Mothers not to be on marriage certificates after all

[grimbletart]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12067271/Ministers-reject-simple-change-to-marriage-certificates-to-include-mothers-name-as-unfair-to-gay-couples.html

So much for the attempts to accord mothers equal status on marriage certificates.

Seems that not only are women expected to budge over not to offend transgender activists according to posters on recent threads her, we now have to budge over not to (hypothetically) offend those in same sex relationships.

You'd think it would be enough budging over to minorities that straight women cannot even have a civil partnership with their male partner wouldn't you? But no.

I should add that if the mother is married ( and has changed her name) her maiden name is also on the notice . And same sex couples are treated in the same way, by biology or adoption , are treated the same way .

The couple can define themselves as bride or bridegroom or neither , regardless of their sex.

Yes indeed.

So a Scottish marriage certificate for Elizabeth Brown may read:

Father: William Brown, Blacksmith (deceased)
Mother: Mary McDonald formerly Brown M.S.[Maiden Surname] Henderson

Indicating that Elizabeth was born to a married couple, William Brown and Mary Henderson; her father has died and her mother has remarried to a McDonald.

Or a cert for Jessie Bell might read:
Father: Alexander Gourlay, Carpenter
Mother: Jean Fraser M.S. Bell

Indicating that Jessie Bell was born to an unmarried Jean Bell and Alexander Gourlay and took her mother's surname, and that her mother has subsequently married a Fraser.

The point being that English wibbling about "Ooh, it's all so complex and will be too haaaaaaard, and we can't trust registrars not to make mistakes if they use a spare box" is so much hooey.

Yes, except you've missed off the mothers occupation .

I think registrars are extremely careful about these things, it's a bit insulting to say they won't be able to cope .

I've just checked mine

It's " fathers forenames, surnames and occupation "

So William Brown , blacksmith ( deceased )

And " mothers forenames, maiden surname and surnames and occupation "

Mary Hemderson (ms) or Brown , cook ( retired )

If she was still married to Mr Brown . Or

Mary Henderson (ms) or McDonald , cook ( retired )

If she was now married to Mr McDonald .

I don't know if it gives any former married name, if you are divorced or remarried .

AFAIK, any legal documents in Scotland use women's own names followed by their husbands name, if they have changed it . So it's

Jane Elizabeth [own surname ]or [husband's surname ]

But I'm not 100% sure as I don't use my husband's surname ( and he doesn't use mine ) .

Yy, I looked at a more recent certificate after posting that, and the newer one does indeed include mother's occupation.

Of course both parents appear in the same column, so the column makes it easy for mother's occupation to be included or not. IME older (C19th) certificates are less likely to include mother's occupation.

Also IME, women's occupations are more likely to be included in Scottish certificates generally, than in E&W where if you can find a woman's occupation during her marriage on any pre-1900 document, you're doing well. She magically stops working during her marriage and starts again when widowed. I do not for a moment imagine this describes the reality of working class families!

And yes, Scottish legal documents and everyday life, back to at least the C18th, use Mary Henderson or Brown. In fact, Scots women sometimes appear in censuses under their maiden names.

So the census will show
William Brown, Head, 32, ...
Mary Henderson, Wife, 31, ...

She will appear in the burial register as as Mary Henderson or Brown. The newspaper notice of her death will read:
BROWN. On 27 inst. at Aberdeen, MARY HENDERSON, beloved wife of William Brown.

And the gravestone will read:
In loving memory of Mary Henderson, 1826-1879.
Also her husband, William Brown, 1825-1883

My impression is that a woman changing her name at all on marriage was an English practice introduced to Scotland. But I haven't gone back far enough to be sure about that.

My impression is that a woman changing her name at all on marriage was an English practice introduced to Scotland. But I haven't gone back far enough to be sure about that.

I thought that was the case as well, although we may both be reading the same wrong sources .

Interesting about the Humanist Scottish weddings as well, a cousin just had one recently and very lovely it was too. Didn't realise in England you had to have a (Registry?) wedding as well. How difficult is it to change the law so all celebrants of different faiths can be recognised?

Ah, there's a fundamental difference between the E&W set-up and the Scottish one, explained well here: www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/economicsocialhistory/historymedicine/scottishwayofbirthanddeath/marriage/

In Scotland, the marriage is the agreement between the parties. It can take place anywhere, and it can be an irregular marriage with no celebrant. The marriage is then reported to the Civil Registrar so the parties get a convenient piece of paper and record of the act. Scottish marriage certs have a date of marriage, and a registration date sometimes a few days later when the paperwork reaches the register office.

In England (sorry, don't know much about Wales), the Church of England ceremony WAS the legal marriage. The CofE had a privileged status and people such as most Non-conformists had to rock up at a C of E church to get a legal marriage (I've seen a Methodist Minister married in an Anglican church by Anglican rites). Civil Registration was introduced in 1837 to allow people a legal marriage without going to the CofE. But it remained the case until recent decades, that legally the ceremony by the Methodist or Catholic or Muslim celebrant was just a nice piece of theatre, which the Civil Registrar would attend and then carry out the legal part of the marriage.

