Genealogy Chat

Hello
can anyone please tell me what it would mean if births were registered with the same reference but registered twice with 2 different surnames?

The case Im looking at is shown on the 1911 census
Arthur Frederick JEWSON b1869
living with a
Florence Ethel BLAKEY and children
Reginald BLAKEY and Frederick BLAKEY

On the birth records if shows there births of Reginald and Frederick in the name BLAKEY but there are also records in the name JEWSON (same references)

Am I right thinking that the births were registered in the mothers name as she was unmarried (and underage) but that as the father was known the births were also registered in the name Jewson?
or
would that mean Arthur JEWSON adopted them and they may not have been his children at all?
As the references on both records were the same would that mean the 2 names were registered at the same time (so likley to be Arthurs children?)

I know that Reginald and Frederick went on to live in the name JEWSON.
There is no marriage record for Florence and Arthur although she died in the name Jewson.

Please note Ive already done quite a bit of research on these so I do not require 1901, 1911, etc info - my query just relates to the Birth references.

many thanks for any advice
Cassie


INFO ONLY:
Earlier Research - From research I see Arthur has been married to a Bertha Green and in the 1901 census they were living apart although status shown as "married". Bertha gives her status as 'widow' on the 1911 census although she is not as Arthur is alive and living with Florence Blakey. Betha does not appear to have remarried as she died in 1947 still in the name Jewson.

There is no marriage record for Florence Blakey and Arthur JEWSON so I assume they never married as Arthur remained married to Bertha? Florence Died in the name Florence JEWSON in 1956 so I assume she just changed her name (without marriage) :-S

I would say that the births were registered in both surnames because the parents were not married but that the father went to the register office and accepted paternity.

This happens all the time nowadays although I would think it unusual for that time but it did happen.

Kath. x

Apologies Kathleen. Its telling me youve replied but Im not able to see the reply for some reason. Ive tried logging off and on again but no good. This happens to me from time to time and suddenly the replies appear. So Sorry Im not ignoring you I will let you know when the blip is sorted.

Thankyou very much

I forgot to mention that in 1911 the boys are still in the name of Blakey (not Jewson) which I find strange?

Ah - Your reply can be seen now Kathleen. Thanks. Yes Im assuming Arthur was their father and they did grow up using his surname. On 1911 census the boys still used the surname of their mother which I found strange and it gives Florence as single and Arthur married (which of course he still was only it was to a lady who was living elsewhere.

It was the fact the references were the same that made me wonder of the fathers name was added at the same time of later on but I suppose we may never know that one?

Thanks for your reply. Have a lovely day - its lashing it down in Yorkshire!!
Cassie
:-)

I'm in Teesside Cassie and it's raining here too.

If the reference numbers are the same then I'm pretty sure that the registrations in both surnames were done at the same time. Looking at the images of the registrations there is no indication that the name was added at a later date. This would usually be seen by extra numbers or letters or a note at the bottom of the page and there is nothing like that.

Kath. x

Did Arthur Frederick Jewson and his wife Bertha lose a child and that could be the reason for the marriage failing?

Found this death:-

First name(s) DORIS
Last name JEWSON
Gender Female
Birth day -
Birth month -
Birth year 1895
Age 3
Death quarter 4
Death year 1898
District HALIFAX
County Yorkshire
Volume 9A
Page 287
Country England

On the 1911 census Bertha states that one child was born to her marriage and that child had died. (that's if I've got the correct Bertha living in Eastbourne.

Kath. x

Starting in 1875 (I think, but am not sure of date) that the father could be named in the case where he was not married to the mother.
This could only be done if both parents agreed to this (or by court order).
I think that initially, the father had to appear with the mother - this was usually done at the initial registration, but could be done at any time (with extra hoops to jump thru with long delays). The policy abt appearing together was later relaxed so that the man could attend any registery office (but the mother's permission for his name to be added was always needed). Later still, forms were provided (which would need some form of notarization). I once saw a post on these boards from a 35 y.o. woman who'd just had her father living in Canada named on her b.cert.

The fact that, in CasCas's cases, the parents names were both indexed in the same quarter would suggest (but not prove) that they rego'ed the births together.

Thanks very much for the info peeps.

Arthur remained with Florence to their deaths although they never married. Possibly because Arthur remained married to first wife Bertha..

Kathleen - yes I saw that birth of a possible child Doris and think that may have been their child.

Thank you for the info re registration of births not I be seen this before and wondered how this worked.

Regards and have a lovely weekend
Cassie

:-D :-D

It was very expensive and difficult to get a divorce in those days, and usually only very wealthy people could do it. So you find many common-law marriages.

These two were very honest ......

....... most children of common-law relationships that I've seen registered have been either in the mother's name only, OR in the father's name, despite the fact that the parents were not married

It's only one birth registration . It shows under both surnames where the parents weren't married but the father is named

Technically the child can use either surname

In my own family I have an example of this from 1842. The couple were not married. Herewith the last part of an email from the GRO. This correspondence was in 2005, hence the low price. And the upper case BOTH is in the email:-

When a child is registered in either/or surname at an entry then BOTH
surnames are entered into the indexes.

As a gesture of goodwill I have arranged a full refund of £7.00. This will
be reimbursed to your credit/debit card shortly via our service provider
World Pay.

Regards,

Yvonne Forshaw
Public Relations Unit.

As Shirley has alluded to already, there can only ever be one registration. The index, on the other hand, just like the index in a book, can contain one or more references to a single register entry. So, the birth is not registered twice at all.

Bearing in mind that the child's surname wasn't definitively recorded until relatively recently (1968 it think, when the printed portrait certificates were introduced)
the situation, whilst relatively rare, is not uncommon.

Between abt 1850 and 1875, the law prevented the recording of the father if the couple were unmarried, but not all registrars applied the rule rigorously.