General Chat

I knew when I was a child that the surname we used was not our real one.

One of my older cousins also knew but none of the others did.

It never bothered us a jot. :-D

Dad's 'birth' was re-issued in 1942 - he's listed in the birth register at least twice.
Once in 1926, where he's registered under gran's maiden name, then handwritten at the bottom of the page under his new name, with a reference to another volume.
He's again registered (properly) in 1942, with a handwritten note at the bottom referring to his previous registration.
When I knew dad, he only ever used a short certificate.

Just had a look on the off chance - I have his second cert. :-D

It has date & place of birth, name, sex, then a line through 'father'. Under 'surname & maiden name of mother', it has her married name, 'now the wife of XYZ' and his address (in Cornwall). Line through 'occupation of father', 'Informant' is gran, then her address - in Devon!! Date of registration (in 1942). Under 'name entered after registration' there's a line through it. At the end it says 'Adopted' and the signature of the registrar.

I have the adoption certificate somewhere - not sure how 'official' it is.
At the time, gran was (again) living in Devon, her husband in Cornwall.
It basically says 'This man is adopting this boy' - and gran's signature!!
No sign of the adopter's signature or compliance :-D :-D
However, I presume the registrar accepted it, or was verbally bludgeoned by gran!!

Did dad's birth certificate get reissued with a father's surname shown in the usual place then Maggie and was it a full cert or the short variety? I only ask as in the work I used to do we could never accept photocopies of birth certs for the reason that any amendments by the registrar were usually shown on the back of the cert. I don't know, but maybe in certain cases a fresh cert is issued without the 'history' behind any changes shown though.

Just had a thought.
The boy - let's call him 'A', used gran's surname.
Gran married in 1942, when dad was 16, and her husband adopted dad.
This gave dad a father's name on his birth certificate - gran had visions of him joining the Fleet Air Arm as an officer - and a father's name was needed on the birth certificate.
Neither dad's sister, nor 'A' were adopted, but both used the name.
As an adult, 'A' officially changed his name to the one we use.

I know there's no genetic attachment to this name, but will 'A's children or grandchildren know?

Not 'mad', Caroline - just a iittle 'off beat' :-D :-D :-D

I contacted the boy she took in (he used our surname), so not too difficult to find - he adored my gran, and got offended when I said she had an 'unusual' outlook to life..
He wouldn't talk about her, but was fixated on my dad's career (dad was about 14 years older than him), so I gave him my brothers number.

JoyLouise - so true :-D

I have thought for a long time that 'blue-blood' families were missing a trick.

Inheritance should have gone down the female line to be absolutely sure of true inheritors.

Maggie all that sounds "mad enough" to be from Royalty :-D

The above makes my gran sound awful - she wasn't.
She made money by, during school holidays, looking after the children who went to boarding school, and whose parents didn't want them at home to bother them.
Once, she found a 2 or 3 year old wandering the streets, filthy and in dire need of a nappy change. She took him home, did the necessary, fed him, found his parents - who couldn't be bothered, and took him in.
When I knew her, she had a smallholding.
Every day, before she let the pigs out, she gave every one of them a tummy tickle and checked for fleas.
The sow that tried to crush me between the gate and fence was called a 'naughty girl', and instantly stopped her murder attempt.
Her cows were regularly cuddled and groomed, and chickens 'chucked' under the chin.
Her 'misdemeanours' during her youth were going around with a bucket collecting 'For the Destitute' (ie: her), not having a mask on her headlights during the war, a few 'dud' cheques, and not having a dog licence (she'd probably picked the dog up as a stray!).
In her later years, after her beloved dog (not the same one!) died, believing she had a kidney problem, she gave up the smallholding and went around the country collecting money for Kidney Research - for which she won an accolade.
She didn't have a kidney problem, but died in 1984, aged 76.

I didn't have to far back, either - my dad's dad - and his sister's dad :-S

Dad had asked his mum, I had asked her who he was - she just gave perverse answers.
However, she did say, when Bill was killed in the war, she should have received his widow's pension.
Bill was married, with a daughter who was grown up when my dad was born.
Bill was a lot older than my gran - but a friend of the family. Gran's mum died when she was born, and she was brought up by her grandparents. She used to see her father quite a lot - but never mentioned that he had remarried and had 4 more children - or that his second wife later left him ('desertion' - he joined up in 1915, left the Army in 1920 - she claimed desertion!!).
Bill was around a lot when dad was young.
The 1939 register, and various misdemeanours granny got up to around about that time, reinforced my view that he was dad's dad.