Hence these two consecutive entries in the 1837 marriage indexes for Lancashire:

HALLIWELL John MOLYNEUX Jane Preston Register Office or Registrar Attended Preston PRESTON/1/4

HALLIWELL Joseph CHAMBERLAIN Alice Bolton, St Peter Bolton 18/1/213

John Halliwell married Jane Molyneux either at the Preston Register Office or at say a Wesleyan chapel.
Joseph Halliwell and Alice Chamberlain had a CofE wedding at St Peter's church, Bolton.

Over the decades, more and more religious celebrants have been recognised for conducting a legal marriage. I think Catholic is now on the privileged list, but am not sure of Muslim. (Jewish & Quaker ceremonies have had a special status since before 1837, but I don't know much about that.)

So it's very easy to incorporate Humanist weddings into the Scottish registration system, which was designed from the start to incorporate plurality. While in E&W it requires immense huffing and puffing and legal change, and gives the CofE bishops in the House of Lords the chance to stamp all over it. Essentially the E&W system is designed to perpetuate the privilege of the Church of England.

(That second link is to a page with a good explanation, on the Lancashire indexes site.)

I've heard back from my MP. I think there may be further procedural barriers when this next comes before Parliament. He says:

I signed my support to EDM 446 that had been tabled by Caroline Lucas on this issue.

Despite my support for this proposal, it is important to note that the Private Members’ Bills are heard on Fridays, which is unfortunately the one day in the week that I spend in the constituency, meeting with and supporting the local community. As such, it is a very significant thing for me to stay in London on that day in order to attend the debate, as I already do not spend enough time in the constituency. Attending Private Members Bills is also made more difficult as more are tabled than can often be heard on a single day. This leads to MP’s potentially giving up a day in their constituencies without the benefit of being able to debate an important issue in Parliament.

There was a vote regarding whether the Private Members’ Bill should be moved from Fridays to Tuesday evenings, but this was defeated. As I say it is far from ideal that Private Members’ Bills are debated on Friday and this is an issue I have raised in the past. I tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM), the text of which I have copied below.

It's here if you want to read it.

Sigh. Is the bill defeated if it's not even heard on its appointed day? I will check and report back.

If it is increasingly becoming enshrined in law that people can declare themselves to be man or woman without having to change name, body, pronoun, title, anything -- if there becomes a space on marriage certificate for more than one man as a parent, could we take advantage of this and put Mr Parent in one box and ms/dr/ms/miss/mrs parent in the other box?

Update: the bill was not heard yesterday, you can see a transcript in Hansard. There were about 5 hours put aside for hearing Private Members' Bills - the full list is here. Of the fifteen (which includes both the original from Caroline Spelman and the replacement from Christina Rees), one - the NHS (Charitable Trusts etc) Bill - took up four hours. Two others got about half an hour each.

The bills are now scheduled for hearing on 5th February.

For anyone still trying to follow this saga, the bill is due to be heard on 4th March. Not sure what happened on 5th Feb, it seems to have just been bounced.

Father's name is an historical throwback and used purely by people in the future doing family history research. Leave it off if you like.
I have no idea why parent 1 and parent 2 isn't acceptable.

Yes quite, Perspicacia - or if for some reason only one parent's details can be captured let the bride and groom choose which parent it will be.

@Decaff: Women should exploit those ridiculous laws for our own benefit wherever we can. Apart from the immediate benefits, it is also the one thing that is most likely to result in them being changed.

We always have to make way, we always have to budge up.

No great shock to discover the bill wasn't debated today, it was 12th on the list and they got through three and a half. Waiting for Hansard to see if it has been rescheduled for 11 March.

Incidentally the bill which is (notionally) progressing is the original by Christina Rees (Labour) and not the replacement by Caroline Spelman (Conservative) which the government indicated it would support. This wasn't what was originally intended, the Rees bill was to make way for the Spelman, not the other way around.

Further update:

The Rees bill is due for second reading on 22nd April. However, the notes say:

The MP sponsoring this Bill has nominated Friday 22 April for the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The House is not expected to sit on this date.

Private Members' Bills have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session. The last sitting Friday for the consideration of Private Members' Bills for the 2015-16 session was 11 March 2016.

Which I take to mean the bill is dead and will have to be reintroduced in the next parliament. So much for the assurances given, and which nameequality quoted in December: I assure her that this is not Government waffle. We have to deal with the matter for once and for all, quickly and properly.

Another update: it looks as if the Bill has been reintroduced in this Parliament, my MP was one of the supporters. I've tweeted him to check it is the same one.

So we can look forward to another year of basically nothing happening except I can spend some quality time in Hansard seeing what other crapola got more air time in Parliament.

Thank you to tripbot, nameequality and grimbletart for this thread, which convinced me to feel very strongly about this (despite already being married!) I do not think my existence or job is any less significant than my husband's, so if my kids get married one day I'd like my name on their certificates!

If anyone else is still interested, I have seen that the bill is now at the Committee Stage. Make of that what you will!

Thanks for the updates trib