Genealogy Chat

thank you Kate, makes me a little more confident in our theory!! Maz. XX

You definitely wouldn't have to prove you were married. This case sounds very very similar to one I was looking at for somebody a while ago and I was sure the same thing had happened there, the unmarried daughter of the family pretending to be their daughter-in-law when registering her child's birth and making up a maiden name for herself (in the other case it was Smith!) So I think your suspicions are very very very likely to be right. By the way, in the other case I am talking about, it looked as though the first name she had supplied for the father was the real father's first name but of course the surname was hers rather than his. But if the first name in your case is John that is not going to help much! Kate.

forgot about him !!! *sticks nose in air and looks down it at Nell * lol lol thanks to anyone who adds to this, I'm off to beddy-byes now, but will check in the morning :-)) Maz. XX

You cheeky mare! No more of your sauce, remember you've got a gentleman in your family tree!!

good job you added that 2nd post quick !!!! you would've had to change your name to Helen OLD Nell lol lol Maz. XX

Mind you, that was in 1992 not 1851, I'm not THAT old!

Maz When I registered my first son I wasn't asked to prove I was married. nell

thanks Roy! Julie it is sooo complicated - just tried typing it out and had to delete about 4 times, will try again!! Her name is Rachel Lucy (very unusual combination at the time) Bell nee Bailey and the family (her supposed in-laws the Bells) who she is living with in 1851 ALSO had a daughter called Rachel Lucy. I have the birth cert for her child Herbert - she names a husband (John Bell) who I cannot find on any census and was not baptised with the rest of the children. Now I find her marrying as a spinster - her father on the marriage is the man who in 1851 was supposed to be her father-in-law! There are various other pieces of circumstantial evidence too. We think she may have had an illegitimate child, but covered it up by inventing a husband for registration purposes. I just wondered how feasible that actually was! Thanks for taking an interest! Maz. XX

maz, dont forget, that even is she married and called herslf spinster, she could be fibbing, and left her other hubby as divorce was only for the 'well to do' sorry to put a damper on things, have you found her on 41?? julie

at that time there was no legal requirement to register a birth? and on one of my certs the woman next door registered the birth so i don't think proof was required Roy

would you have to show proof that you were married? I think one of mine has 'invented' a husband and a maiden name for herself when her son was born. She marries in 1854 as a spinster! Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Maz. XX