Late/Formerly

In the latest newsletter, Peter has very usefully highlighted one of the reasons why working from the GRO index entries alone can cause issues - the convention of using the word "formerly" before the maiden name of a mother on a birth entry wasn't followed everywhere, especially in the early years. The issue is seen in a number of districts, and in records created by certain registrars over a number of years. I have examples from the district of Market Harborough as late as 1854.

When the "new" transcriptions were done it appears those involved were told only to record a maiden name if it came after the word formerly - so there are quite a number of entries with a blank/dash in the maiden name field and so might appear to be illegitimate but are in fact to named, married parents.

The opposite is also true - the inclusion of a maiden name on the index doesn't always mean that the mother was married at the time of the birth, or that a father is named on the entry.

 

I find this all rather puzzling. As words, late, lately, and latterly all mean before now but quite recently. They differ a little in idiomatic usage and that includes how recently is implied, and usage has evolved over time. But late was the usual term in parish registers to indicate a mother's former name, at least in my areas. It was also used for the death of a widow, where you'd expect that to indicate her maiden name. I'm not sure if I ever an entry with more than one former name.

Formerly has the specific meaning of before what else you've mentioned, so does indicate a maiden name for a twice-married woman. But with only two names, I can't see any difference in meaning from late. So was there really an instruction to registrars to always use it, and only use late for a previous married name? Or was it common practice that registrars grew to assume was expected of them?

 

I knew about the late / formerly thing as I have a few birth certificates where the mother’s name is given in the format Ann X late Y formerly Z, with Y being her surname from a previous marriage and Z her maiden surname. However, I have other birth certificates where the mother was previously widowed and her surname from the earlier marriage isn’t mentioned, just her maiden name.

I couldn’t find any examples of the maiden name following ‘late’ rather than ‘formerly’, but I do have one birth certificate from 1837 which doesn’t have either word - the mother’s married surname is omitted altogether and she is entered under her maiden name only, as if not married. Since it was the mother who registered that birth and she signed using her married surname, this was presumably someone not following - or misunderstanding - the guidelines.

 

I have likewise come across ‘late’ used at baptisms in this way in parish registers, where the clergy have been helpful enough to provide this additional information.

 

Peter - I'm not sure I've ever seen née used on a marriage regsiter (post 1837) ....although some vicars did do odd things at times.

As née and "maiden name" are different things (for registration purposes) it certainly shouldn't have been used.

 

Yes, I agree, and I wasn't making any comment on what might be considered right or wrong. It's 'what is' that matters here, and so does knowing about these quirks of the 'new' indexes.

I guess, though, that today we are fortunate in having all the extra information that the new indexes provide, despite such quirks, and before the addition of the mother's maiden name, buying certificates was often the only way of finding out which children belonged in which family and so on. And buying a few 'wrong' certificates was pretty much par for the course - and they often cost more back then as well.

 

I've had a quick look at the relative usage of these words in the BL Newspaper Archive. Specifically, I was searching for the words after a surname. Of course the local papers that make up the bulk of the archive do not use the same English as anyone spoke, or even as was written by the more educated part of the population (who do most of the writing). Theirs is more dated, formal, and even stilted than that, and that is even more true of all those legal and other notices. Not unlike registrars, in fact (at least when at work)!

Most of the cases found are referring something that was true previously - a job, business, title, place, etc., and of course to those who have died. Obviously this was not a real linguistic analysis, based on a corpus of usage selected for its relevance - just what was easy to do.

"Late" is commonest throughout the range of 1750-2000, which is a bit of a surprise. True, there are other adjectival uses (e.g. late opening, late arrival) that come in later on, but always a minority. "Lately" starts in second place, and declines throughout - even though it now sounds more natural. "Formerly" comes in from 1800 and takes over from it, and also from "late" to a limited extent. "Recently" also becomes commoner than "lately", at a similar numerical level. And "latterly" remains rare throughout - much rarer that "former" and "latter" on their own as well as "formerly".

So shifts in broader usage do not seem to explain what happened in the registration service. "Late" stays in use as an adverb, used like lately or formerly.

 

Yes - the (GRO) definition of woman's maiden name being " the name in which a woman first contracted a marriage" .... so an unmarried woman has no maiden name (for registration purposes) and is the reason why GRO now show a "-" in their indexes.

 

Absolutely correct - and we don't/can't know whether it was an omission by the registrar in properly establishing that the mother was, or had ever been married, or that she concealed that information.

Your images show an excellent example of the danger of making assumptions based on index entries alone - I have a number of similar cases I use in talks, and also of entries with a "-" in the maiden name which are in fact births to a married couple.

 

I have more than one example of someone registering a birth giving their own mother's maiden name rather than the child's mother's maiden name, so I don't think registrars always made it completely clear what information they were asking for?

 

Of course, this isn’t peculiar to the new online indexes. The same also applied in the old paper indexes once the maiden name of mothers was included from 1911. And it wasn’t only widows having illegitimate children that could confuse matters, still married women had illegitimate children too.

Many years ago, in the old paper indexes, I came across what appeared to be a previously unknown child of my grandfather, by his first wife. However, once the certificate arrived it was clear that the child had been registered as illegitimate by the first wife, and later I was able to confirm that the father was a man she’d had an affair with. I didn’t regret the money spent on the certificate, though, it brought all kinds of interesting information to light!

 

The piece in the latest newsletter following up on this relating to widows and maiden names is another valuable message about the dangers of making assumptions from the indexes.

But there is then a strange statement ... "when a married woman gives birth the only father who can be named in the birth register is her husband", which, as a statement, without adding a lot of if/buts and exceptions, certainly isn't true.

 

Yes, I noticed that too, but then forgot about it! My understanding is that, except when the father is present at the registration and claims paternity, his name could not be entered unless he was married to the mother. Or, to put it another way, the child of a married woman was presumed to be her husband’s unless either of them stated otherwise. A husband did not need to be present at the registration for his name to be entered as the father.

 

I know what Peter was trying to say and I understand what he meant, but as with many registration related issues it needs qualification and explanation.

Under common law, there is a presumption of paternity for a child born within a marriage. That is why a married woman is allowed to have her husbands name entered on a birth registration without him having to be present to agree or confirm it (and also why a married man can register a birth without the mother being present), but if she does so knowing that to be false, or impossible, then she commits a criminal offence of perjury. A married woman can certainly give the name of a man other than her husband as the father of her child if she wishes, but the condition is that he has to be present to agree and to sign the register as a "joint informant". That has been the law since 1874 and still is today ( in E/W).

Peter's mention of a court order is also a way in which an unmarried father can be named on a birth entry in certain circumstances, although not commonly used, and there are a couple of others.