I'm Sure I Know..but

[pompeyboy]

This may sound a silly question but if someone has been known by a certain name but not had it changed by deed poll and they are to be married do they have to revert to their real surname as of birth..like i said silly question maybe and i'm sure i know the answer but just needed confirmation.

Regards

Steve

[stanmapstone]

The names of the bride and groom  on the cerificate are those they were known by at the date of the marriage and are not necessarily the ones on their birth certificates, it was not necessary to produce any proof of identity. Although if either of the parties had adopted or was known by names other than their true names the the clergy were instructed to enter both names with the word "otherwise" between them.

Stan

[pompeyboy]

Thanks Stan..gonna pm ya

[stanmapstone]

If the marriage was by banns, then in a series of 19th century  judicial decisions on the Marriage Acts, it has been held that the publication of banns must be by the known and acknowledged names of the parties as those which their relations and friends were presumed to be best acquainted with.

Stan

[Podenco]

The names of the bride and groom  on the cerificate are those they were known by at the date of the marriage and are not necessarily the ones on their birth certificates, it was not necessary to produce any proof of identity. Although if either of the parties had adopted or was known by names other than their true names the the clergy were instructed to enter both names with the word "otherwise" between them.

Stan

Hi Stan
So if the person did not inform the clergy they were known by another name then only the name they were given would be recorded? I think I have this problem with one of my ancestors I don`t think the name he married and died with was the name he was born with, makes things so complicated but I don`t suppose he thought that one day his grand-daughter would be tearing her hair out trying to do family tree

[stanmapstone]

Under English common law, a person may take a new surname, perfectly legally, without drawing up any formal record, provided that such action is not undertaken for the purpose of fraud of avoidance of obligation, etc.

Stan

[Podenco]

Thank-you Stan

That is what I thought, ancestor searching would be oh so much easier if ancestors did not change names,  be less than truefull on marriage, birth, death certificates and on census forms but oh well guess that makes ancestor hunting `fun`

[Temic]

Have a record of it happening a few times in my family, for various reasons - my own surname derives from the fact that my gt. grandfather decided at the time of his marriage (1893) to adopt, without any formality, a different surname to the one that he had been known by up to that point.

[DebbieDee]

I have a family member who was known as her mother's maiden name in 1881 and her stepfather's surname in 1891.  She married in 1896 giving her real father's name and using his surname.  In 1901 she was using her husband's name.   

From what I remember from getting married in 2004 you are supposed to get married in the name you are known by at that time. I suspect this was not the case in the example I gave above though.  I think providing proof of ID is a recent thing.