Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married

[MonicaL]

...I can only find one marriage entry for a Margaret McShenoig on Scotland's People but that marriage takes place in 1828 (before James birth) so the timing of things just seems very off.  I just can't see Margaret getting married in 1828, having an affair and resulting in a boy in 1831 and her husband being happy about that...

Some family researchers have linked that 1804 christening I mentioned above, with father Duncan, to this Margaret. See this old post on another forum http://www.talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16704

Given the names of children for this couple, I think this Margaret was likely the daughter of a Donald McShenoig and his wife Barbara who were also having children in Southend around this time. See http://clark-debisschop.co.uk/tng/getperson.php?personID=I4563&tree=Clark

Monica

[lmfamilyresearch]

These are all interesting and I'll definitely look in everything.  James' baptism record says that Margaret is from Ballyvianan. 

[John915]

Good evening,

Normally if parents divorce and mother remarries the children retain the fathers name as on their birth certificates. If the new husband legally adopts the children then they take his name. I don't know if the same applied as far back as the early 1800s.

John915

[lmfamilyresearch]

You will have this but just adding here James's death in 1905 in Iowa with father named as Alexander McMurchy www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP2F-S5G9

Monica

Yes I do have this.  I know that his father is listed as Alexander McMurchy but I'm not sure how m much I can trust this record given that the information was provided by and filled out by the undertaker and not James' wife.  However, it is something to look into.  Donald (James' father) did have a brother named Alexander.

[lmfamilyresearch]

Good evening,

Normally if parents divorce and mother remarries the children retain the fathers name as on their birth certificates. If the new husband legally adopts the children then they take his name. I don't know if the same applied as far back as the early 1800s.

John915

Thanks.  In this case, James' parents were not married as he's listed as the "natural son" (and not lawful son) on his baptism record.

[TerriG]

My mum's half brother (born to my grandmother before she married my grandfather) always went by his biological father's surname, even though my grandad brought him up.  The biological father was named on his baptism in Scotland, and I wonder whether some sort of maintenance payment might have been established, although I don't think father & son kept in touch.

[aghadowey]

My mum's half brother (born to my grandmother before she married my grandfather) always went by his biological father's surname, even though my grandad brought him up.  The biological father was named on his baptism in Scotland, and I wonder whether some sort of maintenance payment might have been established, although I don't think father & son kept in touch.

I know of a similiar case where an illegitimate child was brought up by his mother & stepfather in a loving family home but kept the name of his biological father who had no contact/interest but in this case the father's mother supported the child and left them money in her Will.

[lmfamilyresearch]

Thanks everyone for sharing information.  I've got a lot to look into.  Hopefully I can figure it out but this may simply remain of my family history mysteries.