No. My ancestor registered her baby under the (reputed) father's surname in 1840. The registrar accepted this.
The rector knew perfectly well that she was on her own - as the reputed father married another girl he had got into trouble - so the baptism was under the mother's surname.
Registrars had to cover such a wide area that they appear to have known very little of the lives of those who came to register events. Even where they asked questions, they appear not to have checked the answers.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
|