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

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.

Obie wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 11:13 pm

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?

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.

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 wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 12:53 am

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.

vinny wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 3:21 am

vinny wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 12:53 am

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.

Wow! Could you please indicate where this is being discussed?

I don’t think you may rely on Section 47 for any marriages that took place on or after 1.07.2007.

aakashbasu2 wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 3:30 am

Wow! Could you please indicate where this is being discussed?

It was in a members only area of the freemovement blog.

vinny wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 3:34 am

I don’t think you may rely on Section 47 for any marriages that took place on or after 1.07.2007.

Because of the law, or because of the competence of its executors?

If legitimation can no longer confer British citizenship, what effect is Section 162(5) intended to have, and, if the intent is as I read it, why does it not have that effect? Are the editors of www.legislation.gov.uk now defining the law of England?

aakashbasu2 wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 3:30 am

Wow! Could you please indicate where this is being discussed?

Technically, British citizens have no right to a passport. In theory, naturalising as British can deprive one of the right (or permission) to travel into and out of the British Isles via airports and sea ports.

Richard W wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 8:44 am

vinny wrote: ↑

Thu May 10, 2018 3:34 am

I don’t think you may rely on Section 47 for any marriages that took place on or after 1.07.2007.

Because of the law, or because of the competence of its executors?

If legitimation can no longer confer British citizenship, what effect is Section 162(5) intended to have, and, if the intent is as I read it, why does it not have that effect? Are the editors of www.legislation.gov.uk now defining the law of England?

That's apparently the interpretation on www.legislation.gov.uk.

47 wrote:S. 47 ceased to have effect (1.7.2006 with effect as mentioned in s. 162(5) of the amending Act) and repealed (prosp.) by Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41), ss. 9(4), 161, 162, Sch. 9 (with s. 159); S.I. 2006/1498, arts. 2(b), 3

HI
My parents were married under Yoruba (Nigerian) law and costom in 1972. I was born in 1973 They were not issued any wedding certificate as there was none to be issued under Nigerian law.
My father was British (nationalised 1969) and I applied and got my first British passport January 2018.
1 The question is are your parent's marriage recognised under the Indian law.
2. Do you have pictures of the actual wedding as well as the wedding invitation maybe even a wedding album.

I got a sworn avidavit from the witnesses (3) to my parents wedding as well as evidence of the fact my father was financially responsible for my education as a minor.
From my experience I think you should apply for your British passport.
DNA evidence is also an option.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this. Indeed I have pictures of my parents' wedding from 1983, and the original wedding ceremony invitation card. My parents have registered their Indian wedding recently, and registering a marriage 35 years late is very common and totally routine and valid. I am also supplying newspaper posts from 2004 when registering marriages first became compulsary, to evidence that it was not required when my parents were married. I am also pointing out that in my birth certificate issued within 6 months of my birth, both parents names are mentioned, my mother's name appears with her post-marriage surname, and the only address is that of my father's. My application is almost ready to sumbit and I don;t have witness accounts though, but if they ask for it, I can provide it.

Did you by chance have to prove that the witnesses were present during the wedding?

Did you by chance have to prove that the witnesses were present during the wedding?
[/quote]


No.