maybe - Mother's occupations they aren't bloody bothered!