RootsChat.Com
Wales (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Wales => Topic started by: rogerlewis on Tuesday 22 January 13 06:55 GMT (UK)
-
This query applies to both Glamorgan and Monmouth.Possibly Cardiganshire?
I am looking for descendants of one James George Harris born 20 May 1873 at Pontarddulais.James married an Elizabeth Thomas in Swansea,23 Jan 1905.He was the son of James Allen Harris and Mary nee Parker.He had 3 brothers and 2 sisters.This information all seems to be correct.James is at Aberdyberthy Street,Swansea in 1881 and 1891.At Brynsifi Street in 1911.Possibly the man below was a friend of his in the Army.This correct JGH man does not show anywhere in 1901 and was perhaps in the Boer War?
What happened was that somewhere along the way a Jones boy took his name and date of birth above for some unknown reason. He then called himself James George Harris,married Sarah Eleanor Edwards (my link) at Rhayader,RAD,4 Nov 1895.He is there in 1901.In 1911 they are at #44 Tillery Street, Abertillery.The Family Bible indicates that although the poached info above is written there,he really "may have been" surnamed Jones but no explanation is given.(out of wedlock the most obvious)In 1911 he says born at Llandysul! He cannot be found in 1881/91 because he was probably using his correct name.(Unknown)
He was said to have been a boxer,joined the Grenadier Guards in 1915 but later transferred to The Welsh Guards.He won a MM.Previous to that he was said to have joined the Army underage but was taken back by his family.
The above imposter died 8 Jan 1955 and is buried at Brynithel Cemetery,Abertillery, grave 235-1-B
age given as 77!
Obviously if a man married under an assumed name the marriage was technically null and void making all 10 of his children illegitimate.
Is anyone out there related to either of these two families?
Roger Scott Lewis ReplyQuoteNotify
-
Hi
I'm not sure that the marriage would be null and void. It was certainly not uncommon for people to change their name such as a child using the surname of their reputed father even when the father is not named on the birth certificate. Provided neither of them were not already married then I think the marriage was legal and the children legitimate.
Andy
-
Obviously if a man married under an assumed name the marriage was technically null and void making all 10 of his children illegitimate.
Sorry! That's completely wrong! ;D
Under English & Welsh Law, a person can call themselves any name they like, as long as there is no intention to defraud.
When getting married, no proof of identity was required.
The marriage was legal, and the children legitimate.
-
Well...I think that marrying under a false name was against the law....but I could be mistaken.It was a Wes Meth Chapel wedding.I don't have a Welsh marriage cert (1895) handy but what does the fine print on them say today?
It is against the law to make false statements on them.No different than a married person saying they were bachelor/spinster when they were already married to someone esle.Giving a false name would also be making a false statement.
I know too that one may change their surnames legally by deed poll.However,it is against the law for some reason to change the baptismal Christian name.
Roger
-
You don't need a deed poll to change your name! Honest! ;D
The only stipulation under English/Welsh Law is that there is no attempt to defraud.
This topic has been discussed before. See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=625779.0
-
Hi
There would not be many researchers who haven't got variations in names within their family. Whilst most of them are relatively minor ie variations on first names, you do find many cases were an illigitimate child adopts the surname of their reputed father or stepfather.
If you have a look at English & Welsh birth certificates up until recent times you will find that the only names for the child are first (and middle) names, there is no surname. When the GRO create their index they index the child under the fathers name in the case of a married couple but if the parents are not married and both named on the registration then the child is indexed under both fathers and mothers surnames.
Andy
-
You don't need a deed poll to change your name! Honest! ;D
The only stipulation under English/Welsh Law is that there is no attempt to defraud.
This topic has been discussed before. See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=625779.0
Is that the correct link?
-
The replies to my query are all quite interesting.Thanks all for the information.
I do remember years ago asking a Registrar what proof she asked for when registering the birth of a child....well the answer was a bit weasely...none.... "but we would find out later if the info was untrue through the Natonall Health"!!!(honestly) We all know what that answer meant!!! ::)
However...just what does the government fine print say on a modern certificate about false statements? I can't remember and I don't have any here to look at.
Roger
PS...I'm sending this reply again.I don't know if the first one went out OK or not.
-
But changing your name is not making a false statement!
The law allows you to call yourself anything you like.
-
You don't need a deed poll to change your name! Honest! ;D
The only stipulation under English/Welsh Law is that there is no attempt to defraud.
This topic has been discussed before. See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=625779.0
Is that the correct link?
Yes - Proof of identity.
-
Thanks. Got it now!
-
I think "changing your name" would be a term applied to a legal event. A bride does this at marriage.
Using/giving a false name (not the one on your birth certificate) is fraudulent or at least a falsehood
and really would not be used other than to deceive.Also known as an alias.
We are simply using words/phrases here. What does UK Law actually state on the matter??
I just don't know.Again...what does the fine print say on a birth/marriage certificate in the UK?
Roger
-
Hi Roger
I think that the wording on birth certificates has changed over the years but one that I'm looking at says
Caution: There are offences relating to falsifying and altering a certificate, or using or possessing a false certificate.
The certificate also says Warning: a certificate is not evidence of identity.
