Using primary sources.

[Margaret in Burton]

Originally Posted by Olde Crone

Yes, I remember a search where the mother's name did not accord with the woman the children were living with. Turned out he was a service man estranged from his wife and in a very long term relationship with someone else. He registered the children in the name of his estranged wife in order to get the army allowance for the children.

OC

Yes, that was a tree I was researching, my nieces husbands family.

[Mary from Italy]

I've no doubt mentioned this before, but I had to ditch a large part of my tree when it turned out that my grandmother's father wasn't her mother's husband.

They'd separated long before she was born, although I still don't know exactly when, but for some reason her mother kept putting his name on the birth certificates of her children by various men for several years.

[Olde Crone]

Mary

Ah, but if the question was "what is your husband's name?" rather than " who is the father of this child? " then it's an opportunity too good to miss!

OC

[kiterunner]

My 2nd cousin three times removed, Emily Jane Haskoll Parsons, married William Payne in 1913. Then they split up, he lived with her sister May (both Emily and May had children by him in 1914), and Emily married Joseph Lionel Griffiths in 1916, but she used the name Evelyn Rawlings on the marriage cert and gave her maiden name as Rawlings on their children's birth registration. She is Evelyn on the 1921 census, with a birthplace of Bath when it should be Godalming. Meanwhile her sister May is down as Emily J H Paye on the 1921 census but does appear as May on the 1939 Register.

There really was an Evelyn Rawlings born in Bath in 1889 but it seems that Emily stole her identity (although she does give her real dob on the 1939 Register). So the "primary sources" for this branch of the family are not much use!

[Merry]

A while ago I was helping someone with their research. In a five year stretch there were just two men registered with their ancestor's name, both in the same year, but different quarters in the same county. I got the birth date for one from their baptism entry and both were with their respective parents in 1911. By 1939 both men were using the same dob! The one I didn't have a date for was registered before the other one, so couldn't have been born the same day. The two fathers had different names. Might have been interesting to see their marriage certificates!

OH has Irish cousins. Two first cousin girls were born, one in 1898 and the other in 1900 and were given the same name (their father's were brothers). Only one of then seems to have been registered. They both appear on the 1901 census in Cork with their respective families. By 1911 one girl had died and the other was still with her parents. The dead child's death certificate has all the correct details. The surviving child came to England where she married. The marriage certificate has the correct father's name. A few years later came the 1939 Register. Low and behold, she was using her dead cousin's date of birth. The same was recorded when she passed away. I can only imaging she needed a birth cert for something and the only one that could be provided was her cousin's, so she just went with that!

[Olde Crone]

Merry

I'm sure you remember my friend's gran who received her pension four years early because the GRO provided her with her dead sister's birth certificate. Gran protested to the end of her life (98 or 94 lol) that it was the wrong one but everyone just said there there dear.

OC

[Merry]

Yes I do remember - Charlotte v Lottie?!

[Olde Crone]

Merry

Yes, that's the one. I knew you'd remember.

OC

[Merry]

[Olde Crone]

Merry, I'm thinking about leaving you all my family history papers when I go as you are the only person who has ever shown an interest. Haha!

OC