Formerly and Maiden Surname

[Wilkes_ml]

Sorry, I disagree totally.

Scots law in these matters has always been far more progressive than English law.

In England, if a child is born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of the birth, that child is illegitimate and nothing, in law, can change that status. The child might very well be adopted by the father, making the father the legal father, but the fact that he was born illegitimately can never be changed. This would mean that the child could not inherit the title or coat of arms of the father (if he had them).

In Scotland, on the other hand, an illegitimate child can be legitimised by the marriage of the parents. This can be years later. A good friend of mine has a common-law wife. She bore him three children (23, 15 and 13 years old). Her estranged husband finally died and she is now free to marry my friend. All three children (the eldest being an adult) will be legitimised, before the two youngest return to school in September.

Kiltpin

Illegitimate children in England can also be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of the parents - now and probably for at least the last couple of decades, but I'm not sure how long ago the law was changed.

As for the law in Scotland, I don't know when it became possible to legitimise children by subsequent marriage of the parents, but might not have been available in the 1800s.

[Wilkes_ml]

Another thing to take note of is that Scottish women sometimes used their maiden name regardless of whether they were married or not. You will find that some women's deaths are often registered under their maiden name so it will say e.g. "Margaret BREMNER wife of Alexander MITCHELL". You may also find a married woman listed under her maiden name in the census...I have an example of my ancestor who was listed this way even though her husband and children (in the same household) were listed under his surname.

[Lesley Robertson]

Sorry to come late to this, I've been out all day.
It would depend on how long after her husband's death the child was born. If a child was born to a married woman or new widow, said child would be presumed to be legit unless otherwise specified. Where the parents were not married, the father's name could only go on the cent if both parents registered it together. Mind you, I've seen kids listed as of a nusband 5 years after his death!
I think you should look for the death of husband 1.

[Guy Etchells]

Sorry, I disagree totally.

Scots law in these matters has always been far more progressive than English law.

Not so if either parent was previously married the child could not be legitimised by the marriage of their parents until the commencement of the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968 in England a similar bill was passed in 1959

In England, if a child is born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of the birth, that child is illegitimate and nothing, in law, can change that status. The child might very well be adopted by the father, making the father the legal father, but the fact that he was born illegitimately can never be changed. This would mean that the child could not inherit the title or coat of arms of the father (if he had them).

That was the case with the Legitimacy Act, 1926, but it was changed by the Legitimacy Act 1959

In Scotland, on the other hand, an illegitimate child can be legitimised by the marriage of the parents. This can be years later. A good friend of mine has a common-law wife. She bore him three children (23, 15 and 13 years old). Her estranged husband finally died and she is now free to marry my friend. All three children (the eldest being an adult) will be legitimised, before the two youngest return to school in September.

Yes but that was not the case before 1968.

It would be assumed that the child of the widow in the case we have before us is the child of her husband. There would be no need for anybody to acknowledge anything. Adults die. That death would not make the child illegitimate. The child should bear the father's name, not the mother's maiden name.

Agreed in both Scotland and England that would be the case

In Scotland, everybody keeps the name they were born with. Miss Mary Jones marries John Smith and becomes Mary Jones the wife of John Smith. All the children would then have the Smith surname. But legally throughout her life, she will remain Mary Jones. One only need look at the gravestones to see this. Regardless of how many marriages and widowhoods a woman goes through, she retains her maiden name.

Regards

Kiltpin

No in Scotland as in England everybody is free to use what ever name they wish. The name they use is their legal name no formalities are required to change ones name and the ONLY way to change ones name is to use the new name, everything else including what is commonly called Deed Poll is only evidence that a change of name occurred.

In the birth certificate shown it simply means the mother Emma Fiddes had at some earlier date used the name Grice and her maiden surname was Smith.
She might have lived with a Mr Grice prior to her marriage to William Fiddes, or she might have split from him and lived with Mr Grice for a period during her marriage to William Fiddes but James Fiddes is claimed on his birth certificate to be the son of William Fiddes.

Cheers
Guy

[Debra Fiddes]

Lesley, That is what I have been doing. I have a few good candidates, one with familial names passed down thru the years. We can assume the husband Grice was alive at the conception of Samuel, 1864 but deceased by the second marriage in 1867. This is a narrow time frame. As I cannot find Emma as smith in 1861 the year she was of majority, perhaps she by then married.

[Debra Fiddes]

Thanks Guy, That is my current take on it too.

[jac65]

Hi Debra

I wouldn't assume that there is any connection between Samuel Smith and the surname Grice. All the birth registration for James says is that at some stage in her life Emma had the surname Grice.

As I asked in reply #19 do you have the marriage certificate for William Fiddes and Emma Smith? Is Emma described as a widow or spinster? It seems that William was in the army (which probably explains how he came to be in London) and there are a couple of Services Records on Findmypast that would be worth checking out.

Andy

[Debra Fiddes]

Andy, Yes William was in the Scots Fusiliers Battalion 1407 2, rank private from 1864 to 1873. Then he joined the London Police and their association even sent me all his records. In fact I have over 22 records for William, many are copies of the original documents. But, not for the lack of effort on my part, I only have a transcript of his marriage to Emma Smith and it does not contain the detail field for spinster or widow. I recently updated my searches on Findmypast and they do not have a copy of the full document either. Where else do you think I could find a full copy of the marriage doc?

[christanel]

You can purchase the marriage certificate from the GRO Here


Details from the free site FreeBMD are

Marriages

March 1/4 1867

William Fiddes
Emma Smith
Registration district - St Martin's
Vol 1a page 631

This page
tells you what information is recorded.

Christina

[Debra Fiddes]

Well, Christina, That's great. I have bookmarked the page and will order it tomorrow. Meanwhile it was interesting to see that Tip2 states that it was not uncommon for the marriage to take place a few years after the birth of the first child!