Genealogy Chat

would my great grandparents who never married, because g grandad was actually married to someone else, though separated, have registered their first child under the mothers maiden name, their second child under the fathers name and their third child......yet again, under the mothers maiden name? I find this very odd, was it quite usual then in the late 1880's? Apparantly, they all went by their fathers name, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the family knew, until I uncovered it. Jen

This is only a guess, but maybe it depended on the questioning by the registrar??? You know how it's more difficult to lie to some people!! Merry

I think that if the parents were unmarried and the Father didn;t go with the mother, the baby had to take the mother's surname. In the case that they had the Father's surname maybe it was him who registered the birth and said they were married? Do you have the certs? Who were the witnesses?

No I haven't got the certs yet Tom but, why would whoever the witnesses were, make a difference? Thanks Merry. Jen

Sorry, I've just realied....for the birth ''under the father's name'' I assumed you mean they were pretending to be married, but maybe you mean he was just listed as the father on that one? (but she didn't have his surname) If that's the case, then it's just that on that occassion he was able to attend the reg office. If he didn't attend and they were not married then he should not be on the cert (unless she lied and said they were wed) Gosh that reads back dreadfully!! Merry

I just meant that if the mother was the informant, then maybe she said that she wasn't married - so the babies got her surname, but the father went to register the one with his surname and said they were married. (does that make sense lol)

No Merry, I understand what your explaining, and I think I have seen similar on other threads re this type of thing but, it's useful to have it explained by people more experienced, as this is part of my learning process. Thanks again. Jen

Of course it does Tom and I take both yours and Merry's points, it does make good sense and I understand now how and why, in those days, that sort of thing came about. Thanks to both of you once again. Jen

In 1944 I was registered by my father as 'informant' - who was not my mother's husband. Fathers name rank regiment etc are all on my original birth cert. My full sister born in 1945 has no father named on her birth cert at all, only mother as 'informant'. As far as I know it was because when my sister was registered our father had been posted and was not there to be informant. Shortly afterwards we were both put up for adoption as mother's husband returned from overseas. Unfortunately we were separated and adopted to different families. If therefore my sister ever tries to search she will only have mother's maiden and married names to go on. If she searches under mother's married name, she will not receive a great reception as you can imagine. You will see many postings by me, trying to find my sister, - just another twist on the 'who registers whom' conundrum, which still goes on down the years. Eileen

Eileen, how very sad that you and your sister were separated, I do hope your successful in your quest, and you meet up again some day. Thankyou for replying. Jen

For unmarried couples I think it was only sometime in 20th century that a child could take the father's name if he was there at registration and consented. Before that the child had to have the mother's surname unless the couple lied about their marital status. I'm sure someone will know the date the rules changed but I'll try and google it up.

From GRO site The Act of Parliament of 1836 states 'And it be enacted that the father or mother or every child born in England... shall within 42 days next after the day of every such birth give information upon being requested so to do the Register according to the best of his or her knowledge and belief of the several particulars hereby required to be known and registered touching the birth of such child provided always that it shall not be necessary to register the name of any father of a bastard child.' This was open to wide interpretation and some certificates entered the father's name even if they weren't married, while others omitted the father's name. In 1850 the situation changed and the law now said that 'No putative father is to be allowed to sign an entry in the character of Father.' This lasted until 1953 when the social situation regarding illegitimacy had shifted and the father could be acknowledged outside wedlock.

Thanks for that Helen, very informative. Still mystified how they got away with listing the middle child under his name though? I'm even more curious now, I'm going to get the certs to double check, as this is interesting. I can understand how no-one in the family was aware of this situation until I turned it up, as they would have been protecting the children from the stigma. As their youngest child was a boy and we always knew him by his fathers name, and if he had definately been registered under his mothers name...................but he never knew, I wonder what name went on his marriage cert..................and would he have been legally married???? Come to think of it, IF my gran, their eldest daughter was registered under mothers name though, as I know, married under fathers name..........would she have been legally married??? The mind boggles doesn't it lol??? Must get those certs............ Thanks again everyone. Jen

Just had a look at my BC as I knew my parents were not marrried when I was born....... Daddy told fibs whoops......!! mum has his surname and formally xxxx when I know and have the certificate that they got married nearly 3 years later.......... Double check everything using other sources and don't always believe what's on those certs! I'm so glad I paid attention to where my other half was born or else our children would have wrong info on their certs.

Hi In one branch of the family I am researching, the mother although still married to but seperated from her husband (Mr X) had several children by the man she lived with (Mr Y). The first few birth certificates show that she registered herself as Mrs Y and the children were registered under Mr Y's name. On the 4th occassion she must have been questioned by the registrar because there is a line through her surname as Mrs Y and her married surname Mrs X appears below it. The child was still registered under the Mr Y's surname. Finally she married the Mr Y and all further children were registered under his name. I think someone said a while ago that it was probably because everyone thought that with them living together they must be married so they probably went along with it. Cheers Paul

Hi Paul, That was my initial interpretation of the whole set up Paul. Particularly as this info never came through the family. I think that the subsequent generation, my mum, aunts and uncle, were blissfully unaware of the true facts. I was surprised to discover this info, the first skeleton in my family cupboard so to speak lol! Thanks everyone for all your advice and information. I am definately going to get the certs now.......I can't NOT sate my curiosity after all this. Jen

Another few thoughts - divorce took ages in the 1800s - at least seven years, and I think back then even longer, also the grounds were slightly differently applied. There is also the point about inheritance, it is not so long ago that girls did not inherit the same way as boys, so maybe an inheritance was being protected. Was there a war on then, if the absent husband was missing in a war it would be a long time before he could be declared dead and a remarriage allowed. Just a few possibilities that came to be whilst up half the night with sick dog. Eileen

Helen (Smith)......Are you sure it was 1953 before the father could be named for unmarried parents?? Trying to find the bit of paper I had about this!! (LOL back in 100 days!) Merry

In my family, I had 2 uncles that were registered in both surnames on the birth index as the parents were not actually married at the time, though they lived as if they were married and my grandma used my grandfather's surname. I don't think that the uncles knew that their births had been registered in both names, I've found them in the birth index on Ancestry under both surnames which surprised me. Another daughter was registered in her father's (my grandfather's) name but they had gone to another country and said that they were married and so that was why she had his name and was not registered also in the mother's surname. Is it common for illegitimate births to be registered under both surnames? Claire

This sems to be quite general. I have several certificates giving the father's name and showing the mother with his name then saying ' formally----- '. Haven't yet found their marriage though and beginning to doubt I ever will as several of the children were born before the 1837 registration, so even allowing for a much later marriage it still doesn't seem to exist unless the name was badly mis-spelled. One day, perhaps.