Possession of somebody elses birth certificate is not an offence, in England & Wales anybody can purchase anyones birth certificate from the GRO or Local Register Office, but if you tried to use that certificate, or altered it, then you would be commiting an offence. You did not have to produce a birth certificate when marrying, in fact, anyone born in Ireland before 1864 or Scotland before 1855, wouldn't have a birth certificate. Annecdotal evidence suggests that many births were not registered at all. There was no formal adoption until the 1920s so there are many cases of children simply changing there name when their mothers married or re-married.
In your case changing a name and marrying in that new name would not be an offence unless there was a legal reason why he couldn't marry such as being already married. If however he tried to access property or he tried to use documents of the original person to obtain a benifit such as a pension then he would be committing an offence.
Andy
-
Thanks Andy....yes I do remember the caution that the birth cert is not proof of identity.
If my theory of the boy being AWOL from the Army (not proved) is correct then he would have been using the false name to elude the Army Police authorities.If his dob is also false then he may have been underage at marriage as well. I don't know if there were any Banns beforehand.
And....too, we must not forget that we are not dealing with things as they are today down at the pub where now in 2013 anybody can do or say anything they want to and get away with it.....(Ooo you lookin at then??!!) ;D
We are dealing with a time when they actually had "The Rule of Law" and heaven forbid.....I believe they actually had something they called "Punishment" for breaking the Law!! :'(
Good ere init!!!! ;D
Thanks again.....Cousin Roger
(Sunny Penang)
-
Oh dear....Andy you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger
-
Oh dear....Andy you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger
I haven't looked at James Harris specifically, I was only commenting on the following statement from your original post Obviously if a man married under an assumed name the marriage was technically null and void making all 10 of his children illegitimate
Andy
-
from: rogerlewis on Today at 06:19
Oh dear....Ray you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger
Sorry sent this to Andy.It should have gone to RayD. My error.
-
What you think may be illegal, or immoral, isn't necessarily enshrined in law?
If you marry today at at Register Office, you must provide proof of identity, address, and age.
A passport suffices. A birth certificate is also good, but not actually required!
If you marry at a church, the incumbent just has to be satisfied as to your identity.
He/she may require proof such as certificates; he/she may not.
As I keep saying: under English Law you have the right to call yourself anything you like, just as long as there is no attempt to defraud or deceive.
Getting married under an assumed name does not fall into either category!
In years past, there was even less need to provide proof of identity.
E.G. very few people had a passport, or driving licence, or even knew where there birth certificate was!! ::)
-
If my theory of the boy being AWOL from the Army (not proved) is correct then he would have been using the false name to elude the Army Police authorities.If his dob is also false then he may have been underage at marriage as well. I don't know if there were any Banns beforehand.
The legal age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys until the 1929 Age of Marriage Act.
Dawn
-
As I keep saying: under English Law you have the right to call yourself anything you like, just as long as there is no attempt to defraud or deceive.
Getting married under an assumed name does not fall into either category!
In years past, there was even less need to provide proof of identity.
E.G. very few people had a passport, or driving licence, or even knew where there birth certificate was!! ::)
It's a good point and well made. There are lots of non fraudulent reasons for wanting to change your name. I knew a family of Longbottoms who, fed up of teasing in each generation, changed en masse to call themselves Long when a new baby was born. There was also a family of Saxe Coburgs who started calling themselves Windsor for some reason or other.
Mike
-
And I know personally of a family called Crapper, who changed their name!
They didn't want their son getting called names at school!
-
You mean don't mention the War???? :o
Roger
-
But to reply to KGerrard....Yes...I understand what you are saying.I can call myself Sambulthrance if I want to or anything else using words.That does not make it my legal name though...otherwise there is no point in having birth certificates.One either has a legal name or one does not.Which is it?
Anything other than the name on a birth certificate is not your real name.(Actors and Actresses do it all the time)I agree one can call themselves anything they wish using words but it is still not their legal name.If you give someone a different name than on your birth certificate when asked,then you are telling a lie for whatever reason.Face it.It is known as a lie!...even today.Proof of identity also has nothing to do with the question either.
In the end I am not really interested in what everyone "thinks" or "says" about this.What I really would like is to know what the Law said about it in 1895.(Not what it doesn't say)I simply don't know.
Roger
-
.One either has a legal name or one does not.Which is it?
Anything other than the name on a birth certificate is not your real name.(Actors and Actresses do it all the time)I agree one can call themselves anything they wish using words but it is still not their legal name.If you give someone a different name than on your birth certificate when asked,then you are telling a lie for whatever reason.Face it.It is known as a lie!...even today.
Sambulthrance
No. It's not a lie. Here is the legal position:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_birth_certificates_and_changing_your_name_e/change_of_name.htm
-
Thank you Mike!
Exactly what I have been trying to say - but couldn't find that site!
Of course, the situation in 1895 was even less cut-and-dried.
Without passports, driving licences, etc., it was difficult to "prove" who you were.
You just needed someone to say that you were who you said you were!! ;D
-
And information from the National Archives
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/change-of-name.htm
-
And information from the National Archives
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/change-of-name.htm
Great link, Dawn. The most relevant phrase being "Contrary to popular belief"
-
Still wouldn't have believed it if I had not read it in print.
I have great respect for TNA.
Will save the website.You know how many people out there will not believe it. ;D ;D
Thanks for all the help.
Roger