No maiden name on birth cert

[MaxD]

I have a relative's birth cert which does not give the mother's maiden name.  She is shown in 3 successive censuses as married although the man she is living with has a different surname and is always shown as single.  She had 6 children with, presumably, this man - the one birth cert we have has no father's name.  The registers have her surname for the children presumed to be hers (the final 2 has his surname as part of their given names).  My reading of this is that she was single but said she was married for the census and for whatever reason made sure they carried her surname.  How does this interpretation sound to experts out there?
MaxD

[alpinecottage]

I think she may have been married to someone else, and when they split up and she took up with the new man, they put married for herself and single for the chap because that was their actual legal status.   Could the first 4 children have been the offspring of the first (genuine) marriage?  ie considering everyone's ages and the census dates, which only you know at the moment ?

[MaxD]

I'd investigated that route.  There is a likely marriage that would fit the scenario of husband vanishing (I can find no death for the posible husband) before she goes to live with the single chap.  However, why no maiden name on the birth cert - would the registrar not have had to put it on?  As for the children being from the (vanished) husband - why did she not have his name put on the birth cert, and anyway she was living with the single man before she started to have children.  My feeling is that both the "unmarried but says she is" and the "husband vanishes" scenarios are both equally possible.  As said before, her last 2 children have the name of the chap she lived with as part of their forenames, could be that their birth certs yield other clues - might try that route.  Thanks for your interest.
MaxD

[alpinecottage]

If a mother is married, I think the registrar is obliged to assume any children are the result of that marriage, even if this would be completely impossible (eg husband in prison, overseas etc.)  If this mother's new partner wanted his name as the surname of the children, I think they would have had to lie and claim to be married.

As to why the mother's maiden name is missing, maybe it's an error or maybe whoever registered the birth of that particular child didn't know the mother's maiden name.  Getting another birth cert may help resolve some of these questions....it's just knowing which one to order that's the problem! 

[MaxD]

I'll ponder the problem for a bit, maybe a marriage cert of one of the children would yield some info.  I could waste an awful lot of £7 if all 5 remaining birth certs give me the same story (or lack of it).

[Ceryswyn]

What time period are you looking at? Any wars going on? Is there any chance she could be living with a Brother in Law or something and the real husband is off in the Military?

[MaxD]

This was 1875-1881 ish (she was born 1858 and is living (and described as married) with the single chap in 1881).  I am leaning much more to the idea that she had married, possibly in 1875, and then he disappears from the scene.  I am thinking now about other ways of confirming her identity (the marriage cert for the most likely marriage - in 1875 - only confirms names, not that she is then the one we see in 1881).  I am going to try certs for later children to see if she felt able to put her maiden name on them.  Thanks for your interest also.

[roofy]

Hi,
Im no expert, I can only go by own rellie's history. On the 1871 census she says she is a widow [another popular title for single women with children], in 1881 she has used the surname of her fathers children even though they never married but she used her 'maiden'  name as their middle name.
Hope it helps,
roofy

[MaxD]

Thanks Roofy - a similar situation here, uses her name for children except last 2 when she adds his name to forenames.  Just to complicate it further, some of them used his name when they grew up and some hers!