Genealogy Chat

Thanks Mary and Sue. I think it's coming down in favour of using her birth name!

Mandy :)

I think technically the later marriage legitimised the child.

But I'd probably add her to my tree under her birth name.

Sue

I have the same situation on my tree - I always use the birth name, and mention in the notes when and why it was dropped.

Hi Michael

What makes this one different from my other illegitimates is that the 'alleged' father did marry the mother. It's not really 'Smith', I changed the names for privacy, but the father's surname is very unusual and I don't think the mother would have used his name had he not been the father.

Mandy :)

Thanks, Reg. That's the way I was heading; I've had a few unmarried mothers who later got married, but this is the first time that I've had the parents marrying each other. I only found her birth registered under Brown after a lot of lateral thinking!

Hi Jude, thanks for your advice. That's what I would have done if she had simply been illegitimate, but seeing that she already had Smith as a middle name, and then her parents married each other, I wondered whether to do it the other way round this time. Did you get my reply to your last lookup email?

Mandy :)

I would enter her on the tree as Smith, but put the additional details in the 'notes'.......

Reg

I have a birth certificate from 1873 where the mother and father are not married and father is not named, but his surname is used as one of the child's forenames (Emma Jane Smith Brown). The birth is on the BMDs under Brown.

A year or so later, her parents got married and 'Brown' was dropped from Emma's name so she is on all censuses and marriage records as Emma Jane Smith.

Technically, she should therefore be in my tree as Emma Jane Smith Brown, but seeing that her parents married, she was known as Smith from then on, and has the same parents as all the subsequent children, should I have her down as Emma Jane Smith?

What would you do?!

Mandy :)