Surnames on birth certificates and illegitimate

[alan66]

Hello

Got stuck on family tree poser! Cant get head around this.

In 1890's one of my descendants left her husband and moved with their 2 children to Glasgow. She moved in with another man.
The childrens births are recorded and fathers surname is given as expected.

The family use the "stepfather" surname in the 1901 and indeed 1911 censuses.

The daughter gives birth in 1909 and the child is given the stepfather's surname and a grandmothers first and middle name.

On the birth certificate the father's name is not recorded. The mother gives her surname - using step fathers surname - bot her own birth surname?

In 1911 CENSUS she is listed in family house. The baby is listed as daughter of head of house, the stepfather.

Maybe he is real father or it is recorded for respectability?

Any thoughts or comments?

I would have thought she would have used her own

[whiteout7]

I think the daughter just used the stepdads name to register the child, since she was known all over town by that name, plus the baby would look like her mum and dads.

Respectability I would say, pass the baby off as your brother/sister

[healyjfch]

It looks like parents pretended be be married for respectability.
Did the mother and new man have any children together ?

The daughter's baby might be child of Stepfather

The census seems to be the place for writing untruths.

[alan66]

Thank you for your replies.

The mum and stepfather never married. There is also no mention of the father's name on sibsequent marriage and death certificates.

Looks like father's name will never be known?