Very confused !!!!

[Sue L]

If i have the right details , and at this moment i think i have but also have doubts ? would my grandfather have been adopted officially sometime after 1896?

If i have the right person he was born John Kay 1889 to Sarah Ann Kay , no father named on birth certificate, she went on to marry Daniel Hogan in 1896 . On my grandfather's marriage he is down as John Hogan ... father Daniel , and he is Hogan on his death certificate too .

If he was not adopted offically would he have not had to register in the name of Kay . ???

If he was adopted is there anyway of finding out ?? Hope someone can help . i'm soooooo confused/ bewildered

Thanks Sue

[Peter Goodey]

If i have the right person he was born John Kay 1889 to Sarah Ann Kay , no father named on birth certificate, she went on to marry Daniel Hogan in 1896 . On my grandfather's marriage he is down as John Hogan ... father Daniel , and he is Hogan on his death certificate too .

That was absolutely standard behaviour. There was no need for any paperwork. The lad simply took his stepfather's surname. That's about as normal as you get in genealogy

Well done for spotting the change of name. That often fools people.

[Sue L]

Thank you Peter that has cleared up that question , only a million and one to go !!!!!! so the great grandfather (Daniel Hogan ) i thought i had also found is not technically correct , and i will never know either ! noooooooooo!!

[Peter Goodey]

Not biologically correct (presumably) but if it was me I wouldn't ignore the Hogan line. After all, Daniel Hogan must have had considerable influence on your grandfather's early life.

If you want to chase the biological father, the book My Ancestor was a Bastard contains a lot of information and research strategies. You can buy it from Parish Chest.

[SBSFamilyhistory]

Peter as you have been told this happened a lot and depending upon how old the child was when the mother married the child may not, even have known that it was not his father.

Sue

[Sue L]

Good point Sue , i didn't even think of that he would have been just 7 when they married and they may well have been together for a while before that. I think after all my painstaking searching i'm going to stick with the Hogans as being my line . But i will definatly get your book Peter sounds facinating . I just love all this family history stuff , especially after not knowing family on either side . What i would give to have a photo of him !!

Sue

[Jan1954]

. But i will definatly get your book Peter sounds facinating .

Just click this link.

[Sue L]

Thank you sooo much , i won't tell you how long i was looking for it !!! i got a little lost in the maze !


Sue