View Full Version : Herbert Byrd then Brownley
27-09-2007, 11:58 AM
My paternal grandmothers older brother was born Herbert Byrd, their mothers name was Frances Byrd aka Fanny.
From the 1871 Census I can see she was born in Wrocester and was a border in Birmingham, the relationsip section on Herbert's record says son doe that mean his father was the head of the household or am I reading this wrong?
also what would he have needed to do to change his name, or as he was a child could they just have changed it without any legal documentation?
27-09-2007, 12:12 PM
I would take it that he was Frances E Byrds son - but I do know what you mean that the relationship of everyone in the household is meant to be in relation to the 'Head' of the household....do you have any reason to think he was in some way connected to the Hurst family?
27-09-2007, 12:34 PM
I see on the 1881 census that Frances has married Henry Brownley (6d 270 Q4 1872 Birmingham, Warwickshire) and although his name is down as Brownley, he is referred to as Step-son..
Did he keep the name of Brownley all his life, ie when he married?
I am not sure if there would have been a legal name change, as many people did just make a name change without any formalities I believe. Someone here will probably have more knowledge about that.
I do have one name change in my tree - but that was an adult/ It was announced in The Times.
27-09-2007, 1:18 PM
I don't know of any link to anybody call Hurst, but I have only just found out that he was born with the name Byrd, I presumed that the step son part was a mistake in the records, as he is referred to as son later.
Herbert signed the marriage certificate of his sister, Elsie, my grandmother, as Brownley so I can only presume he used this for the rest of his life.
But the odd thing is my Dad always told me his mother's maiden name was Byrd, and not Browley, as I found when I traced his sister Frances' birth. I also found that my grandparents had to get married, as they married in 17 April 1911 and Frances was born 3 September 1911. They also lived at the same address before the married.
27-09-2007, 1:45 PM
the relationsip section on Herbert's record says son doe that mean his father was the head of the household or am I reading this wrong?
In context it clearly means that he was the son of Frances.
what would he have needed to do to change his name, or as he was a child could they just have changed it without any legal documentation?
Anyone can change their name without any legal formalities.
27-09-2007, 2:09 PM
I presumed that the step son part was a mistake in the records, as he is referred to as son later.
Don't run away with the idea that "son" always meant biological son. A stepson would often be referred to as son-in-law or simply son. The slightly unusual thing about the case you described is that he was once described as "stepson".
27-09-2007, 2:31 PM
in 1871 Census herbert and his mother are lodgers.
in 1881 Frances is married to Henry and Herbert is listed as step son,
in 1891 Herbert is listed as son
in 1901 Herbert is married with 2 children.
27-09-2007, 2:55 PM
I would send for his birth certificate and see what it says..
Herbert Edward Byrd 1870 Q3 Birmingham Warwickshire 6d 205
If he was illegitimate he probably just took his stepfathers name when Frances married.
Bearing in mind he was only 2 - 2 1/2 when Frances married he may not have known or even been told that Mr Brownley was not his biological father - or maybe he was his father and Frances did not marry him until later.....
27-09-2007, 5:42 PM
That would solve it once and for all. I just hope that if henry is not Herbert's father that the father is named. Will have to wait and see.
28-09-2007, 10:05 PM
I have emailed Tony who is also realated to Herbert, Tony has Herbert's birth certificate and Herbert was born in Dudley Road Workhouse, father not named, so could be anybody!
01-10-2007, 6:56 PM
I have also now found Herbert's marriage or should I say marriages, his first wife appears to have died in 1901 and he remarried in 1904, both use the name Brownley so a possibility he never knew his name was really Byrd.
01-10-2007, 7:49 PM
It looks like it dosen't it, or he just considered himself to be a Brownley as that was who raised him.
02-10-2007, 8:16 AM
Would he have needed his birth certificate when he married?
02-10-2007, 1:30 PM
I have just had an email today from one of Herbert's Great Granddaughters. I will have to ask her if she knows anything about Herbert's last name
02-10-2007, 5:17 PM
That is a bit of luck at least you are in contact with people who may be able to tell you more.
I cannot remember showing my birth certificate when I got married, (but it was a long time ago..lol)
I don't know if or how many times he would have been likely to need his birth certificate, I do know an elderly relative of mine who died in the 1960's had never held/seen a copy of his, I seem to remember talk of it's absence causing a problem when it came to his pension or some such thing.
02-10-2007, 10:31 PM
I have found out that neither Kim nor her grandfather was pleased to find out her Great grandfather was born in the workhouse and that his father was unnamed, but well that is how it goes.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.