RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: NormanE on Wednesday 02 March 22 14:19 GMT (UK)
-
I have come across a puzzling use of Two Family Names and can't think of a logical reason.
In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
3 Years later in 1859 the mother married and in the 1861 she, her son and husband were listed using his surname. This was repeated in the 1871 census.
In 1880 the son married using his registered name and the Certificate included his mother's original name too. A son born in 1880 was also registered with the original surname.
Moving on to the 1881 census the sons new family were listed using his Step Father's Surname not his Birth Surname. This was repeated in the 1891 and 1the 1901 Census documents.
All the of the 11 children born to the son were registered using his birth surname and his death in 1909 used his birth Surname name too.
So my question is, can anyone see a logical reason for a Step Fathers Surname to be used in the 1881,1891 and 1001 Census Documents rather than his own birth Surname?
Thank You
NormanE
-
So my question is, can anyone see a logical reason for a Step Fathers Surname to be used in the 1881,1891 and 1001 Census Documents rather than his own birth Surname?
Thank You
NormanE
Yes to save face in front of the census enumerators and the neighbours.
-
If I've read this correctly, all the BMD records used the son's "correct" surname i.e the maiden surname of his mother, and for all census records he is known by his stepfather's surname, both when he was living with his mother and stepfather and later when he had his own wife and children.
I would agree it was to save face. People in his local community might find out what was written on the census return, e.g enumerator might be local or he might have needed help filling in the householder's form. But neighbours are unlikely to find out what name he had given to the Registrar when registering his children's births, so he could use his birth surname there.
However I'm surprised he could keep his name secret at the marriage or was it some way from where he lived?
-
In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
That's not technically correct. Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form.
It was presumed that the child would take the surname of the father, if a father's name was given, or if no father was named, then the mother's surname. But for practical purposes, they could use any name they wished provided it wasn't used fraudulently - and that's the same today.
-
"In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
Are you saying she didn't give her forename?
"3 Years later in 1859 the mother married and in the 1861 she, her son and husband were listed using his surname. This was repeated in the 1871 census."
This would be the choice of the mother & step-father
"In 1880 the son married using his registered name and the Certificate included his mother's original name too."
Was the marriage in Scotland?
Was a father named?
"A son born in 1880 was also registered with the original surname."
This would make sense as he married by his own birth surname.
"Moving on to the 1881 census the sons new family were listed using his Step Father's Surname not his Birth Surname. This was repeated in the 1891 and 1the 1901 Census documents."
Had the step-father died & was the mother living with the family, (maybe a mark of respect although that would seem odd)?
"All the of the 11 children born to the son were registered using his birth surname and his death in 1909 used his birth Surname name too."
Seems the correct & normal thing to do.
"So my question is, can anyone see a logical reason for a Step Fathers Surname to be used in the 1881,1891 and 1001 Census Documents rather than his own birth Surname?"
Absolutely none, unless as mentioned earlier, if the mother had been living with them, possibly for her benefit but again, it seems an odd thing to do?
Yes to save face in front of the census enumerators and the neighbours.
Save face from what/who?
Surely the neighbours would know them by their proper surname, the surname he was born & married by?
Annie
-
I don’t know the answer but I have a similar case in my family where a son born to my 2nd g grand mother by her first husband ( who died shortly after) is then known by his step father’s surname. He marries under his own name but uses both names in subsequent census’s. In 1911 he uses his own name in the census but his step father’s surname on the electoral roll the same year. I guess it’s not uncommon in an era of early deaths and remarriage
Regards,
Jo
-
Might seem a bit old fashioned nowadays but often when a Man married a Woman who already had children, the children took on the step Father's name - like an informal adoption, some Children later reverted to their Birth Name others didn't, but on documents he probably had to use his Birth Name but in normal day to day life might never have used his true Birth Name, always his 'adopted' Fathers Name.
-
In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
That's not technically correct. Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form.
It was normal procedure in Scotland.
Norman mentioned the mother's name on his marriage cert. hence my question, was he married in Scotland.
Annie
-
Norman, there have been similar questions on rootschat in the past. Swapping between surnames can be confusing, but it happened quite a lot. :)
-
Norman, there have been similar questions on rootschat in the past. Swapping between surnames can be confusing, but it happened quite a lot. :)
Not only confusing for us but also for the family, seems some were uncertain themselves.
