REG'd or not?

[Waitabit]

Throwing in a quickie before 'off to work',.................
No names as I don't know who else may be researching her & perhaps be 'disappointed".

If a Lady between 'Partners' (no marriage found yet, but first partner said to be deceased,) has a child, birth reg'n can't be found; next census 1881 has her aged 8 with Father, Mother & two new younger Siblings. This marriage reg. not found. Elder Sister also using new Fathers name. Ages 'odd'. A 16 yr old Son may be from Fathers 1st marriage.

Child in question married 1898 Camberwell. Would she have needed proof of Birth Reg'n before marriage or for any other event in her life?
What are the chances of her birth being registered just before marriage? hmmmm?
Expecting her Marriage cert, any day.

Pop in again after work. All ideas appreciated.
:confused:

[Mutley]

No proof of anything required, they could lie out of the back of their heads then and births were not always registered.

Maybe disappointed if not found, but ecstatic if the members do manage it, so c'mon Wendy, give us a name to look for, she's got to be dead or you would be looking in the Guinness Book of Records. :D

[Astoria]

You say it so well Mutley, yes, give us a name :)

[LittleMissP]

If a widow had a child the child should still have been registered, with the surname of her deceased husband, as that would legally be the mother's and thus the child's surname (unless of course she HAD remarried). It may be that the child's biological father was the person she later married, and it may say that on either the birth certificate or baptism entry.

Regarding finding this lady's second marriage, have you searched a wide enough area/ range of dates? The man may not have been local and they might have got married near his home even if they came back to her area to live. You can frequently find that children from the first marriage take on the new husband's surname when you find them in the census- either because they then went by that name, or because the enumerator assumed the surname after finding the adult's names. They may have married elsewhere after their own children were born, just letting the previous children to be all assumed from the first marriage.

Regarding whether people would need identification in later life to prove their names, then it depends on when you're talking about. Most likely they didn't, especially around the time you are talking about. That is why some people go "missing"- it was fairly easy to go to a new place, pick a new name and just get on with your life uninterfered. However it also helps explain the multiple and various spellings of surnames.

The people in question are passed away now so you are allowed to name them on this board if you wish, so if you post details we can always have a search for relevant births/ marriages/ deaths if you want, but of course we will respect your privacy if you don't want to.

Hope that has helped a little! :)

Paula

[Waitabit]

Thanks Mutley, Astoria & Paula, for popping in here.

Just had to wipe out all of my words here,

:o :confused: |oopsredfa & other assorted expressions off total Blah !!

Certificates just to hand & I find that "my" Gal isn't my Gal at all & Her Hubby isn't my G'Dads Brother!! Unless he found another Father. So I will not proceed with aforementioned query. mutter,..mutter.

Now doesn't that just teach me not to believe all I'm told (without cert. proof?) & not to jump into Forums ahead of myself? :D

Still it's been nice chatting with you all. Weather here is nice, Magpie outside having an occasional chortle. Guess it knew what was coming with the posty.

I'll leave now shall I?

Is it still rude to count?

[Mutley]

Nice chatting with you too Wendy, at least you gave me a giggle.

Now where did the name Waitabit develop, I wonder? :D

[Waitabit]

Now waitabit Mutley, I did 'wait' about 10 yrs before sending for the certificate. Just long enough for this pair to become warmly enfolded in my Family file. However thro' them & my enquiring nature I've met several very nice people whom I don't have to toss just because some people are not who we thought they were.

I was rudely dragged from this Forum yeserday to keep company with our shorthaired sook who was having her first 'grooming session' so did her more recent pal who had hair longer than some sheep & softer,.Now both look like little ...well almost hairless shadows of their formerselves.

Note I didn't mention that the 2nd cert. was also NOT my relly. Oh well I hadn't put a spouse in his file, he's probably still in Canada somewhere! Tut, These "Williams"!.

Gotta go,can't sit for too long just now, I'll stand up & read theposts.

[Peter Goodey]

There is some confusion in this thread that ought to be clarified.

In England and Wales, the child's surname was never explicitly registered or shown on a birth certificate before 1969.

In English law a person’s legal name is the name they habitually use. There is no legal obligation to use the name shown on the birth certificate.

By the same token, people can change their names simply by use with no need for any legal formalities (excluding fraud, avoidance of obligation etc).

[LittleMissP]

Hi again Waitabit,

I too researched and grew a whole new large section of family tree based on a few assumptions- surname White- need I say more? I was just so compelled by the children's names and DOBs on the census, plus all from the same registration district- ALL the same! Except one daughter (my great grandmother) didn't fit as she was mentioned in two places on the 1901 census, so I thought I couldn't leave this little niggle any longer and sent off for a marriage certificate- only to find a completely different father's name and occupation for the bride! When you say 'fondly' I completely know what you mean- that is the exact word for me- you have invested so much in their history and have developed a kind of bond! I try to explain that to my partner and he thinks I've completely lost the plot... :D I've still got a tree for this other family though, I want to know what happens to them come the 1911 census!

Anyway, just wanted to say you are not the only one to make educated guesses and then very much later realise it wasn't to be... It's how you get better at this stuff!!

Best of luck for your future searches!
Paula

[LittleMissP]

There is some confusion in this thread that ought to be clarified.

In England and Wales, the child's surname was never explicitly registered or shown on a birth certificate before 1969.

In English law a person’s legal name is the name they habitually use. There is no legal obligation to use the name shown on the birth certificate.

By the same token, people can change their names simply by use with no need for any legal formalities (excluding fraud, avoidance of obligation etc).


Thanks Peter for correcting my use of 'legally', I do know this from all the birth certs I've received, think I should have used the word 'conventially'. Have quite a few family in my own tree that didn't abide as you would expect and it has caused quite a number of headaches and brickwalls for that exact reason |oopsredfa

[Waitabit]

Thanks Paula,
Fortunately in my case I only ever got as far as "him & Her & 2 children" to 1901. recent findings made me seek certs. I still however have the 'Living' results of those searches as friends, & who knows, as a Cousin suggests, he may be related way further back. whew! ;)

Something for next year if I get bored!