Why was my gt grandfather adopted?

[avm228]

We are obviously having to speculate and surmise on these unusual facts, but if George was the natural father that doesn't automatically mean the "adoption" was pre-planned.  For all we know George may have been Jane's cohabiting lover* who left her (to go back to Rhoda?) in 1895ish before Sybil's birth.  If so, perhaps it was at that stage or even later that Jane prevailed upon George to take responsibility for his natural son and bring him up?

*Hence, perhaps, the electoral roll showing George Teagle's name at 42 Thorne St in 1894, the same address where George junior had been born in December 1893.

[Silvercup]

That's a good theory. So maybe Teagle was Sybil's father too and the man mentioned as leaving before her birth.

It's interesting that both Ethel (who I don't think survived past infancy) and Violet were both baptised but I can't find baptisms for either George or Sybil.

I wish women had the vote at this point and were on the electoral registers too!

[iolaus]

What year was it that surnames began to be put on birth certificates?  I'm sure previously there was no space for surname for the baby, just first name(s) and full name of parents - so he may have got the mothers surname by default

[Rosinish]

What an interesting thread & some good work going on!

Iolaus, your theory sounds good!

I've just pulled out a 1901 birth (closest off the top of my head to dates on this query) to a married couple...

My g/mother was recorded with forename & middle name, no surname.
Her father's name & surname in a separate column then another column with mother's forename & marital surname then formerly maiden name.

Her mother registered the birth (not her father)!

Annie

[AntonyMMM]

Birth register entries only show a surname for the child from 1969 onwards.

Earlier entries are indexed under the parent's surnames, according to a number of rules.
1) which index you are looking at (FreeBMD and GRO use different rule sets).
2) whether the father is named on the entry.
3) Whether the parents are married (to each other) - the informant column usually tells you that.

[Marmalady]

ok so surmising that George Teagle may have been the real father after all, and knew from the outset that he and Rhoda would be adopting the baby, hence the name - why wouldn't he have just been named on the birth certificate? Did a couple have to be married for the father to be named? Sorry, am new to this!

If a woman was married, the husband was automatically assumed to be the father of the child -- he did not have to be present at registration

If a woman was unmarried (ie child was illegitimate), the father had to be present at registration to be named on the certificate. If the father was not present, no father's name could be entered, even if the father fully acknowledged the child

So in this case, it sounds as tho George Teagle was the father, but as Jane was officially still married to the absent Edwin, it was Edwin's name on the certificate

[AntonyMMM]

If a woman was married, the husband was automatically assumed to be the father of the child --

Sort of, but not exactly  - a child born to a married couple can be registered by either parent, without the other being present, and so a married woman CAN always name her husband as the father of her child and have his name shown on the register entry, but if she does so knowing that to be false (e.g. he has been in prison for the last 12 months)  then she commits perjury.