I have two families in my tree and one in my husbands. The children appear to be known in day to day life by their stepfathers surname. Some when they marry use their birth surname ie the one they were registered under and which appears on their birth certificate. Some use both surnames at various times in life.
One couple who both had living spouses couldn’t marry but lived together. They had five children, all were registered in one borough with mothers previous married surname, they then traveled into a neighbouring borough and registered them again with their father’s surname . This late 1920s early 1930s.
-
One of my ancestors was born with one surname but adopted at a young age and used his adoptive surname.
But through the years, he used his birth surname for his marriage and subsequent children, but kept the adoptive surname for the census and other work place indexes.
To make things a little more complicated, some of the next generation used one name whilst some used the other. And there are also a number of instances of a double barrelled surname being used!
-
Yes to save face in front of the census enumerators and the neighbours.
Maybe it was simpler than that - if it seemed to be a single family and household to the enumerator, he gave every member the parents' surname ? I doubt the enumerators were expected to find out every complication, they were interested in ages, numbers, occupations.
-
To add my two penn'orth:
I have a remot(ish) ancestor who was born in the same quarter as his parents marriage, and is registered under his mother's maiden surname. Either the man she married wasn't his father, or possibly he wasn't present to confirm to the registrar that he was the father. (I haven't got his birth cert, he's a bit too remote for that).
So the son lives with his mother and her husband and the rest of the family - they had a number of other children - but marries under his birth registered surname, and registers his children under that name too. However, in every census, he's shown under the 'family' name of his mother, her husband, and all their children, and once married his wife is also shown with that name.
But when you think of it, the family would have been known under the parents' married name, and therefore the only time the 'official' name for this man would have been required was in formal registration terms - like marriages, births etc.
It seems very likely to me that people would be scrupulous then, but just go with the flow otherwise.
Another example is my OH's grandfather, who was born out of wedlock, but whose mother married soon after his birth, and had another child with her husband. I 'think' it's likely that the husband was the father of OH's grandfather, but haven't been able to prove it. The whole family were then known by the mother's married name.
Come WWI OH's grandfather registers to fight under his mother's married name. However, for some reason - because there were penalties for misinformation? because he was shown his birth certificate? - this is crossed through, and his correct registered birth name is inserted.
And after that - because of 4 years of fighting under his birth registered name, and promotion to lance corporal? - he was known by his birth registered name, as was his whole family (including OH).
But both of his children had his mother's married name as a middle name.
-
Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames.
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!
Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form. It was presumed that the child would take the surname of the father, if a father's name was given, or if no father was named, then the mother's surname. But for practical purposes, they could use any name they wished provided it wasn't used fraudulently.
I am sure that AntonyMMM will confirm this.
Maybe it was simpler than that - if it seemed to be a single family and household to the enumerator, he gave every member the parents' surname ? I doubt the enumerators were expected to find out every complication, they were interested in ages, numbers, occupations.
The enumerators only copied what was written on the household form.
-
It could also be that the enumerator just assumed the child would have the same surname as the step father, perhaps thinking he was the biological father.
FWIW, my GF was born Booth and listed as such in the 1901 census. By 1911 his mother was gone (no idea where or how) and he was living with a spinster. He was listed as having her surname on that census. Years later, when an adult, he marries and his original surname is back again.
-
Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames.
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!
Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form. It was presumed that the child would take the surname of the father, if a father's name was given, or if no father was named, then the mother's surname. But for practical purposes, they could use any name they wished provided it wasn't used fraudulently.
I am sure that AntonyMMM will confirm this.
My birth certificate (England pre 1969) has my forenames plus my father's surname in the space for child's name, this would tell me very clearly what my registered surname is.
-
As per the reply above, my English birth certificate, also pre 1969, clearly shows my name with a first name and a surname.
Also I have heard tell before, that occasions like birth, marriage and death were considered much more formal and official than census returns, electoral registers etc so it was likely that for the bmd's the original registered name would be used but for census returns etc the name that they were most usually known by would be used.
Pheno
-
Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames.
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!
Not I :)
See Reply #7
Children in Scotland were given a surname on their statutory birth cert. which began in 1855.
