Bdtyk

Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith.

Is it a better form to express parents' name?

I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.

In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.

There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.

I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.

There would be nothing remarkable about this:

Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.

This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.

The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.

As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.

Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).

In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:

Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.

But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:

Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.

It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:

Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.

However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.

Richard was born in 1885 to Richard and Edith Blake.