Life As A Single Mother in 1940's Lancashire

[heywood]

I have found a second surname recorded against a lady who I know was only married once. By 1939 she was already married and her husband is registered at the same address but alongside her surname is the name thought to be that of the father of her child born about ten years later, shortly after her divorce.

I understand that married or changes in names were later added to the register but why would it record the name of an illegitimate child's father as this made the affair known? Under what circumstance would the father's name be required to be known as they never married? Would he have to be declared for any legal purpose, say child support,  or for health treatment which would then be required to be added to the register?

One website transcribes the name as, for example, Joan Smith, Smith  where another Joan Smith (Smith ??)

Any clues as to why this name was recorded when he was pretty much hushed up, as in most cases, would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Kind regards.

I just reread this. Perhaps she lived with the father of the child as man and wife -hence the change of name.

[Sloe Gin]

Unless we can see the written entry, we can't really tell and RC rules prevent us from investigating the original as you've not seen it.

I don't think there's any harm in telling us the name, place and other details as the OP clearly already has them.
This isn't a look-up request.

This topic has also ended up under Lancashire.  It would be better to move it back to the Common Room, as the location is irrelevant.

[rosie99]

Unless we can see the written entry, we can't really tell and RC rules prevent us from investigating the original as you've not seen it.

I don't think there's any harm in telling us the name, place and other details as the OP clearly already has them.
This isn't a look-up request.

Surely it is up to the OP to post the information if they want to. 

[Gadget]

And remember that where the parent's surnames were different, the registration will appear twice in the index, under each surname.  But there will only be one entry.

The name is registered with the mother's married name and her maiden name is recorded. There is no duplicate entry.

[Gadget]

Surely it is up to the OP to post the information if they want to. 

Quite. Also it is likely to involve living people which is against RC's policy.

[Pendlewitch67]

Unless we can see the written entry, we can't really tell and RC rules prevent us from investigating the original as you've not seen it.

I don't think there's any harm in telling us the name, place and other details as the OP clearly already has them.
This isn't a look-up request.

This topic has also ended up under Lancashire.  It would be better to move it back to the Common Room, as the location is irrelevant.

As I very much appreciate the help and enthusiasm to solve the puzzle I have obtained the information I was looking for. It's now a process of elimination with probably quite a bit of speculation.

As the post does involve a living person I can't post any further details. Also it wouldn't advance the search.

Thank you

 

[Sloe Gin]

Unless we can see the written entry, we can't really tell and RC rules prevent us from investigating the original as you've not seen it.

I don't think there's any harm in telling us the name, place and other details as the OP clearly already has them.
This isn't a look-up request.

Surely it is up to the OP to post the information if they want to.

Of course.  My post was partly addressed to her, if indirectly. 
My point stands - it wasn't a request for a look-up.  But I see this has been resolved off-thread.

[Sloe Gin]

And remember that where the parent's surnames were different, the registration will appear twice in the index, under each surname.  But there will only be one entry.

The name is registered with the mother's married name and her maiden name is recorded. There is no duplicate entry.

We were discussing the use of surnames at registration, and my post was general information relevant to that, since some people appeared to be under a misapprehension.