Surname assumed 1858-1861?

[chrissiebee]

Hi Folks,

I have the birth cert of a Selina Burns, born in 1858, her mother being Matilda Burns and no Daddy registered on the cert at all.

However, I have Selina and Matilda on the 1861 - Matilda having married Henry Hitchcock in 1859 (I have the cert) and Selina is down with the surname of Hitchcock, and daughter of Henry. Now, there is every chance that Henry WAS the father of Selina of course, but we shall never know I guess.

My question is: would Henry have had to officially adopt Selina, or did they just assume Selina went by the name Hitchcock? Selina is down on all the relevant censuses, and her later marriage, as a Hitchcock. Was there proper officialdom back in 1858/1861, or were they all a bit vague about those small matters?

Many thanks - Chris

[Olde Crone Holden]

No, you could, and still can, call yourself any name you want, provided it is not for criminal purposes. Your legal name is what you call yourself on any given day.

Also remember that census taking was done for statistical purposes, not for the purpose of accurately recording the details of individuals.

Maybe the enumerator just assumed the child had the same surname as the rest of the household. If no one offered the information that she wasn't, then he wouldn't know.

Sorry, but it is absolutely no indication of her true father's name!

OC

[chrissiebee]

OC - thanks very much for that. I realise that Selina's father could have been anybody - the fact that they all came from a small village with literally hundreds of Hitchcock folk there (and it looks suspiciously like there could have been a fair amount of 'interbreeding' anyway), or could have been a passing tinker!

I take it then that Selina would have just assumed the name Hitchcock upon her marriage quite legally?

Chris

[Uncle John]

I have a family in which the wife married 3 times in quite a short period (first two husbands died young). She had "issue" from all 3 marriages. Census 1: Miss A (my wife's great-grandmother). Census 2: Miss B plus 2 new B's. Census 3: Miss C, 2 C's plus 2 new C's. Miss A/B/C married in her maiden name of A.

[Little Nell]

a) regarding legality, you can call yourself whatever you want, provided you aren't intending to deceive


b) I have several examples of children who are given the surname of their stepfather on censuses (often when they are illegitimate, but sometimes when their legit father died and their mother remarried). Sometimes they retain the new surname for life, or in the case of girls, till they married, sometimes they revert.

I think it depended on whether the person giving information to the enumerator provided surnames, or was just asked names of children and rattled off first names with the enumerator assuming they all had same surname.

[Lynn The Forest Fan]

My ggg grandmother Septiana Anderton had a daughter Pheobe in 1861 and on the census she was shown as Pheobe Anderton. By 1871, Septiana was now with my ggg grandfather & Pheobe was listed as Barley, his name, so I assumed that he was her father. She was also listed as a Barley in 1881, but when I came to search for her marriage, I had problems finding it, until I realised that she was listed as Anderton & on the marriage record, her father's name was left blank. So her father was obviously not my ggg grandfather.
It goes to show that you can't make assumptions

[chrissiebee]

Thankyou folks for your valuable input.

As luck has is, this Selina is a sister of my g-grandfather, so is only a twig and not a major branch, thank Gawd! I have managed to sort out Selina's siblings (or half-siblings perhaps!) - all eleven of 'em..........:D

Chris