Why do you think that the identity of the biological (or actual) father would be irrelevant to a determination of a child's status as a natural born citizen in cases where there exists a birth certificate which falsely describes some stranger as the father?
Do you really think our Founding Fathers wanted false birth certificates to take priority over the truth about paternity whey determining one's status as a natural born citizen? What did the Founding Fathers know about "birth certificates" in those days?
I think that if the Founding Fathers thought the father's citizenship was important to determining a child's status as a natural born citizen, they meant the real biological father and not a bogus father. Do you disagree?
“I think that if the Founding Fathers thought the father’s citizenship was important to determining a child’s status as a natural born citizen, they meant the real biological father and not a bogus father. Do you disagree?”
Your framing of “real biological father” had no meaning to the founding fathers. They didn’t have DNA. They knew legitimate vs. illegitimate. They could tell a mixed race child when one was not expected, to be sure.
Legal precedent is that any child born during a legal marriage (non-bigamous, for example) is the legal legitimate child of the husband. Period.
Have you read the 1948 BNA? It says that UK citizenship only passes to legitimate children of a UK subject, which would not include Barry if his parents marriage was bigamous.