Is there a Logical Answer?

[NormanE]

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



 

[carol8353]

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

Yes to save face in front of the census enumerators and the neighbours.

[LizzieL]

If I've read this correctly, all the BMD records used the son's "correct" surname i.e the maiden surname of his mother, and for all census records he is known by his stepfather's surname, both when he was living with his mother and stepfather and later when he had his own wife and children. 

I would agree it was to save face. People in his local community might find out what was written on the census return, e.g enumerator might be local or he might have needed help filling in the householder's form. But neighbours are unlikely to find out what name he had given to the Registrar when registering his children's births, so he could use his birth surname there.

However I'm surprised he could keep his name secret at the marriage or was it some way from where he lived? 
   

[Sloe Gin]

In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.

That's not technically correct.  Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form.   

It was presumed that the child would take the surname of the father, if a father's name was given, or if no father was named, then the mother's surname.  But for practical purposes, they could use any name they wished provided it wasn't used fraudulently - and that's the same today.

[Rosinish]

"In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.

Are you saying she didn't give her forename?

"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."

This would be the choice of the mother & step-father

"In 1880 the son married using his registered name and the Certificate included his mother's original name too."

Was the marriage in Scotland?
Was a father named?

"A son born in 1880 was also registered with the original surname."

This would make sense as he married by his own birth 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."

Had the step-father died & was the mother living with the family, (maybe a mark of respect although that would seem odd)?

"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."

Seems the correct & normal thing to do.

"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?"

Absolutely none, unless as mentioned earlier, if the mother had been living with them, possibly for her benefit but again, it seems an odd thing to do?

Yes to save face in front of the census enumerators and the neighbours.

Save face from what/who?

Surely the neighbours would know them by their proper surname, the surname he was born & married by?

Annie

[Jo6100]

I don’t know the answer but I have a similar case in my family where a son born to my 2nd g grand mother by her first husband ( who died shortly after) is then known by his step father’s surname. He marries under his own name  but uses both names in subsequent census’s. In 1911 he uses his own name in the census but his step father’s surname on the electoral roll the same year.  I guess it’s not uncommon in an era of early deaths and remarriage

Regards,

Jo

[jinks]

Might seem a bit old fashioned nowadays but often when a Man married a Woman who already had children, the children took on the step Father's name - like an informal adoption, some Children later reverted to their Birth Name others didn't, but on documents he probably had to use his Birth Name but in normal day to day life might never have used his true Birth Name, always his 'adopted' Fathers Name.   

[Rosinish]

In 1856 a mother registered the birth of her son using only her Surname.

That's not technically correct.  Before 1969 no surnames were recorded for children - there was no column for the child's surname on the registration form.   

It was normal procedure in Scotland.

Norman mentioned the mother's name on his marriage cert. hence my question, was he married in Scotland.

Annie

[Ruskie]

Norman, there have been similar questions on rootschat in the past. Swapping between surnames can be confusing, but it happened quite a lot.