Why surname change

[BenRalph]

Hannah Parkinson had five kids to a Parkinson  (possibly her uncle) between 1832-1841, all with the surname Parkinson.

Hannah marries a Kirby in 1841 and has two kids, both surname Kirby. The husband died in 1846.

She had five more kids with Raine between 1848-1856, four with the surname Raine, one with the surname Kirby (due to them not being married and the father being in prison).

Three of the Parkinson kids died before adulthood and died as a Kirby. The other two married as Kirbys with the father's name as the Kirby, not Parkinson. That can be explained as they were very young when their mum married the Kirby.

The two Kirby kids marry with their real names.

One of the Raine kids dies before adulthood as a Rayne  (which is a variation). The other three kids all marry in the 1870s as Kirbys. One listed their dad as Aaron Raine Kirby, one simply as Aaron Kirby (Aaron was the name of the Raine). There was no falling out with the dad as he's on living with one of the kids in the q881 census and a few of his kids give their children Aaron as a middle name.

Hannah dies as a Kirby in 1866, not Raine, which is what she was on the censuses.

Even more odd is that one of the Parkinson women, who changed her name to Kirby before marriage, has kids to a Bulmer. A few of her kids then change their name to Kirby during their adulthood and call their family kirby (or Bulmer-Kirby).

Is there any explanation for why they'd do this?

They were all poor, illiterate labourers so there seems to be no monetary gain from it.

[jim1]

I would say the Parkinson children took the name Kirby as a means of legitimisation.
There are then 4 children (I assume registered) with the name Raine + 1 Kirby who does not have Raine as the father as he's in prison.
It's possible that by the 1870's Aaron Raine was calling himself Kirby & so there's a mix & match of names on the marriages.

[Jomot]

One of the many problems of children being allocated their father's surnames!   The name they used the most seems to be Kirby, which was Hannah's 'legal' (married) name after 1841, so it seems they were at possibly attempting to streamline the family name to the one they believed was legally correct.   

The Bulmer children becoming Kirby is unusual, although I have something similar in my own tree.

[BenRalph]

There are then 4 children (I assume registered) with the name Raine + 1 Kirby who does not have Raine as the father as he's in prison.
It's possible that by the 1870's Aaron Raine was calling himself Kirby & so there's a mix & match of names on the marriages.

Aaron Raine was in prison when the Raine child was baptied as Kirby, but that;s the only time he was in prison. The rest of the children were registered as Raine & used that name until their marriages in the 70s. Aaron never used the name Kirby, every record we have he uses his real name. Even on the census when he is living with his son but it listed as a boarder.

There'd be no reason to change name for legalisation as they moved to Leeds from Ripon/Northallerton area when the kids were very young, so nobody would know if they were actually married on not.

[BenRalph]

One of the many problems of children being allocated their father's surnames!   The name they used the most seems to be Kirby, which was Hannah's 'legal' (married) name after 1841, so it seems they were at possibly attempting to streamline the family name to the one they believed was legally correct.   

The Bulmer children becoming Kirby is unusual, although I have something similar in my own tree.

My agrument with this theory (which my uncle shared also) is that, if I grew up for 15-20 years thinking I was a Raine, and knowing that my dad was Aaron Raine then I doubt I'd change my to Kirby because my mum told us she wasn't legally married to my dad. Especially when my dad was still alive. There'd be no need to really that I can see (from their points). They weren't around any family that were Kirbys or there  was no money coming their way (which I initially thought).

What woul be the point of them doing it really?

[Jomot]

Hi BenRalph

People have always done 'odd' things for a variety of reasons - often simply out of choice!   My 3xG Grandfather regularly switched between two surnames - one being his (illegitimate) birth surname and the other his mother's married surname.  Most of his children and even some grandchildren did the same thing.  Why?  Because they chose to!

How do you know that they grew up thinking they were Raine?  What other documents or evidence do you have to show that they were commonly called Raine?  It sounds to me as though they may regularly have used Kirby as well.  I honestly think you are looking for a 'reason' that isn't there. 

[Jomot]

Also don't forget that until relatively recently there was no box on a birth certificate for surname of child, so if the parents are noted on the certificate as having different surnames, then the indexes on FreeBMD show the registration under both, whereas the GRO index only lists it once.

I've just looked up John Aaron to see if he is recorded under more than one surname (he isn't), and funnily enough I see that he was born around the same area as my 'name switch' family.   Seems there was a lot of it going on around those parts!

[BenRalph]

Yeah I suppose I was trying to find reason or an answer, when it's as simple as them wanting to, or being able to.

[clayton bradley]

My husband's great grandmother was said to be called Laura Davies and she was baptized and registered under that name. All her siblings were also baptized and registered as Davies. I have all the certificates. But she married and registered her children with the maiden name of Winnett (and interesting spelling variations). Winnett was her mother's maiden name. I have never found a marriage for her parents, who appear on the censuses as married and named Davis/Davies. One of Laura's sisters followed the same pattern, but another sister married as Davis. I'm assuming when they got to a certain age, mother told them she wasn't married.cb