Genealogy Chat

Jack If only one surname appears on the BC, i.e. that of the mother, then there will only be an indexed entry in the mother's name - what happened after that is beside the point. If the parents werent married to each other, but the father attended the registration, then the child will appear twice in the indexes - once under father's name, once under mother's name - but only one actual certificate of course. OC

but if there was a father mentioned then they would take their surname

If my daughter was called Donald Duck and my surname was Smith and I registered the fathers name as Jones, then she would be recorded as Donald Duck Jones...........but if I put no fathers name the she would be Donald Duck Smith .

No, as I already said, you can give your child whatever surname you want. It doesn't have to be the one of either parent, although as you say, the mother's details will be on the cert, as will the father's if he's married to the baby's natural mother or is not married but is present at the registration and wishes his details to be entered.

There's this entry in the 1891 census too: 'Ethel Jones Parents: William and Elizabeth born abt 1884 Camberwell, London, England Camberwell London' So this could well be the 1884 Ethel Jones in the birth index, and nothing to do with Ethel Letitia Rolfe :-( This is needle in a haystack stuff, even more than is usually the case with FH anyway.

'I realise Jones is difficult - but thought that any Ethel Letitia would jump out!' I'd hope so too but alas not! And yes, I will have to order the certificate if I want to be sure, but it could prove to be a very expensive form of elimination, especially as I have no guarantee that Ethel's birth name was in fact Jones. What annoys me is that every other child in the family is relatively easy to trace, except the one I'm most interested in. Does anyone else find that this is always the case?

Yes but a certificate would still ask for the name, surname and maiden surname of mother.

Yes, Willow, the register entry and certificate would show the mother's details but the child wouldn't necessarily take her surname. Jack

Richard I realise Jones is difficult - but thought that any Ethel Letitia would jump out! OC

but Richard you dont know unless you order the certificate, you cant rely just rely on the census's. If you dont want to lose £7 then add a cross reference for the name Emma (mothers name) that way you only lose £3 if its wrong.

A child can take whatever surname the informant wishes, completely unconnected to either parent's name , whether the parents are married or not and whether or not the father's details are entered, although most take one or both of the parents' surnames. If the father does want to be named, it seems from experience most common for the child now to take dad's surname. Makes for some interesting research 100 years from now!! Jack

There are only three entrys for an Ethel Jones between Mar 1883 and Dec 1888 in Camberwell and one is for an Ethel Jones and the other two are: Jones Ethel Frances Camberwell 1d 355 Jones Ethel Maud Camberwell 1d 876

Well if she was born before the marriage of her parents then she would take her mothers name...same as it is now.

'You have of course looked under Jones?' Yes, but in a city of five million at the end of the 19th century, it's not the most uncommon of names.

'Is this her? Presumably if she was born before the marriage, she took the mother's name of Jones? Ethel Jones Year of Registration: 1884 ' Yes, I'd considered the possibility. I suppose I'll have to order the certificate although if it doesn't list the father's name then I won't really be that much further on. Thanks for looking though

Like the other say, have you checked mothers maiden name or should I say name at the time of birth...

You have of course looked under Jones? OC

Is this her? Presumably if she was born before the marriage, she took the mother's name of Jones? Ethel Jones Year of Registration: 1884 Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar District: Camberwell (1837-1919) County: London, Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 988 (click to see others on page)

I've spent three years looking for the birth certificate of Ethel Letitia ROLFE and it's nowhere to be found!!!! She should've been born, according to the 1891 and 1901 census, in 1884 or 1885, Camberwell, London, daughter of Henry James ROLFE. Henry James ROLFE married in 1886 to Emma JONES so clearly Ethel Letitia ROLFE's birth predates the marriage. I can't even find a single likely candidate!!! I don't understand why, at a time when it was against the law not to record a birth, it wasn't done >:o Anyone got any ideas?