RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Palomino on Tuesday 07 January 25 17:22 GMT (UK)
-
Hello community,
Thomas Watts and Sarah Jane were living together from 1870 onwards https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VBC1-BHD (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VBC1-BHD). As far as I know they ve not married before Apr 1880 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66GP-L16J (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66GP-L16J). Up until then Sarah Jane has most likely been married to Henry Black https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2DC4-6PN (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2DC4-6PN) who seems to have left her pretty soon after their marriage.
Thomas and Sarah Jane had a few children from 1870 onwards. All children bore the surname Watts. In GRO, the relevant MMN is Roebuck.
like:
- Annie Watts
Jul 1870 • Halifax, Yorkshire
GRO: WATTS, ANNIE ROEBUCK
GRO Reference: 1870 S Quarter in HALIFAX Volume 09A Page 509
- Alice Watts (April 1872, Rawmarsh),
- Caroline Watts (b 23 Apr 1877, 11 Meadow Works, Rawmarsh)
All of their children so far have been bapt on Sep 21 1880, Rawmarsh, St Mary The Virgin (parents: Thomas Watts, Sarah Jane Watts) https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66BT-TSLM (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66BT-TSLM).
I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???
What was the surname given to children born out of wedlock to parents living together during this time? Is the father's name conceivable?
Thank you
-
What was the surname given to children born out of wedlock to parents living together during this time? Is the father's name conceivable?
Thank you
I would say yes.
if the father accepted and acknowledged the children they would have his surname (if he didn't it was usually the mothers)
Re the mothers surnames I would say it possibly indicates that Sarah Jane was a Roebuck and married someone named Black before living with Thomas watts and adopting his surname.
-
They would be given whatever name the Mother declared
If she said she was Mrs Watts but had previously been married to Mr Black and her maiden name was Roebuck, then the children would be registered as Watts
There was no checking to see if she really was married to Thomas Watts.
But if she said my proper name is Mrs Black with a maiden name of Roebuck but this child's real father is Thomas Watts, then Thomas would only be mentioned as Father on the birth certificate if he was actually present when the registration took place and he agreed to being named as Father. If he was not present, then the Father would either be named as Henry Black or left blank.
But whatever they were registered as, they could be known by whatever name the parents chose -- either her maiden name, or her previous married name or the real father's name
You can call yourself whatever you like, so long as it is not with intent to defraud.
-
I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???
No. The interpretation of this, as given at the time, is that she is now Watts, widow of Black, nee Roebuck.
-
I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???
No. The interpretation of this, as given at the time, is that she is now Watts, widow of Black, nee Roebuck.
I agree with this interpretation of the record.
-
How could she be Watts??? I ve found their marriage only in 1880...
-
How could she be Watts??? I ve found their marriage only in 1880...
Very easily. In Britain you can change your name at will. Simply by usage.
-
Thank you. So all pieces of info do fit together finally.
-
Children, in E/W, were not given any specific surname at registration until 1969.
Entires were indexed under the surname of one, or sometimes both parents named on the register entry depending on their marital status.
-
No hard and fast rule, but the more respectable you were, the more you got away with. Or maybe dependant on whether the previous partner was still local!
Our small town had two (at least!) couples living without benefit of marriage, for years. One a respectable tradesman, the other in the poorest part of town. The tradesman, John Gibbs, had a failed marriage, disappeared to London for a few years and came back with his "wife" and child in tow, and went on to have a further 8 children, all registered and baptised as Gibbs. But when his "wife" died, while her death was registered as Gibbs, she was buried under her maiden name! His first wife lived in Derbyshire.
Our poorer couple, the wife was the one with the failed marriage. She started having children with Thomas Hillyer, but they were all registered under her name as Smith, with Hillyer usually as one of their Christian names. They later married, but the children were still usually called Smith, although that could vary - even when two of them joined the army! Her husband was living a few hundred yards away, until his death.
-
So, you never can be sure. Everything is possible.
-
Thank you everyone
-
My great granddad and his 3 brothers were all registered as Morgan - their mum’s husband’s name - even though their dad was called Hunt. My great granddad’s sister (also to Hunt) was registered as Fletcher - their mum’s maiden name - even though she was born in between the boys births. The husbands (along with the daughter from the marriage) lived a few streets away for 30 years and my grandma remembers there seemed to have been no shame in any of this. Although this was a bit later and in the 1910s.
-
My great granddad and his 3 brothers were all registered as Morgan - their mum’s husband’s name - even though their dad was called Hunt. My great granddad’s sister (also to Hunt) was registered as Fletcher - their mum’s maiden name - even though she was born in between the boys births. The husbands (along with the daughter from the marriage) lived a few streets away for 30 years and my grandma remembers there seemed to have been no shame in any of this. Although this was a bit later and in the 1910s.
They weren't registered under any surname (pre-1969) .... they would be INDEXED under the name MORGAN because that was the surname their mother was shown as on the entry. If the father HUNT had also been named (as an unmarried father) they would be indexed under his surname as well.
-
Just to emphasize what AntonyMMM has been saying. The birth certificate is a registration of a birth, not a name, the birth of a flesh and blood child, dead or alive, name or no name. The only name for the child on the certificate is the given name and even that isn't strictly necessary, just usual.
This idea of a legal, official name is a modern concept (and not exactly correct even now) that people are back applying onto events of one hundred and fifty years ago. In this country people are free to call themselves whatever they will and do so all the time, a marriage doesn't change a womans name, any more than a man's, she chooses to do so and may choose any other name at will, as can the man.
The other modern concept is that there are a hard and fast set of rules for how these certificates are filled in. There would certainly be the intent of such by officials in London, but in practice the informant could often neither read nor write and thus be unable to check what was written down by the registrar who could then put down whatever he chose to based on his own preferences and prejudices, nobody would, or indeed could, check his work.
To return to the original question, the birth certificate would contain whatever the mother said filtered through the medium of the registar. The child would be called whatever name the mother chose to call her.
Best not to get too hung up on technicalities when you're looking at 1877
-
Even though the child was registered (or indexed) under the unmarried mother's surname there would sometimes be a clue as to the father's name, even if he was not willing to register the child as his. I have examples of children entered under their unmarried mother's surname but with the surname of the father given as part of the forenames, e.g. John Smith (likely father) Jones (mother). It's a helpful clue, though of course you can't be absolutely sure that the mother was telling the truth!
-
That doesn't always help!
A few years ago, I did a tree for a friend - a Manx family, surname Christian.
His grandmother had a relationship with a mariner from Walney Island, Cumbria.
All the children were baptised with a middle name of Conway - so that must be the father's surname.
No clues on the Baptism Register, which I have seen the original of.
He didn't hang around for any census; and too many Conway men on Walney!
My friend has since passed, and his son wasn't interested. So I stopped there.
-
One relative had three children, each with a different father, we are told. Only one of the three had his father's name included in his forenames. Don't know where that leaves us!