Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
No. My ancestor registered her baby under the (reputed) father's surname in 1840. The registrar accepted this.
The rector knew perfectly well that she was on her own - as the reputed father married another girl he had got into trouble - so the baptism was under the mother's surname.
Registrars had to cover such a wide area that they appear to have known very little of the lives of those who came to register events. Even where they asked questions, they appear not to have checked the answers.
|
Well my grt grt grandmother Emma Wingfield registered her first child my grt grandmother Martha Louisa as a Wingfield because she hadn't married the father William Sayer, which did later on, but she put the father down as William Wingfield to really confuse everyone probably learnt it from her older sister Sarah
