Births registered in two surnames

[MaxD]

The births of the last 3 of 9 children were all registered against the name of the father and with the correct mother's surname in 1920, 1921 and 1923.  So far so normal.  However, all three are also to be found with a different father's name but the same mother's surname, registered in the same districts and in the same quarters/years as the other registrations.  It is known that the children were brought up by and known by father's name number two. The third child died as an infant, the death was registered in name number two.  Given that this was before the legal process of adoption started, could this have been a way to give legitimacy to an informal arrangement?

maxD

[KGarrad]

Purchasing just one of the birth certificates could well give you clues!

It could be as simple as father's name: Smith, also known as Jones?!

[andycand]

Hi

Is the father of the 3 youngest is a different person to the father of the others? When a birth is indexed under two surnames it usually indicates that the parents were not married. You would probably need to look at a certificate to confirm but I suspect that for the births the father named was not the husband. The GRO have indexed the birth under the surname of the father number two and the married surname of the mother. You will probably find that the father of the other children is not mentioned on the registration.

Andy

[MaxD]

Thanks both.  You are right of course, a cert will clarify although there were in fact two men involved (other family info).  Thought it most likely to have been a case of man number two "taking ownership" as Andy suggests.

[Treetotal]

Agree with Andy...I have this situation in my tree too and it has caused problems with online trees...I have had to persuade some people that they are the same children, although entered on Yorkshirebmd under two different surnames as they were registered first in the Mother's name then the Father's name after she married 
Carol

[heywood]

Thanks both.  You are right of course, a cert will clarify although there were in fact two men involved (other family info).  Thought it most likely to have been a case of man number two "taking ownership" as Andy suggests.

The first man would not be named on the certificate though. He was not 'involved' with these children presumably. Number 2 must have been named as the parent.

[andycand]

Hi

I don't think it is a case of "taking ownership", it looks like a normal registration for an unmarried couple.

Andy

[heywood]

Hi

I don't think it is a case of "taking ownership", it looks like a normal registration for an unmarried couple.

Andy

That's what I meant too 

[MaxD]

Hang on everyone - apologies due to all.  New fact (rush of blood).  Man one and wife divorced in 1919 - not known to present day family!!!  Lady took up with man two, no marriage found.  Three children born and registered with first man's name and lady and also with new man's name and same lady.  Why do this?   Can registrations be done in retrospect to confer some element of legitimacy (I know I can buy the certs but those won't explain why register the children in the first married names up to four years after the divorce and then register them in the unmarried names).
maxD