Name changed - by deed poll? Can I check?

[BassinghamTerrier]

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, 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

[stanmapstone]

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

[Lily M]

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

[BassinghamTerrier]

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 ;)

[BassinghamTerrier]

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 ;)

[BassinghamTerrier]

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 ;)

[aghadowey]

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!

MT

It's not 2 separate registrations but 1 registration which gives the surname of the mother and that of the father.

[BassinghamTerrier]

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 ;)

[lizdb]

Thats what Aghadowey said - just one registration.
But indexed twice, once under father and once under mothers names.