There's also a space on a statutory Scottish marriage cert. for the mother's surname/maiden surname, beginning 1855 & ditto with a Scottish death cert. beginning 1855.
Annie
-
My birth certificate (England pre 1969) has my forenames plus my father's surname in the space for child's name, this would tell me very clearly what my registered surname is.
As per the reply above, my English birth certificate, also pre 1969, clearly shows my name with a first name and a surname.
Mine does not give a surname. Only my forename.
The column is headed "Name, if any" and there is no mention of surname in the column heading. There is mention of surname in the column headings for parents' names, so they were required.
It looks as though the registrars took it upon themselves to add surnames in your cases, but no surname was asked for in the format.
I have lots of old birth certificates (as I'm sure you all do), and none of them show a surname for the child - only forenames.
@AntonyMMM, can you comment on this, please?
-
Here's an example from the same period as mentioned in the OP.
-
Surely on the E & W birth certificates, pre 1969 if there are names in the space under the column heading "Name, if any" they are legally the given names, even if they may well be surnames within the family.
May I also suggest that the baby does not actually have a surname, and even if the name of the father is provided and even if the father is the informant, that is not where we should anticipate finding baby's surname.
Surely pre 1969, E & W births have the baby's surname coming directly from the column "Name and Maiden Surname of the Mother". So in the example that Sloe Gin has provided, baby George gains his surname from the name his mother was recorded as .... Mary Ann READ. Yes, George's dad was James READ but that's not why George would likely be George READ.
I can assure you that in New South Wales, Australia until 1969, baby's birth registrations had no provision for a separate column giving a surname for baby. I can further assure you that among my retired ancient living rellies are former senior officers of NSW BDM. They assure me that no one ever believes them BUT they know a child's surname comes from the surname that MUM was known by. If a married women in that era, she was likely known by the surname of her husband. NSW inherited that habit from .... England & Wales, and not from Scotland.
JM
-
Headings of columns on Scottish BMDs...
One of the upsides of Scottish records, probably the best in the world.
Annie
-
My birth certificate (England pre 1969) has my forenames plus my father's surname in the space for child's name, this would tell me very clearly what my registered surname is.
As per the reply above, my English birth certificate, also pre 1969, clearly shows my name with a first name and a surname.
Mine does not give a surname. Only my forename.
The column is headed "Name, if any" and there is no mention of surname in the column heading. There is mention of surname in the column headings for parents' names, so they were required.
It looks as though the registrars took it upon themselves to add surnames in your cases, but no surname was asked for in the format.
I have lots of old birth certificates (as I'm sure you all do), and none of them show a surname for the child - only forenames.
@AntonyMMM, can you comment on this, please?
My birth certificate has no columns for parents names
-
Perhaps you are looking at a "short form" rather than the "long form" document.
JM.
-
Yes mine is a short form certificate - but the only official document presented to my parents at time of my birth (in fact I wonder why after all these years of genealogy I have never got a long form of my birth certicate).
It quite clearly says name: and alongside it my full name: Josephine Edge (not my real name) so I have both a first and last name.
If that is all most of our ancestors had in their possession then they do show a first and last name. If not presented with a full certificate why would they ever purchase one - I have got through modern life without requiring one
Pheno
-
Yes mine is a short form certificate - but the only official document presented to my parents at time of my birth (in fact I wonder why after all these years of genealogy I have never got a long form of my birth certicate).
It quite clearly says name: and alongside it my full name: Josephine Edge (not my real name) so I have both a first and last name.
If that is all most of our ancestors had in their possession than they do show a first and last name. If not presented with a full certificate why would they ever purchase one - I have got through modern life without requiring one
Pheno
Me too
-
Just to add - when you are all ordering birth certificates from the gro you automatically get a full (long) birth certificate and assume that the person concerned also had that, thus showing all information, some of it contrary to what was used in life.
As proved by Lizzie and I not everybody was provided with a full birth certificate and may not ever have purchased one so there is a name on the full certificate which is likely to have been used as their official name in life and maybe a different one to that they were known as.
Does anybody know when short certificates were replaced by long ones? Mine was issued in 1956 but both my sister 1959 and brother 1961 have long certificates, but they were both born in a different county to me. Could that have anything to do with it?
