Is there a Logical Answer?

[suey]

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

Not only confusing for us but also for the family, seems some were uncertain themselves.

I have two families in my tree and one in my husbands. The children appear to be known in day to day life by their stepfathers surname. Some when they marry use their birth surname ie the one they were registered under and which appears on their birth certificate.  Some use both surnames at various times in life.

One couple who both had living spouses couldn’t marry but lived together. They had five children, all were registered in one borough with mothers previous married surname, they then traveled into a neighbouring borough and registered them again with their father’s surname . This late 1920s early 1930s.

[rogerb]

One of my ancestors was born with one surname but adopted at a young age and used his adoptive surname.

But through the years, he used his birth surname for his marriage and subsequent children, but kept the adoptive surname for the census and other work place indexes.

To make things a little more complicated, some of the next generation used one name whilst some used the other.  And there are also a number of instances of a double barrelled surname being used!

[Andrew Tarr]

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

Maybe it was simpler than that - if it seemed to be a single family and household to the enumerator, he gave every member the parents' surname ? I doubt the enumerators were expected to find out every complication, they were interested in ages, numbers, occupations.

[IgorStrav]

To add my two penn'orth:

I have a remot(ish) ancestor who was born in the same quarter as his parents marriage, and is registered under his mother's maiden surname.  Either the man she married wasn't his father, or possibly he wasn't present to confirm to the registrar that he was the father.  (I haven't got his birth cert, he's a bit too remote for that).

So the son lives with his mother and her husband and the rest of the family - they had a number of other children - but marries under his birth registered surname, and registers his children under that name too.  However, in every census, he's shown under the 'family' name of his mother, her husband, and all their children, and once married his wife is also shown with that name.

But when you think of it, the family would have been known under the parents' married name, and therefore the only time the 'official' name for this man would have been required was in formal registration terms - like marriages, births etc.

It seems very likely to me that people would be scrupulous then, but just go with the flow otherwise.

Another example is my OH's grandfather, who was born out of wedlock, but whose mother married soon after his birth, and had another child with her husband.  I 'think' it's likely that the husband was the father of OH's grandfather, but haven't been able to prove it.  The whole family were then known by the mother's married name.

Come WWI OH's grandfather registers to fight under his mother's married name.  However, for some reason - because there were penalties for misinformation? because he was shown his birth certificate? - this is crossed through, and his correct registered birth name is inserted.

And after that - because of 4 years of fighting under his birth registered name, and promotion to lance corporal? - he was known by his birth registered name, as was his whole family (including OH).

But both of his children had his mother's married name as a middle name.

[Sloe Gin]

Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames. 
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!

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.

I am sure that AntonyMMM will confirm this.

Maybe it was simpler than that - if it seemed to be a single family and household to the enumerator, he gave every member the parents' surname ? I doubt the enumerators were expected to find out every complication, they were interested in ages, numbers, occupations.

The enumerators only copied what was written on the household form.

[eddiebooth]

It could also be that the enumerator just assumed the child would have the same surname as the step father, perhaps thinking he was the biological father.

FWIW, my GF was born Booth and listed as such in the 1901 census. By 1911 his mother was gone (no idea where or how) and he was living with a spinster. He was listed as having her surname on that census. Years later, when an adult, he marries and his original surname is back again.

[LizzieL]

Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames. 
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!

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.

I am sure that AntonyMMM will confirm this.

My  birth certificate (England pre 1969) has my forenames plus my father's surname in the space for child's name, this would tell me very clearly what my registered surname is.

[Pheno]

As per the reply above, my English birth certificate, also pre 1969, clearly shows my name with a first name and a surname.

Also I have heard tell before, that occasions like birth, marriage and death were considered much more formal and official than census returns, electoral registers etc so it was likely that for the bmd's the original registered name would be used but for census returns etc the name that they were most usually known by would be used.

Pheno

[Rosinish]

Everyone is still talking about registered birth surnames. 
In England & Wales there were NO registered birth surnames until 1969!

Not I 

See Reply #7

Children in Scotland were given a surname on their statutory birth cert. which began in 1855.

There's also a space on a statutory Scottish marriage cert. for the mother's surname/maiden surname, beginning 1855 & ditto with a Scottish death cert. beginning 1855.

Annie