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.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

At least the bride's occupation is on there though.

But of course it's a no-brainer that it would be great and only fair to collect the mothers names and occupations at the same time.

I've tried to trace my maternal line, as well as general family history research, because after I had DC I became more interested in my ancestry, and tracing the maternal line with all those changes in name and lack of info is very tricky isn't it?

[Andrewofgg]

nameequality until the law is changed the registrars cannot ask for the information.

[nameequality]

Andrewofgg - which part of which post or interview makes you think that I do not understand that registrars cannot currently legally collect information about mothers???!!!

I am quoting from General Register Office newsletter which I have linked to which talks about HOW IMPORTANT marriage certificate data ius for a number of purposes.

As you know at the moment if a DC of yours gets married you can be recorded as a Father!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

andrew, I wonder if perhaps you misunderstood the OP's post? I'm saying this because I can see she's confused.

When she said that 'they' aren't 'bothered', did you perhaps think she was talking about individual registrars?

This is actually quite a big campaign. It's not about individual registrars, but about the whole situation in England and Wales. I know often people think about things on a smaller and more personal level, so it's very natural you're focussing on what registrars individually can and can't ask - but the point is, we could get this changed on the form itself.

I suspect that's what the OP meant when she said 'they' aren't bothered - she means the people (like Andrew Dent) who are in a position to discuss changing the whole situation.

[Andrewofgg]

I did understand the original post. I entirely agree with the campaign. It pisses me off that when and if DS gets married my particulars will and DW's won't be recorded unless by then the law has changed.

It also pissed me off that when he was born and I registered his birth I was "asked" to give particulars which were not in law required - and don't appear on the certificate - such as how many if any children DW had previously borne (none) or I had begotten (none that I know of, but I missed out the last four words) which were wanted for "statistical purposes". I am of the view that when the State asks the Citizen for personal data it must be strictly pursuant to law and the law should be based on need-to-know. My strong view on that is coloured by my experience at that time.

Now I think the State does need to know the names and occupations of both parents of a marrying couple and the law should allow it - through the Registrar - to ask. But at the moment it doesn't and therefore Registrars must not ask - however sympathetic they may be.

That's all I meant. I hope I gave no offence because I certainly intended none.

LRD It is horrible to think how much fine music was almost certainly written by women but never printed and ultimately lost, isn't it?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Ah, sorry, I was referring to the post I was quoting from - by 'OP' I meant 'original poster' not 'original post'.

There is actually nothing to stop a registrar asking - it's only that they must not record it. You could ask in a friendly, 'making conversation' kind of way very appropriately, I think. But it is a side issue, of course.

It is depressing, yes.

[VelvetStrider]

Thanks Andrewofgg and others - a good suggestion for people with absent/useless fathers, however I'm lucky enough to have a fantastic father and I want his name and occupation on the marriage certificate. But I do want my equally great mother's name and occupation on there too, and in a proper, named way. Not just as a witness because that's not an important role - a stranger can be a witness!

Our registrar is a family friend so I'm confident she'll go along with our wishes as far as she is allowed to, but I'm still not sure of the rules - can DP and I insist on my mother's and his mother's names being on the certificate? Even if it is just scrawled in under my dad's details. Or does this extra wording invalidate the certificate?

[ToffeeMoon]

Signed. Dreadful, casual sexism.

It also irks me that they ask for my mothers maiden name at the bank. But my bank can't handle the fact that DH and I have different surnames. I am regularly asked if I'd like then to change my name to his on my private accounts...

[Andrewofgg]

The registrars of today are carrying out rules written in other days, and they have to follow them to the letter- so please don't accuse them of sexism.

VelvetStrider No she cannot break the rules for you, and for the moment the witness road is the only way open to you and DP. She will write out the certificate in conformity with the rules as they now stand, and any future certificate of the marriage will be in the same form. It's a pity this anomaly has been left in place for so long - a pity not only for all the people getting married who would have liked both parents' names on their certificates - I would have done - but for future family historians.

As for the banks ToffeeMoon with so many of their future customers being born to parents who aren't married they are going to have to think of something better than mother's maiden name as a security feature!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Could you help me out by explaining where someone did?

It's just, that's quite a big accusation to make, isn't it? Perhaps I missed a post, but so far as I can see, the only person who suggested that registrars might be accused of sexism is you, and I only noticed that because I took some trouble to correct you as to the situation with what registrars can and cannot do.

Please excuse me if I have missed something.

[Andrewofgg]

LRD Toffeemoon did in the post before mine. At least she seemed to. If that was not her intention of course I apologise to you and to her.

[meringue33]

Signed
We are getting married in a few weeks and it really annoyed me that only my fathers name and occupation was recorded. I'd like my descendants to know my name and what I do for the career I'm currently busting a gut for, too!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Oh - I think she is referring to the OP, and the petition - the main subject of the thread, not the debate you and I had a few posts ago!

Lots of people will be clicking on this without reading the whole thread, and they will be responding to the OP on its own. At least, that was my reading.

[Andrewofgg]

Agree. Some threads are like a family gathering where A and B are talking to each other but both are more interested in C and D and what they are saying to each other!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Yes, well put! And others are more like this one, where most people are more interested in the OP than in the rest of us making minor points. I always forget we're not just having a nice chat, there's a serious point.

[80sMum]

Presumably in 1837 married women were deemed to be merely an appendage of the husband, so their occupation (if indeed they had one, since many employers wouldn't employ a married woman) was considered irrelevant.
Personally, I think there should be much more information on BMD certificates than currently requested. I would like to see on birth certs both parents full names and dates and places of birth. On marriage certs there should be birthdates for the bride and groom and both sets of parents. On death certs, date and place of birth, name and birthdate of spouse (or other next of kin if a child or unmarried adult).

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

YY. Caroline Norton left her husband in 1836, and she found that thereafter, her earnings actually belonged legally to her husband. So not only was her occupation irrelevant, it actually didn't belong to her - her husband was legally entitled to any money she earned, even if she wasn't living with him.

She did a lot of work to help women's legal states, but .... wow.

[ToffeeMoon]

Apology accepted andrewofgg. I was referring to the document itself and those who originally drafted it. Why on earth would I think the registrar had a hand in it?

[PartialFancy]

I've recently seen a birth certificate which included parents' ages and birthplaces and the place of their marriage. Which makes tracking the family back to their other BMD records trivial.

Mind you, it was from a country which tipped over into a police state a few years later...

[Andrewofgg]

80sMum Not sure about that. There is a line between collecting needful data and being intrusive. A death cert, I think, should not contain data about anybody except the deceased - certainly not about spouses or CPs or children. In practice one of them often registers the death which provides some data. On marriage and birth certs the dates of birth of the parents seems to be too TMI. Interested to hear other views.

[Sinkingfeeling]

VelvetStrider - your marriage certificate will be a true copy of what is recorded in the marriage register. As things stand in England & Wales, there is no place for the full name of your mother and her occupation to be recorded in the register, so they will not be recorded on your certificate either. You could add them to your own certificate if you want, but adding or changing information on a marriage certificate after it's been signed by the registrar who registered your marriage will render that certificate invalid. Not a problem of course if you only want to use it for personal or family history reasons.