RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: BassinghamTerrier on Friday 12 September 14 12:03 BST (UK)
-
Hi all
I am researching my wife's tree and have a real problem regarding her father and some of his seven siblings. There is a thread related to this family in the Durham section HERE (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698859.new;topicseen#new), but this query is about something more specific, more general.
Her father was born in 1927 and was registered as Lawrence P. PERKINS; you can see him on FreeBMD in June Q 1927, Vol 10a page 916. The mother was Rutter (correct) and there are seven other little Perkins born in and around 1916 to 1930s, all with the mother Rutter, all born in Durham/Chester-Le-Street/Lanchester.
So far so good ...
The problem is ... Robert William Perkins DIED in Dec Q 1918.
The first three children born to this family I have no qualms with; Margaret (b.1916), Sarah J(ane) (b. and d.1918) and Robert William Jr (b. 10 Feb 1919) were all born when Elsie Rutter could have been fertilised by her husband, Robert. The problem lies with the remaining five, who could not.
- Sydney P. Perkins, b. Mar Q 1926 (I believe he died young but can't find it)
- Lawrence P. Perkins, b. 23 July 1927
- Derrick and Dennis Perkins (twins) b. Sep Q 1931
- Jean Perkins b. Sep Q 1935
My theory is that they were all born to a James SMITH but that he was never mentioned on the birth certificates, hence them being registered as Perkins children. They certainly were brought up as Smiths; I have a copy of my father-in-law's original 1952 marriage certificate and he has the name Lawrence Perkins Smith. I also have a copy of a simplified birth certificate (produced on 5 Feb 1960), with the details 10a 916 in the bottom left corner - but he is Lawrence Perkins Smith on that!
How can this be? I've followed the FreeBMD lnk to see the original typed document on-line and it bears out the fact that it is Lawrence P. Perkins born to Rutter 10a 916. But if he was registered PERKINS how can the simplified birth certificate, "Certified to have been compiled from records in the custody of the Registrar General" (in 1960) show him as Lawrence Perkins Smith? Clearly I need to order up the original certificate for this to see all of the details, not least being the name of the father and also what the 'P' stood for in Lawrence P. Perkins!
I also have a copy of the original 1902 Heworth (Durham) marriage certificate of a James Smith and Caroline Armstrong which I am guessing must have been part of Lawrence's father's/mother's effects, being evidence of who was his genetic, if not legal, father.
But my question is this: can the siblings simply take the name SMITH? Or would they have had to do it by deed-poll? I know that they were very poor - my father-in-law told his children that when he was a little lad they all lived in a railway carriage in the middle of a field! So if the deed-poll process was expensive, it seems to pretty much rule that one out.
Is there any way that I can (cheaply!) check that possibility?
MT ;)
-
Under English common law, a person may take a new surname, perfectly legally, without drawing up any formal record, provided that such action is not undertaken for the purpose of fraud of avoidance of obligation. Deed Poll was usually used by those who considered possible inheritance difficulties in the future, so was more often used by the wealthier members of society. A notification in the local paper was sometimes used, and for every person who went to the trouble and expense of deed poll, there were numerous others who simply adopted a new name without formality. From 1914, all deeds poll enrolled in the Supreme Court had first to be advertised in the London Gazette
Stan
-
Lawrence Perkins Smith was also registered at the same time. Durham 10a 916
I've seen this a few times when the parents weren't married. So it looks like the father was really Smith
-
So, it looks like they simply did just take up the name Smith at some point, without resort to law. That explains it. I never thought that it could be quite as simple as that when all is said and done.
MT ;)
-
Do you know, I never even looked for the Smith registration, simply because I had found it as Perkins already.
Damn!
And I've gone and ordered up the Perkins registered birth certificate!
Oh, well ...
MT ;)
-
Lawrence Perkins Smith was also registered at the same time. Durham 10a 916
I've seen this a few times when the parents weren't married. So it looks like the father was really Smith
Yep.
