Family Name

JJJTTT

New Member
roughly 1930's Australia, a boy was born, out of wedlock. his mother gave her son not her family surname, but her mothers maiden surname. back then - was there a reason why this would have been done?
 
roughly 1930's Australia, a boy was born, out of wedlock. his mother gave her son not her family surname, but her mothers maiden surname. back then - was there a reason why this would have been done?
The thought occurred to me that maybe the lad's mother was also born out of wedlock.
Therefore, although she might be using her mother's husband's surname, her own birth might have been registered under her mother's maiden name... If you see what I mean... :sceptical:
 
When you say gave him her mothers maiden name as a surname, was that the name shown on the birth certificate under the father's details or did she record her own name using her mother's maiden name?

Did the child remain with the family or was he put up for adoption?
 
The thought occurred to me that maybe the lad's mother was also born out of wedlock.
Therefore, although she might be using her mother's husband's surname, her own birth might have been registered under her mother's maiden name... If you see what I mean... :sceptical:
hi - no the young mothers parents were married. she had the "family" name, but gave her son her mothers maiden name
 
When you say gave him her mothers maiden name as a surname, was that the name shown on the birth certificate under the father's details or did she record her own name using her mother's maiden name?

Did the child remain with the family or was he put up for adoption?
yes thats the name on the birth certificate. fathers details are blank and still a mystery. her name was her given family name, but the child wasn't given that name. child was brought up by another family who were known to the family (all deceased)
 
was that a thing back then ? i think she was the only child
Not as far as I’m aware. I know the father isn’t named on the registration but what if the father carried the same surname as the mother. That is….related to the mother.
 
yes thats the name on the birth certificate. fathers details are blank and still a mystery. her name was her given family name, but the child wasn't given that name. child was brought up by another family who were known to the family (all deceased)
if the boy was adopted (presumably this was an informal adoption, not a court sanctioned / 'legal' one?) then perhaps it was simply to try and stop people joining the dots and identifying his connection to his birth mother & family.

In the UK, children who are formally adopted usually are usually given a completely different name - and a new certificate - largely for that very reason. Registering him with a different surname from the outset would seem a simple a way to achieve the same thing.
 
I think Andromeda is on the right track.

Whilst some families were not concerned about out of wedlock births others were horrified and would try to conceal the birth.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that she was unable to care for the child so gave him to a childless couple who wanted a child. I have in my a tree a married woman who took on her sisters illegitimate son.
the child grew up with his grandmothers maiden name for life. was not officially adopted out and the people who brought him up were known to the family.
 
Back
Top