Are they Barnes or Wheatley

[floggle toggle]

Jane Wheatley had Henry Barnes “out of wedlock”, she then married Samuel Barnes so Henry then took the name Barnes; he was buried as Henry Barnes, as shown on his death certificate which also shows the informant was George Ashdown, his mother Mary Ashdown had married Henry's son James.
Therefore, all of Henry's descendants “should” be Barnes, yes?
Two of Henry's sons are of interest, Thomas is constantly shown in census's as Barnes, but is on a BMD death index as Thomas Wheatley (birth and registration place are OK) and George who is shown on the census's between 1841 & 1901 as George Barnes with the exception of 1871 when he is George Wheatley (George, Louia and daughter Ellen). Louia/Lois/Louisa Smith, is on the 1911 census as a widow living with her married daughter Ellen Woodgate; George had died 1904. I would have expected her name to be either Barnes or Smith, instead she is shown as Lois Wheatley.
In trying to get an "overview" of the family, I looked at several on line tree's (not to be trusted, but the records I have checked are correct) and it seems the surname went Jane Wheatley or Barnes, Henry Wheatley or Barnes, Barnes or Wheatley, Barnes and finally Wheatley. In the last line, there was a Barnes farther with Wheatley children.

Thank you Floggle Toggle

[Milliepede]

I would say he was technically a Wheatley and his descendants should technically be Wheatley but it is a muddy area especially if his mother married his father after his birth. 

I take it Samuel Barnes was his real father - is he named on the birth certificate or is this pre 1837?

[floggle toggle]

Henry Wheatley born 1793 Buxted Sussex, died June 1857 Arlington Sussex.
Mother Jane Wheatley married Samuel Barnes 1795.
However, from the Weald database (source given as IGI) Jane had Henry, Jane + Samuel had Samuel? Jane Married Samuel had 5x Barnes children.
Very muddy!