Registering as a british citizen - born before 2006 to a British father

[aakashbasu2]

Here is my situation: Father was born in the UK in 1956, and so british citizen automatically. I was born in India in 1984 at a time my parents were married. However, I may not be able to prove my parents were married before my birth because their marriage had not been registered. They are currently getting their marriage registered, but I don't know how much weight a marriage certificate issued 35 years after the marriage will carry in convincing anyone about the exact wedding date 35 years ago.

Nevertheless, I understand that people who would have become british citizens automatically by descent through their father were it not for the fact that their fathers were nor married can still register as a british citizen. I want to know that should I try to directly apply for a british passport but fail to convince the home office that my parents were married before my birth, can I still take the registration route stating that while I believe my parents were married before my birth, the home office does not. Or would a direct passport application where I try to claim that my parents were married before my birth go against a later registration application I might submit should the passport be denied (on the grounds of insufficient evidence regarding parents marriage date.)

[secret.simon]

If the marriage before your birth is not provable, you may be better off registering using Form UKF. It only costs £80 and is an entitlement, so generally can't be refused.

Be aware that after registration, you will be a British citizen by descent and will not be able to pass on British citizenship automatically to children born outside the UK.

[aakashbasu2]

Hi! Thanks for your reply. I guess my question is that if I first directly apply for a British passport, but the home office concludes that the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that my parents were married, would it in any way hurt my chances of subsequently registering as a british citizen instead?

[secret.simon]

my question is that if I first directly apply for a British passport, but the home office concludes that the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that my parents were married, would it in any way hurt my chances of subsequently registering as a british citizen instead?

No.

[Obie]

If your parents were subsequently married then you are a British by virtue of section 2(1). I disagree that you will need to be registered in those circumstance.

If an anytime after your birth, your parent contracted a lawful marriage, then you are a British.

Provided of course the marriage or registration of it took place before the 01-07-2006.

[aakashbasu2]

If your parents were subsequently married then you are a British by virtue of section 2(1). I disagree that you will need to be registered in those circumstance.

If an anytime after your birth, your parent contracted a lawful marriage, then you are a British.

Provided of course the marriage or registration of it took place before the 01-07-2006.

Hi, thanks for your comment. I understand the clause you are referring to regarding subsequent marriage legitimizing the child, provided the local law of the land the father is domicile in at the time of my birth (in my case, India) permits such legitimization. I have searched the Indian Marriage Act thoroughly and there is no concept of legitimization, although the "Legitimization and Domicile" document published by the Home Office (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... micile.pdf) says that in India, subsequent marriage legitimizes a child as long as both parents' names are on the birth certificate. I have no idea where the home office got this from, but if so, then I should be fine.

I do not understand why you say that marriage after 01-07-2006 should fail to legitimize me.

Basically, I have abundant proof that my parents are currently married, but slim proof that they were married before my birth (just that my birth certificate issued within 6 months of my birth shows my mother's name with her post-marriage surname, and one letter dates before I was born showing that my mother was using my father's surname at that time).

[secret.simon]

I do not understand why you say that marriage after 01-07-2006 should fail to legitimize me.

Section 47 of the British Nationality act 1981, which dealt with children legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents, ceased to have effect from 1st July 2006.

If the parents married before that date, that section would have applied and the children would have been legitimised and have become British citizens from the date of the marriage.

If the parents married after the date, that section had ceased to be and the only way I see for the child to claim British citizenship is Form UKF.

The usage of the husband's surname would not constitute proof of marriage. After all, that could be done by deed poll or the appropriate procedure for changing name. Concrete legal proof from the relevant organisation officiating at the wedding (the government registrar or priest, if documentation, such as parish records, is maintained by the church/religious organisation) would be required.

[aakashbasu2]

I do not understand why you say that marriage after 01-07-2006 should fail to legitimize me.

Section 47 of the British Nationality act 1981, which dealt with children legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents, ceased to have effect from 1st July 2006.


The usage of the husband's surname would not constitute proof of marriage. After all, that could be done by deed poll or the appropriate procedure for changing name. Concrete legal proof from the relevant organisation officiating at the wedding (the government registrar or priest, if documentation is maintained by the church/religious organisation) would be required.

Thanks for your reply! My mother's passport issued in 1989 mentions "name of husband" as my father, as do several of her official documents all issued from quite some time back (before 2007, but none issued before I was born). In addition, following the procedure for late marriage registration in India, my parents are indeed obtaining a marriage certificate right now, which will mention their actual date of marriage (in 1983), but of course the registration date will be very recent. I also have their original wedding ceremony invitation card which mentions date of marriage and other details, though I don't know what weight this would carry. Given this, I am actually wondering if it will just be a waste of money to try to directly apply for a passport, or whether to just forget that possibility and go for registration directly. I would appreciate any thoughts.

[secret.simon]

I would recommend going for registration, as it would be faster. But others may disagree.

[aakashbasu2]

I would recommend going for registration, as it would be faster. But others may disagree.

Thanks for your suggestion!

[Obie]

If you parents are indeed married, then no power exists under section 4G to register you if your parents were indeed married at the time of your birth.

[aakashbasu2]

If you parents are indeed married, then no power exists under section 4G to register you if your parents were indeed married at the time of your birth.

I know for a fact that my parents were married at the time of my birth, but I am not sure I have the required evidence to prove it, because their marriage was not registered then (it was registered 35 years late). Hence, instead of spending time sending tenuous circumstantial evidence, I wanted to avoid it altogether and simply register as a british citizen. The law says that I can register if "had my parents been married, I would have become a british citizen". It does not mention there is a specific requirement that my parents were not married. Do you think I should still first try to directly apply for a passport, and wait till it is refused before registering?

