What surname did children out of wedlock get about 1875?

[Palomino]

Hello community,

Thomas Watts and Sarah Jane were living together from 1870 onwards https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VBC1-BHD. As far as I know they ve not married before Apr 1880 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66GP-L16J. Up until then Sarah Jane has most likely been married to Henry Black  https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2DC4-6PN who seems to have left her pretty soon after their marriage.

Thomas and Sarah Jane had a few children from 1870 onwards. All children bore the surname Watts. In GRO, the relevant MMN is Roebuck.
like:
- Annie Watts
Jul 1870 • Halifax, Yorkshire
GRO: WATTS, ANNIE       ROEBUCK
GRO Reference: 1870  S Quarter in HALIFAX  Volume 09A  Page 509
- Alice Watts (April 1872, Rawmarsh),
- Caroline Watts (b 23 Apr 1877, 11 Meadow Works, Rawmarsh)
All of their children so far have been bapt on Sep 21 1880, Rawmarsh, St Mary The Virgin (parents: Thomas Watts, Sarah Jane Watts) https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66BT-TSLM.

I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???
 
What was the surname given to children born out of wedlock to parents living together during this time? Is the father's name conceivable?

Thank you

[RJ_Paton]

What was the surname given to children born out of wedlock to parents living together during this time? Is the father's name conceivable?

Thank you

I would say yes.
if the father accepted and acknowledged the children they would have his surname (if he didn't it was usually the mothers)

Re the mothers surnames I would say it possibly indicates that Sarah Jane was a Roebuck and married someone named Black before living with Thomas watts and adopting his surname.

[Marmalady]

They would be given whatever name the Mother declared

If she said she was Mrs Watts but had previously been married to Mr Black and her maiden name was Roebuck, then the children would be registered as Watts
There was no checking to see if she really was married to Thomas Watts.

But if she said my proper name is Mrs Black with a maiden name of Roebuck but this child's real father is Thomas Watts, then Thomas would only be mentioned as Father on the birth certificate if he was actually present when the registration took place and he agreed to being named as Father. If he was not present, then the Father would either be named as Henry Black or left blank.

But whatever they were registered as, they could be known by whatever name the parents chose -- either her maiden name, or her previous married name or the real father's name

You can call yourself whatever you like, so long as it is not with intent to defraud.

[Wexflyer]

I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???

No. The interpretation of this, as given at the time, is that she is now Watts, widow of Black, nee Roebuck.

[shanreagh]

I ve got Caroline's birth register entry. It says: Name of Mother: Jane Watts, late Black, formerly Roebuck. What does it mean? Still Sarah Jane Black???

No. The interpretation of this, as given at the time, is that she is now Watts, widow of Black, nee Roebuck.

I agree with this interpretation of the record.

[Palomino]

How could she be Watts??? I ve found their marriage only in 1880...

[Wexflyer]

How could she be Watts??? I ve found their marriage only in 1880...

Very easily. In Britain you can change your name at will. Simply by usage.

[Palomino]

Thank you. So all pieces of info do fit together finally.

[AntonyMMM]

Children, in E/W, were not given any specific surname at registration until 1969.

Entires were indexed under the surname of one, or sometimes both  parents named on the register entry depending  on their marital status.