Upon arrest, (three times - nothing really serious) granny gave the same address as that where Bill was living.
Bill's wife was living as far away as possible (in Devon) as she could be - with another man.
I've seen a picture of Bill - my dad is the spitting image.
This still doesn't make Bill my dad's dad.

I didn't have to go far back to find a skeleton in the closet of my immediate family.

Also, a family story with which I've only recently been acquainted, is that my one brick wall, my paternal grandfather may have changed his name. This could account for me not finding any records for him prior to him marrying my grandmother in 1904

I have taken a DNA test in the very slim hope that there may be a match.

The following may be helpful :-D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAkkLQr2Kjc

I have found the DNA test I had done very interesting and useful. There was a mystery in my family which I only became aware of in my 50s after my mother died and when I visited her sister, my aunt in her 90s, in a care home. My mother was the youngest of 9 children, born when my grandmother was aged 50, so knew little of her older siblings who had children of their own by the time she was born. During that visit, my aunt and my cousin spoke of my grandmother leaving home with my mother as a baby to live with another man for a few years before returning to the family home. My mind whirred into action and I came up with the obvious question, 'was my grandfather really my grandfather or this other man?' My aunt and cousin answered in unison, but one said 'yes' and the other 'we don't know'. They then made irritating mutterings about it all being in the past and not mattering etc and frustratingly didn't want to talk about it any more. After my DNA test I was trying to find the link with one of my matches who lives in Australia and I expected it to be with my father's ancestors, two of whom travelled there on the convict ships. By tracing some 'missing' wives on this person's tree I found that one of them she was descended from was a descendant of my gt gt grandfather's brother, which pretty much confirmed my grandfather I knew really was my grandfather!

Before DNA tests
We only ever had our Mothers word

That our Dads where truly our Dads ;-) ;-)

Absolutely agree. You just have to take it at face value, and run with it I suppose. As it's not going to have any physical effect, I don't suppose it matters in the end, unless you are trying to prove something. But absolutely no one can say, without DNA analysis, that they are definitely descended from any paternal line and many maternal ones as well!

Where they exist, the bastardy registers can be interesting though :-D

Even in marriages, with many children through the ages being fathered by a man different to the one they call 'Daddy' and and by a man that only their mother ever knows of, I have never understood why folk lay such store by all the documentation they accumulate in proof of their true ancestry? Yes, the births are registered and the documents completed, but with wrong information about the father. It doesn't seem to be a very occasional happening either according to the suggested figures.

There you go, classic sibling rivalry
:-D :-D

How interesting. We must be related.

Although I did not do the original work I did check it all out myself. Took three years.
In the process I found two serious errors which made some v cross indeed. I also found sister of a maternal gm line descendent had married the Earl of Harewood. Also an aristocat who married my GM sister. After first child he deserted her and went to Australia where he married bigamously 5 times!
Most of all I discovered that shortly before the Battle of Naseby Gen Monk's army burned the family house destroyed the animals and raped all the girls 12 and over inc one who was pregnant. Somehow a few of the men survived the actual battle. Needless to say I now have scant admiration for Cromwell & co.

Fh ... So interesting. Open with care.

Illegitimacy was rife, any records that were kept even up to the present time have to be taken with a large dose of scepticism. I personally only ever say that so an so is recorded as being a relative. I think it's probably fair to say that the further back you go, the less reliable things are, to the degree that it's probably just a best guess. Bastardy records are useful on occasions where they exist, but unless someone can be dug up and some DNA found, all you can do is say its possible.

Mind, I agree, some folk are adamant they are directed descendants of some saxon chieftain.

The trouble with some of these research people you have to wonder if all of them are 100% accurate. I've found people with connections to my tree over the years who swear blind they have the tree going back to the year dot, and it must be right I paid for it type attitude. I've found mistakes in their tree without too much research. No I don't think I'm a master sleuth but sometimes they make a good educated guess and it can be wrong....and this is in the census so how good was their research before the census etc were available to check.

My breath is quite unbated but you are right about the moniker.
The line is well researched ( not by me ) with supporting documents such as wills, marriage contracts and fines. These are for the most part in public archives where cleverer people than I have deciphered the scrawly writing. Some are in the archives of the high and mighty. A year ago when the relevant archive was being sold off I was given access for a day which was fun.

I have the Norman side back as far as a village called, oddly, Eu. My own house in France is a tad more than an hour's drive away.

Imho a great many people have far better links to blue blood. Whether they can be traced is a mix of luck and a lot of effort by somebody to do the research. In my case the research was done by the mother of one of my sons. No, she was not my wife Dermot would not approve.

As none of this is of any material benefit my interest is limited. I did do the DNA test after a rellie paid for it. No surprises but the rumours about an ancestor who made his money out of sugar and slaves in Jamaica were confirmed.