Pheno
-
My birth (early 1950s) was registered when the local registrar came round to the maternity hospital. The short certificate was all that was offered. My brother's birth a few years later, was registered at a register office, possibly my father was offered short or long, but only came away with the long. OH's birth (late 1940's) registered at RO, has long certificate, so not necessarily connected to year, but how birth was registered.
-
Just to add - when you are all ordering birth certificates from the gro you automatically get a full (long) birth certificate and assume that the person concerned also had that, thus showing all information, some of it contrary to what was used in life.
As proved by Lizzie and I not everybody was provided with a full birth certificate and may not ever have purchased one so there is a name on the full certificate which is likely to have been used as their official name in life and maybe a different one to that they were known as.
Does anybody know when short certificates were replaced by long ones? Mine was issued in 1956 but both my sister 1959 and brother 1961 have long certificates, but they were both born in a different county to me. Could that have anything to do with it?
Pheno
1978 and 1980 - I have both long and short certs for these two dates so certainly still available at those dates.
Not thought about this until now. Have they been replaced or is it that the short version is issued free and the longer version has to be paid for ? I have several ‘historic’ short versions. :-\
-
Although the short form is a government issued document, many government departments will not now accept it as evidence of a person's birth and demand that they get a long form certificate.
In 2012, the HR manager at the company I then worked for was told by the DWP or border / immigration authorities (can't remember which) that they would be checking all the employees to prove their right to work in the UK. The HR manager had all the relevant documentation on file for recent employees and non-UK nationals, but some UK citizens had been employed before it became the employer's responsibility to verify right to work and no retrospective check had been done. All these long standing employees were asked to bring in either passport or long form birth certificate. One of my colleagues who was almost 70 at the time and semi-retired only had a short birth certificate and no current passport. Fortunately he had kept his expired passport and that was accepted as proof.
-
Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames.
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!
This is absolutely correct, and is one of the things I discuss at length when giving talks on the subject (as I have done twice this week). It is something very important to understand when searching birth indexes.
Along with it, you also need to remember that the birth register entry (the only original document) and any certificates produced from it are two very different things.
A birth register entry in E/W doesn't show any surname for the child before the major changes made in 1969. Before that column two is headed "Name, if any" and anything written there are the forenames of the child. The change came in the Registration Act of 1968 which now included the phrase "...the surname to be entered shall be the surname by which at the date of registration of the birth it is intended that the child shall be known ..". Before that there was no indication of any "registered surname".
As there was no surname for the child, this was a problem for the GRO indexers - how do you make an index for the births ? The answer is that births are actually indexed under one (or both) of the named parents' surnames depending on their marital status..
If both parents are named and married, then it will be indexed under the father's surname. If there is no father named it will be indexed under the mother's surname. If both are named but not married it will be indexed twice, appearing under each surname. If either parent has more than one surname shown ( e.g. "otherwise SMITH), it may be indexed under that as well*.
These conventions would also be followed when completing a "Short form certificate", and on the "Certificate of Registry of Birth", which preceded it. A full birth certificate, which is a direct copy of the register entry, and has always been available as a "paid for extra", doesn't give a surname.
After 1969, the informant was asked to specify the surname of the child ( Space 2 was now headed "Name and surname" and the surname should be shown in capitals) and things become a little clearer, although double indexing for children born illegitimately still applied.
The rules in Scotland have always been different.
*note that the new GRO On-line Index uses a slightly different set of indexing rules so the results when searching that can, and often will, be different to the results you might get on FreeBMD or similar.
-
Yes but how did one know what the registered entries were if the only certificate supplied was a short form which does give both first names and surname. Surprisingly, never having looked it up, I have no idea of the info about my father's name/occupation/residence as given at registration as it is not on any certificate I have.
If our 1880ish ancestors only had a short form certificate they may never have known precisely what info was registered and maybe wouldn't know who was detailed as their father. They wouldn't necessarily have known that they might, in life, be using a different surname.
I think, assuming what you get from the gro, is what the individual got, is flawed.
Pheno
-
Yes but how did one know what the registered entries were if the only certificate supplied was a short form which does give both first names and surname. Surprisingly, never having looked it up, I have no idea of the info about my father's name/occupation/residence as given at registration as it is not on any certificate I have.