Just checked now, and they are ALL there as SMITH as well as Perkins.
It just seems strange to me that a person can be registered twice, each time with a different surname. The whole system seems to be open to abuse! :o
MT ;)
-
Yep.
Just checked now, and they are ALL there as SMITH as well as Perkins.
It just seems strange to me that a person can be registered twice, each time with a different surname. The whole system seems to be open to abuse! :o
MT ;)
It's not 2 separate registrations but 1 registration which gives the surname of the mother and that of the father.
-
Oh ... OK ... I'm clearly confused over this then, as I have always thought that there was only ever the one registration for each person.
Every day is STILL a learning day!
MT ;)
-
Thats what Aghadowey said - just one registration.
But indexed twice, once under father and once under mothers names.
-
Oh ... OK ... I'm clearly confused over this then, as I have always thought that there was only ever the one registration for each person.
Every day is STILL a learning day!
MT ;)
My great nephew, lets call him James Smith-Jones (not his real name) is indexed on the register 3 times. Once as James Smith (mother's name) once as James Jones (father's name) and once as James Smith-Jones, the name he is known as. He only has one birth certificate though, the one showing the last set of names.
-
If the parents were not married it is registered under the father's and the mother's surnames as it is not known which surname the child will use.
Stan
-
If the parents were not married it is registered under the father's and the mother's surnames as it is not known which surname the child will use.
Stan
Ah, now THIS is the one that makes the most sense! I understand the reasoning behind this. :D
MT ;)
-
Not sure about the rules in England but in Ireland the father of an illegitimate child had to be present at the registration in order to be named on the birth certificate.
-
Not sure about the rules in England but in Ireland the father of an illegitimate child had to be present at the registration in order to be named on the birth certificate.
In England and Wales after the 1874 Registration Act.
The instructions for Registration Act of 1874 state:
"The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants" The Act came into force on 1st January 1875. Between 1837 and 1874 if the mother informed a registrar of an illegitimate child's birth and also stated a father's name, the registrar could record him as the father, although he may not have actually been the father.
Stan
-
If the parents were not married it is registered under the father's and the mother's surnames as it is not known which surname the child will use.
Stan
Ah, now THIS is the one that makes the most sense! I understand the reasoning behind this. :D
MT ;)
Up until changes made in 1969, birth certificates for England and Wales do not have a place to enter a surname for the child, so he/she is not registered with any surname at all.
The registration is listed in the birth index with the parents' surname. If the father's and mother's surnames are different, the registration is indexed twice - once with each surname.
Now that there is a place on the birth certificate to enter the child's surname, you will often find that the registration is indexed three times, as explained above by groom.
If you are ordering a copy of a certificate that is indexed twice, you will receive a copy of the same entry, whichever name you ask for.
-
Just to add that, under the laws of England & Wales, a person can call themselves anything they like!
With the proviso that it is not intended to deceive or defraud.
No Deed Poll necessary! ;D
-
Just to add that, under the laws of England & Wales, a person can call themselves anything they like!
With the proviso that it is not intended to deceive or defraud.
No Deed Poll necessary! ;D
That was already mentioned in reply #1 yesterday.
-
Ah! I missed that reply?! :-[
Sorry!
-
Up until changes made in 1969, birth certificates for England and Wales do not have a place to enter a surname for the child
You can see the Form 1, for the registration of a birth under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 at http://uk.practicallaw.com/uklegislation/uksi/1987/2088/schedules/made?view=plain# where you can enter the Name and surname of the child.
Stan
-
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you Stan, but what that site shows is the birth registration form used at present, which includes the child's surname, and also the birthplaces of parents. A pre 1969 birth certificate looks like this one (Winston Churchill's):
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/images/Birth%20Cert%20PDF.pdf
where only the child's forenames are entered (my own birth certificate is like this).
-
That form is the one used from 1969.
Stan