Is there a Logical Answer?

[Sloe Gin]

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.

[Andrew Tarr]

You can't be 100% sure without seeing a certificate.

and even then .... 

[majm]

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

[coombs]

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.

[SomeIdleTuesday]

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. 

[LizzieL]

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)

[Guy Etchells]

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