Genealogy Chat

My grandfather, aged 14, appears on 1901 with his "stepfather's" name though his mother appears not to have bothered marrying either of her "husbands".

Hi Teresa My grandfather George Anderson (born 1885) was 9 months old when his father died and his mother remarried when he was 2. He was brought up as the son of his step-father and took his name (formal adoption only came in in 1927). His step-father is described as his father on army records etc. George died when his daughter (my mother) was 2. My mother never had any contact with her father's side of the family. Recently, and via GC, I finally made contact with George's half-sister's granddaughter, my 2nd cousin. She had been hunting for years for George's birth certificate without success - because she did not know about his real father. I was able to fill in the missing link. Good old GC! The best suggestion I can therefore make is - can you track down any descendants of any of the other children who might have the information you are looking for. Good luck Tina

Teresa I think it all depends on individuals. In my family the only stepfather (tons of stepmothers - due to hazards of childbirth) had his surname which his wife took, but her two children by previous marriage (aged 12 and 2) kept their own surname. Interestingly, I can't find the marriage between mother and stepfather. nell

Formal adoption did not start until the 1920's. I suspect that our government will soon change this, but there is nothing to prevent you using any name you wish, rather than the name you were born with. Plenty of children will have taken their stepfathers' name, or at least be recorded on a census with it. Brenda

Just to confuse things, I adopted both names through choice. Paul

Depends how old they were when their mum married again, if they were just babies then they may well have taken their stepdads name but if they were say old enough to know who their real dad was then they usually kept their original name.

Thanks Eileen. That's good to know the date when adoption became official. Now to find out whether or not they really married.

Thanks Gwyneth and Brenda. Those rellies sure don't make it easy do they??

Hi Teresa There is no reason why they would have had to change their name. They could have used either, the same as today. Adoption didn't come in until - Ithink - 1923. Sorry that's not a lot of help! Good hunting Eileen

i spent a fortune looking on 1901 for my grandmother and i sent them a good many moaning emails that she wasnt there. till i found her brothers death and the mother was a different name. oops had a differnet name to look under and found her. the children had been renamed with the stepfathers surname however when she maried it was back to her original so i think quite often on census they conveniently chose the existing heads name even if they werent adopted by them brenda x

I don't think the children would automatically take their stepfather's name, nor would he necessarily have to adopt them for them to do this. If they were generally known by a particular surname, allbeit not their birth name, I think that was sufficient.

I have Elizabeth Cassidy as a widow on the 1891 census in Chatham, Kent. On the 1901 she is Elizabeth Baker and her children from the first marriage also have the name Baker. I have not been able to find record of her marriage to William Baker . Would the children's names automatically become Baker when Elizabeth married William or would William have had to adopt them? Can anyone find their marriage?