I have precisely the same situation.
-
Thanks, Antony. We are lucky to have your professional knowledge.
-
Thank you for that explanation Antony. It’s so interesting to get the full facts from an expert on something you tend to assume is fairly simple. Does this mean there is a clever way of using the index to establish if the father is mentioned on the birth certificate of an illegitimate child by finding the same reference number with a different surname?
Pinetree
-
Does this mean there is a clever way of using the index to establish if the father is mentioned on the birth certificate of an illegitimate child by finding the same reference number with a different surname?
To some extent yes you can. The easiest way is to use FreeBMD, find an entry and then click on the page number - that will show you other entries with the same reference, and you might spot an entry which has been indexed twice. The fact that the old printed index and the GRO on-line index use different rules can also be helpful to compare the result you get from each.
But - there are always other explanations and possibilities and working just from an index entry always involves the risk of going wrong because you are using guesswork and making assumptions. For instance even where there is a maiden name shown (different from the indexed surname), it doesn't mean the father is named on the entry or that the mother is married to the father.
You can't be 100% sure without seeing a certificate.
-
I have come across a puzzling use of Two Family Names and can't think of a logical reason.
In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
3 Years later in 1859 the mother married and in the 1861 she, her son and husband were listed using his surname. This was repeated in the 1871 census.
In 1880 the son married using his registered name and the Certificate included his mother's original name too. A son born in 1880 was also registered with the original surname.
Moving on to the 1881 census the sons new family were listed using his Step Father's Surname not his Birth Surname. This was repeated in the 1891 and 1the 1901 Census documents.
All the of the 11 children born to the son were registered using his birth surname and his death in 1909 used his birth Surname name too.
So my question is, can anyone see a logical reason for a Step Fathers Surname to be used in the 1881,1891 and 1001 Census Documents rather than his own birth Surname?
Thank You
NormanE
To address the original question, I think it boils down to who completed the census forms.
Bear in mind that it's possible that nobody else in the family saw what was entered, and once the form was collected none of them would ever have seen it again.
If there was nobody in the household who was literate, or if they weren't confident enough to complete the form without help, someone else may have assisted. This opens the doors to lots of possible misunderstandings. One of my families appears with the wife's long-dead father shown as head, and the whole family is then listed under his surname. I think she was asked "What is Father's name?", meaning her husband, and she thought they meant her own father.
The same goes for registering births, marriages etc - if the informant misunderstands a question their answer might not be what was intended.
I don't think "saving face" comes into it. In an age when early deaths were common, many households included children from an widowed marriage, and that would have explained a different surname.
-
You can't be 100% sure without seeing a certificate.
and even then .... :D
-
Surely on the E & W birth certificates, pre 1969 if there are names in the space under the column heading "Name, if any" they are legally the given names, even if they may well be surnames within the family.
May I also suggest that the baby does not actually have a surname, and even if the name of the father is provided and even if the father is the informant, that is not where we should anticipate finding baby's surname.
Surely pre 1969, E & W births have the baby's surname coming directly from the column "Name and Maiden Surname of the Mother". So in the example that Sloe Gin has provided, baby George gains his surname from the name his mother was recorded as .... Mary Ann READ. Yes, George's dad was James READ but that's not why George would likely be George READ.
I can assure you that in New South Wales, Australia until 1969, baby's birth registrations had no provision for a separate column giving a surname for baby. I can further assure you that among my retired ancient living rellies are former senior officers of NSW BDM. They assure me that no one ever believes them BUT they know a child's surname comes from the surname that MUM was known by. If a married women in that era, she was likely known by the surname of her husband. NSW inherited that habit from .... England & Wales, and not from Scotland.
JM
and
Perhaps you are looking at a "short form" rather than the "long form" document.
JM.
