The Strange Great Grandfather

[groom]

and subsequent to the agreement to separate mentioned in Paragraph 3 hereof,

Surely that means the last two children were born after they had separated? They would still have been given his name as that was their mother's legal name, but he was saying that they weren't his children.

[sparrett]

I agree with you Groom

A "translation" of the paragraph

The petitioner also says his wife had the following children. ***** *****SWAN Born 4/7/1926 and, after the agreement to separate which has been mention above in this document (in paragraph 3), she then had ***** SWAN on 29/4/1931 and ****** ***** SWAN 10/12/1942 and these two are not the children of both petitioner (husband) and his (still) wife


That is they are hers, not his and as her legal name is SWAN, it is correct they are registered in that name

Sue

[[Ray]]

Hi

As per Jessica earlier post = Child born/regd Dec 1922? re-regd 1925 (post marriage?)
Original regd as Addison renamed to SWAN.

Note, there are other regs using same surnames? (Note I use the term "surnames" not "people")

Ray

[[Ray]]

Hi

No records?

How about . . . . .
Jun 1945 Lothingland 4a 3574 Stella E Swan / Brian E Bishop

Ray
 

[nanny jan]

Hi

No records?

How about . . . . .
Jun 1945 Lothingland 4a 3574 Stella E Swan / Brian E Bishop

Ray

That is the daughter born 1926.