Genealogy Chat

I have noticed any number of mothers maiden names in the registration of birth records to be the same as the childs recorded name. Excuse my ignorance of this fact but does it simply mean that two people with the same surname had married or that the childs mother did not or would not have recorded the fathers name.I am confused!

In the vast majority of cases, it indicates that the chld is illegitimate. Reg

Usually means the child is illegitimate but sometimes two people with the same surname marry. My great grandparents were both Coleman - they were cousins. Anne

It pays to check on the siblings of any birth found where the child's surname is the same as the mother's maiden name. She may have married the father after the birth of the child without the father's name on the certificate. Sometimes,if this situation arises,it can also explain why you cannot find someone on a census. Also, if you can't find a marriage,then this situation can be one reason,so when doing a marriage search for a child born without a father's name on a birth certificate, try using the mother's maiden name,you will almost certainly see the father's name on the marriage certificate & possibly solve a 'Brickwall'.

Michael Oh dear, no! You simply cannot assume that a father's name on a marriage certificate, is the natural father of that child! Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isnt, but there is no way of knowing whether it is true. Often illegitimate people made up a father's name for their wedding, which was often a compound of the names of family members - an Uncle, a Grandfather, etc. Or, if they had a stepfather, they put his name on. You need much more evidence than a name on a marriage certificate, to ascertain the father of an illegiitimate child. OC

As far as our ancestors are concerned ( unless we can dig up remains and do DNA tests ) it's all about the DEGREE of proof, nothing is really certain (not even DNA in fact). It's likely many of the children of married couples in all our trees will the child of a different father. Adultery happens today and it happened before with the results being usually more obvious ! It doesn't matter how precise the research is, those believing their trees are 'tablets of stone' are deluding themselves. Bob

Bob I agree with what you say, in principle. However, I decided long ago, that if things APPEAR to be so, officially, then there is no point in me beating myself up and wondering which of my female ancestors was slipping a cuckoo into the nest, so to speak. In other words, if a child/children are born after a marriage and registered as a child of the marriage, and brought up in the family, then I have to accept them as a genuine ancestor, because from this distance, I have no way of knowing or proving, any different. Genealogy is a game with rules and as long as you keep to the rules, you are playing the game correctly! OC

My great grandmother had a son six years before she married my great grandad, he was given her single name. When he married he had my great grandad as father, on his marriage certificate,but we have never found out if he was his father. I dont know if my grandfather ever knew he had this brother, as he was brought up by his maternal grandparents, and not in the district where we lived. Nice that I included him on my tree, and been in touch with his great grandson, who sent photos, which was a big bonus.

Many thanks to one and all.I had originally thought that as the Stephensons in the North east were so plentiful that marriages between them would have been inevitable! The other reasons had not crossed my mind,having lived a sheltered life! Thanks again