* Brain teaser

[capnkeith]

The names have been left out to protect the innocent.

I have an unmarried couple who in 1845 register the birth of a daughter under the mans name.
Three years later the girl has a son and registers him under her name with no father mentioned. The child only lives for 6 months.
In the '51 census the couple are together as head and wife along with their daughter, all using the man's name.
In 1852 the daughter is baptised using the mother's surname.
In 1853 The couple as bachelor and spinster are married.
The 1861 census has them under husbands name and as head, wife & daughter.
In 1866 the daughter has a child out of wedlock and registers him under her baptised / mothers maiden name, also using it as her surname. She does the same again for a second son 3 years later.
In the 1871 Census they are all together. The original couple under the husbands name as head and wife. The daughter and her sons under her baptism name / mother's maiden name. the daughters sons listed as G/sons to the head.
Those two sons and their descendants continued using their mothers baptism / G/mothers maiden name. Apart from the odd marriage and birth date being too close or overlapping! they all appeared to be living more respectable lives.

Putting aside the complexities of trying to record all of the above but bearing in mind this all happened after 1837. My questions are how could it happen? would there not have been checks in place and proof required as to who they were before registering a birth? Would the priest baptising a 6-7 year old girl not ask for a birth certificate? If a person is registered at birth, how could she then register her children under another name?


ID:6526

[tatewise]

You say

I have an unmarried couple who in 1845 register the birth of a daughter under the mans name.

I think a Birth Certificate does not register a child's surname, only their forenames, together with the full names of the parents.

Presumably the mother's name did not say formerly as is the case with married parents.

So, since the parents were not married, the daughter could have used her mother's surname, not her father's, which would be consistent with the daughter's baptism, and both the subsequent grandchild's names.

Census entries are notorious for NOT using registered names correctly, and tend to use nicknames for example.
Also, until 1911, the entries were usually compiled by an enumerator who in 1851 & 1861 may have simply assumed the daughter had the father's surname, without specifically asking.  

I am not sure that much proof was needed in those days to register a birth/marriage/death.
It was simply illegal to give false details.
But in this case I think the Birth details were valid.
It also explain how so many bigamists got away with it in those days.

[capnkeith]

On the certificate it does actually list the mother using the fathers name and give the 'formerly' name after as in the case of a married couple. Only the first name of the child was recorded.

So what surname should the daughter be using?
If the fathers name is on the certificate surely that should be the child's surname?
If both parents used the fathers surname, then doesn't that make it the child's surname?
Which takes precedence the birth registration or the baptism?
More importantly which does FH want?

As for bigamy - I'm having enough trouble just to get them married once![confused]

[tatewise]

So the parents details were 'misleading' on the Birth Certificate by implying they were married.
So, based on that document alone, since both parents have the same 'married' surname, the daughter should use that surname.

BUT your research suggests they were not actually married!!
So what is the status of the Birth Certificate?

Returning to the bigamy scenario, if a married man marries again, then the second Marriage Certificate is  null and void.
But how should it be recorded in FH?

Is the Birth Certificate in this case null and void because of the false details?
Should the Baptism Record take precedence?

It is largely up to you which Surname to use in the Primary Name, and which to store in an Alternate Name within FH.
See How to Handle People With Multiple Names.

[capnkeith]

I've been doing a bit of Googling and it appears that you can call yourself any name you like as long as you are not doing it for illegal reason. The only time there was any law about it was between 1939-45. You can use Deed Poll but it is not compulsory.
Not sure I have this right, It appears to be when naming a child you do not have to use the name of either of the parents!
However I think I have decided that I will use the name the parents used at registration and use the baptism/mother's surname as a given name. So that I can get it to come up on reports etc.
But is there a better option than 'Given Name Used' could it be just 'Name Used'
Or is there a better way of doing it?

[tatewise]

Did you look at How to Handle People With Multiple Names.

See also the Names/Title window, Help button advice.
Given Name Used is intended to give preference to other than the first Given/Forename.

I would advise using an Alternate Name for the baptism/mother's surname.
This has the advantage that the Make Primary button will swap the selected Alternate Name with the Primary Name if you change your mind in the future.

Note that some Reports do not display Primary Names or Given Named Used by default.
To display Primary Names or Given Named Used in some Reports use the Options > Contents tab.
Under Main Section Items select Alternate Names or Given Named Used.
Click Edit button and select Show if not empty.

For those Reports that do not display Primary Names or Given Named Used at all, use the Adjust AKA Names for Reports Plugin.

[capnkeith]

Yes I did look at the How To, but the Alternate Name and how to find it didn't register. I went past it to the All tab option. It is, of course, just what I needed.

Thanks for your help.