which surname?.....

[Scozzie]

I have found a few illegitimate births in the family tree. What surprises me is even when the father is known, the child was given the mother's surname. One case was a widow who had a child and later married the man, but the child was given the surname of her late husband (this lot reads like a soap opera - I found the future husband listed at her house as a boarder!). Was there a standard for naming illegitimate children, or was it left to individuals?

[joette]

A subject dear to my heart & I think you answered your own question it was the choice of the individual.
My Great-Gran was using her Fathers name by the time she was eight although her Mother was "lodging" with another bloke/s.She carried on with the Father surname until Marriage where it is entered under both surnames-Mothers/Fathers.

[DavidWW]

The instructions to the registrar were clear.

If the mother was single then her surname was used, even if the father also attended the act of registration and signed the register. That written it's not uncommon to find registrars who didn't fully understand this, and used the father's surname. Luckily, the birth will be indexed under both surnames if the father's name is shown.

If the mother was married then Scots Law cuts in which is that, exceptional situations apart, the husband is assumed to be the father.

Exceptions include those where the husband had died sufficiently long before the birth that this couldn't possibly be his child, - but registrars were advised to play very safe, i.e. not the normal 9 months as the period !!

Another one you will occasionally come across is where the mother declares, - and these are the words generally used in the register entry .... "Mary BROWN married to John SMITH whom she declares that she has not seen and had no contact with for 7 years", - or the like. I've occasionally seen 5, or even 3, but the most frequently occurring figure is 7 (I suspect a link to Scots Law in terms of the period after which an action could be taken to have someone presumed deceased, but am no expert on Scots Law outside a few narrow areas relating to genealogical research!)

As always in such situations it's easy to state what should have happened, but not always the case that every registrar, especially those in very small rurals registration districts with only a few events to record each year, folowed the rules and guidelines to the letter. Even in a large city RD, it might be the case that it was a new Assistant Registrar's first registration, and the Registrar failed to pick up the error ...............

[DavidWW]

The instructions to the registrar were clear.

If the mother was single then her surname was used, even if the father also attended the act of registration and signed the register. That written it's not uncommon to find registrars who didn't fully understand this, and used the father's surname. Luckily, the birth will be indexed under both surnames if the father's name is shown.

If the mother was married then Scots Law cuts in which is that, exceptional situations apart, the husband is assumed to be the father.

Exceptions include those where the husband had died sufficiently long before the birth that this couldn't possibly be his child, - but registrars were advised to play very safe, i.e. not the normal 9 months as the period !!

Another one you will occasionally come across is where the mother declares, - and these are the words generally used in the register entry .... "Mary BROWN married to John SMITH whom she declares that she has not seen and had no contact with for 7 years", - or the like. I've occasionally seen 5, or even 3, but the most frequently occurring figure is 7 (I suspect a link to Scots Law in terms of the period after which an action could be taken to have someone presumed deceased, but am no expert on Scots Law outside a few narrow areas relating to genealogical research!)

As always in such situations it's easy to state what should have happened, but not always the case that every registrar, especially those in very small rurals registration districts with only a few events to record each year, folowed the rules and guidelines to the letter. Even in a large city RD, it might be the case that it was a new Assistant Registrar's first registration, and the Registrar failed to pick up the error ...............

Of course, whatever happened at the registration had no effect in Scots Law as regards the surname used later by the child...............

David

[Scozzie]

Thanks All! I've got one just like David mentioned - the child has either "X" or "Y" surnames! Notes for the mother state... "Mary "X" widow of "Y" Pastry Baker, who died 5 years ago". Subtle, weren't they?!
Names have been removed to protect the innocent!

[DavidWW]

I came across a new variant on this theme today. It may be that the instructions to registrars had changed by the 1940s......

The entry in the parents' column of this 1943 birth register entry is...

"Jane Goodwin Hutton or Reid, wife of Robert Reid, General Labourer (Corporal Cameron Highlanders) to whom she was married 25th November 1938 at Perth"

Think about it !!, - in essence Robert REID is named only as her husband, but not as the father of the child in question. In earlier decades, the additional wording "whom she declares is not the father of the child" would not be uncommon.

After all, for the text above to be used, the mother must have made it clear that Cpl REID was not the father of the child, and the registrar could not have been expected to know where all the battalions of the Camerons were at that point in WWII, so leading him to raise an eyebrow if Jane had given Robert's name as the father ............

David