* Unofficial change of surname

[Ged]

A woman has an illegitimate baby and baptises the child with an unusual Christian name and her own surname. A few months later, the woman marries a man with the same unusual Christian name. From then on, through 3 censuses and his own marriage, the child uses the surname of the man she married. It is obviously his baby (without going into too much detail).

The question is, what's the best way of showing in the family tree that the child really is the husband's, and at the same time enter the child with the correct surname (the mother's before marriage)? Anyone researching in the future would always follow the surname of the eventual husband but would not be able to find the birth/baptism of the child. Incidentally, I don't think the child was officially adopted.

Ged

ID:4850

[AdrianBruce]

'the correct surname (the mother's before marriage)'
OK - let me pick up on this 1st. If the child uses the surname of the man she married, as you say, then that is just as correct as the mother's pre-marriage name. Remember that in the UK you can call yourself what you want, so we shouldn't invoke some sort of 'correct' name to contradict them.

I'd put the child's original name in as their first name, then add an alternate name using the surname of the man she married. This child will then appear in the Individual Records window with their 1st name (unless you inserted an extra column for the 2nd name).

There's also a case for swapping the two names round on the basis that the 2nd name was used for longer than the 1st, but people may assume the names to be in date order so this might not be a good idea anyway.

What happens next depends on how confident you really are that the child is that of this chap.

Option 1 - just add the child to the family of the wife and later husband but keep the earlier surname, which should make it stand out. The marriage date will (hopefully) show the order of events but adding an extra explanatory note to the child wouldn't come amiss.

Possible problem with this - doesn't make it wholly clear that the child has never been formally acknowledged.

Option 2 - which I've never done so can't guarantee - create 2 families between the wife and later husband, one for the marriage, one for the earlier events. Put an explanatory note against the earlier family that the identity of the father is not guaranteed. Again, this links to the supposed father but makes it more obvious through name and lack of marriage details what's going on.

[Ged]

Thanks Adrian. I wasn't using the word 'correct' in a judgmental way, but simply to indicate that the child was baptised with a Christian name linked to the surname of his mother. I think most people would accept (probably expect) that a baptised child would normally stick with these names throughout his life. However, what they did later (using the father's surname) was probably common practice in the mid 1800s, as it saved having to answer questions.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the eventual husband was the father of the child. I don't want to go into details here, but if the parents had got married before the birth, or just after, I'm sure there would have been ructions in the two families (the man had lost his first wife only a short time before).

I quite like your option 1, but whether FH will accept it or not I don't know. I'll try it and see what happens!

Thanks again

Ged

[AdrianBruce]

Re option 1 - I can say that I know this one works since I have Samuel Beech m Martha Cook, Feb 1825. Their 1st child is down as Samuel Cook b 1821. He also has an alternate name of Samuel Beech since the 1851 shows him with his parents and carrying the Beech surname, whereas in his baptism and the 1841 he's 'granny-reared' and has his mother's maiden name. (Fortunately, his baptism gives both parents' names).

Depending on what order you enter the data, you may need to over-write the default surname that FH proposes if entering an alternate name.

(I didn't imagine you were using the term 'correct' in a judgemental fashion - few of us get very far in FH without becoming very tolerant of people. Rather I always want to ensure people understand that a name can be anything someone wants - I've seen too many newbies trying to find deed poll records for name changes).

[Johnyeates]

I have a similar problem,
My fathers birth cert (1898) has no fathers name only his mothers 'Enley', he is in the 1901 census as 'Enley' no father.
At the Christening (1898)his father is named but marries another lady and then emigrates to Oz.
The school records show my father using the Yeates name, but the 1911 census he is back to Enley. His war record is in the name of Yeates.
It took a lot of sorting out.
I show his mother & father as un-married, I did at one stage put Enley as a middle name but it didn't seem right so he is just Yeates now.
John

[Ged]

I've tried the various methods and found there is no problem entering the details into Family Historian. However, all have some disadvantage when data is viewed in diagram form. When the father is made the root of the diagram, either the child's box does not appear alongside the 2 families of his first and second marriage or the diagram is rather cluttered with a 'loop' between the duplicate boxes of his second wife.

So I've finally settled on the easiest option, which is to give the child the surname he uses throughout his life (his father's name) but followed by his 'baptism surname' (his mother's name) in brackets. It is then obvious on the diagrams that the first child of the second marriage has an extra name, which draws attention to it. The explanation and details can then be found in the property dialog notes etc.

Many thanks, Adrian, for your interest and helpful comments.

Ged  [smile]

[AdrianBruce]

Ah - I should have mentioned, I altered my 'usual' text scheme to show the extra names on diagrams (well, I think I altered it - so long ago I can't remember). Immediately before the birth details, I have an item 'Name (a.k.a.)' for all box types, with a template reading
'a.k.a. %INDI.NAME[2+]:FULL%'
(without the quotes)

This shows the 2nd and subsequent names on diagrams.

The disadvantage of this method is that you need to update every text scheme that you might use, whereas your method doesn't need any text scheme updates and also shows up in reports.

As usual - several ways to do it....