[vinny]

If their marriage was not registered, then they may not recognize it.

[Obie]

It is possible that some religious and traditional marriages are recognised as valid even when it is not registered. Some state recognised registration as a mere formality, and does not determine the date a marriage is formally contracted.

[aakashbasu2]

If their marriage was not registered, then they may not recognize it.

Hi! Thank you, and I totally understand what you mean. I just want to know if I am obligated to first check whether they will accept whatever slim evidence I have of my parents marriage by first attempting to directly apply for a passport. I would prefer however to not even bother trying to prove that my parents were married, and instead go for registration as a British citizen using form UKF.

[aakashbasu2]

It is possible that some religious and traditional marriages are recognised as valid even when it is not registered. Some state recognised registration as a mere formality, and does not determine the date a marriage is formally contracted.

I know, but I don't want to go through all this trouble of trying to prove that my parents marriage was valid even though it was not registered. I ideally want to avoid the whole question altogether and just apply for registration as a British citizen using form UKF. So, like I said before, the real question is do I have an obligation to first attempt to provide whatever tenuous evidence of parents's marriage I have, or can I totally avoid the question of parents marriage by directly applying via UKF.

[vinny]

They normally check from your evidence whether you are automatically British first, before registering you.

[aakashbasu2]

I was born in India in 1984, at a time when my parents were married (they still are). My father was born in the UK in 1956, and so I am looking into claiming citizenship by descent. The trouble is my parents' marriage has only just been registered (ie 35 years late), though their marriage certificate does mention the correct marriage date in 1983. It is standard in India to register marriages very late, as the requirement for registration was made compulsory only very recently. I could not find it written anywhere that the home office will not accept a marriage certificate if registered a certain period of time after the marriage. Since India accepts this marriage certificate, does anyone know if UK would do the same?

Apart from the marriage certificate, I also possess the original wedding ceremony invitation card of my parents wedding. Further, they could also write an affidavit affirming the details in the marriage certificate regarding the date of their wedding.

[vinny]

Posts merged.

[Richard W]

Section 47 of the British Nationality act 1981, which dealt with children legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents, ceased to have effect from 1st July 2006.

That's not true. If you follow the references cited to justify removing Section 47 from the text displayed, you will find that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Section 162(5) only caused Section 47 to 'have no effect' for children born on or after 1st July 2006. (The date was established by the statutory instrument commencing the section.)

I think this is not the only case where consolidations have got the law wrong, because earlier versions still apply in certain cases. However, attempting to register under Section 4F may still be the quickest way of getting a British passport.

[Obie]

I think you are getting very confused you. Section 9 deals with many amendments and not just one. I address the issue of definition of father to include the father of a child born out of wedlock, and it deals with the legitimization issue under section 9(4).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/section/9

Section 47 cease from applying from the first of July 2006, therefore any marriage that took place after 01-07-2006 cannot have the effect of legitimizing a child, and the parent will have to apply under section 4G as the case may be.

I think Secret Simon is right of this one.

[Richard W]

Section 47 cease from applying from the first of July 2006, therefore any marriage that took place after 01-07-2006 cannot have the effect of legitimizing a child, and the parent will have to apply under section 4G as the case may be.

Your first clause is a terminological inexactitude, and deductions from it are therefore invalid.

Section 162(5) says:
"Section 9 shall have effect in relation to a child born on or after a date appointed by the Secretary of State by order."

Section 9 is entitled "Legitimacy of child", and it amends the parts of the law relating to illegitimacy. In particular, then, Section 9 says, referring to BNA 1981, "Section 47 of that Act (legitimated children) shall cease to have effect".

It's very simple, and rather unsurprising, There is one law for those born before the appointed date (namely 1st July 2006) and one law for those born later. The correct expression is that "Section 47 does not apply to those born on 1st July 2006 or later", not that it ceased to apply.

How do you deduce that Section 9 had effect in relation to everyone?

[Obie]

The purpose of section 47 was to enable those parents who marry after their children is born to be able to legitimize their children.

By section 47 ceasing to have effect, it means that from that date, no new marriage that takes place has the effect of legitimising a child born prior to the 01-07-2006.

You have to remember that Section 47 was only applicable in circumstance where a parent marry after a child born prior to the 01-07-2006 was born.

[aakashbasu2]

I think Richard is right for the simple reason that if it were true that marriage after 2006 would not have an effect on legitimizing a child, it would say so on the various guides. There is absolutely no mention of any such thing. Even the quick "am I a British Citizen" quiz (https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen) makes no mention of the fact that the marriage should have been prior to 2007. It just says that yes, if parents have subsequently married.

I am still debating whether I should attempt to check the viability of my direct claim by first applying for a passport, or just going for registration. There is ample evidence that my parents have since married, and the "Legitimacy and Domicile" document from gov.uk (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... micile.pdf) says that for India, subsequent marriage legitimizes a child provided both parents' names are on the birth certificate (which is the case with me). Though frankly where UK got this from I do not know. There is absolutely no mention of the concept of legitimization in the relevant Indian marriage act. UK may have gotten this based on some precedence set by some court ruling in India.

[vinny]

They normally check from your evidence whether you are automatically British first, before registering you.

Unfortunately, there is an ongoing 3-year case reported on another forum, highlighting a disagreement between the Home Office and the Passport Office. The Home Office refused registration, saying that the applicant was already British. The Passport Office refused to issue a passport, saying that the applicant was not British. Hope that this doesn’t happen to you.