NSW bdm abandoned the use of "extracts" once it had centralised birth registrations to its Head Office, Sydney and was fully EDP puterised! But my trusty rellies, retired Senior Officers from NSW BDM, assure me that when Extracts were the 'easy option' and were typed up at the local deputy registrar's offices through NSW, that the clerks doing the typing were required to use the surname from the local register's originals, and they were required to refer to the column for the Mother's name, recorded in that specific column. NO, NOT mum's former name, but the name she was recorded as on the registration. YES, if a married woman, then pre 1969, following from E & W traditions, mum's surname would match her husband's surname. It is important to also recognise that the statute laws of NSW governed (and still govern) NSW BDM, but that back in the 1850s when they were initially being drawn up, the experienced legal bods (drafters) were mainly educated in England, often were born in England, and the practices, rules and regulations were similar in purpose to English ones. This tradition continued for decades, perhaps even into the 1970s when the Commonwealth of Australia's White Australia Policy was finally abandoned.
So, my retired rellies are quite sure that for example, when a child started school, and someone needed to attend to enrolment and a surname was needed, the child's surname comes from their Mum. Back in the era of shame due to concerns about illegitimacy, the baby's school child's surname came from the surname that the Mum was known by at that time.
My ancient living relatives thank AntonyMMM and simply note that "the down under lot must have mis-understood the accents of the English when following their lead".
JM EDIT to strike through babys and replace it with school child's
-
And even on BMD certs you get wrong birth dates as well as wrong names or fudged names, sometimes the date of birth was fudged to avoid later registration, and the actual DOB differs from the recorded one. A family friends birthday was assumed to be 8th November but his funeral service card said 1st September. Born 1964, he died of a lung illness that was common in people of African descent.
-
As others indicated also..it actually was a very common practice of interchanging names anytime. The last one I came upon had just happened in 1910. The 1910 circumstance is the father died and even though adult children.. they took stepfather name when their mother married. The one adult switched back to birth name but the other adult son kept stepfather name and gave his own children the stepfather name. Info passed down except for last 3 generations so it makes for a surprise.
-
I came across a rather odd name change yesterday.
Frederick Pointon was born in 1888 son of Thomas Pointon and Mary Ann (nee Mottram). Thomas and Mary Ann married in 1870, Frederick was their 8th child. On the 1891 and 1901 censuses he is with parents and siblings as Frederick Pointon. In 1911 he is a soldier in barracks, also listed as Frederick Pointon. A few months after the 1911 census he marries as Frederick Mottram. His first child is born on 7 Dec 1911 and registered as Doris Evelyn Mottram. Two subsequent children are registered with the surname Pointon. His wife died in 1918 shortly after the birth of the third child her death was registered as Evelyn Pointon, Frederick died in 1922, death registered as Frederick Pointon. Obviously Frederick had no say in how his own death was registered.
So why adopt the maiden name of his mother for a short time? His birth was definitely legitimate.
added: when his death was registered he became Frederick Clarence Pointon, as he also is on WWI Pension Record Cards and Ledgers index (although he died in 1922, I would guess his death was due to injuries sustained during the war)
-
I have come across a puzzling use of Two Family Names and can't think of a logical reason.
In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.
3 Years later in 1859 the mother married and in the 1861 she, her son and husband were listed using his surname. This was repeated in the 1871 census.
In 1880 the son married using his registered name and the Certificate included his mother's original name too. A son born in 1880 was also registered with the original surname.
Moving on to the 1881 census the sons new family were listed using his Step Father's Surname not his Birth Surname. This was repeated in the 1891 and 1the 1901 Census documents.
All the of the 11 children born to the son were registered using his birth surname and his death in 1909 used his birth Surname name too.
So my question is, can anyone see a logical reason for a Step Fathers Surname to be used in the 1881,1891 and 1001 Census Documents rather than his own birth Surname?
Thank You
NormanE
I would suggest the following.
In many of the cases given the son’s name was added by someone other than himself such as 1861 & 1871 census, these both occurred after his mother’s marriage and her married surname was probably the name the whole family were known as.
In 1880 the son married and used his birth surname, this could be because he felt or the clerk told him that was his real surname or he may have fallen out with his stepfather. It seems however he started using his birth name (a person’s legal name (in UK) is the name they are known by) as his son was registered in that name.
The 1881 & 1891 census were possibly/probably filled in by his mother or stepfather rather than himself so carried his stepfather’s name.
His children seem to have been registered by himself, or his wife, under his birth surname. I would suggest his death may have been registered by his wife using his birth surname the name he gave when he married her.
Cheers
Guy