Birth Certificate Confusion

[Trimphone]

I'm not sure there can be a definitive answer to this but i think it's worth the ask.
All names have been changed. Apologies in advance for it being messy and confusing.

I'm currently researching DH's family tree and I'm trying to work out who his maternal 'blood' grandmother was so that I can continue the line - I have a choice of two ladies - Mary or Helen.

On the 1911 census DH's grandfather lived in Yorkshire, was married to Mary (maiden name Burton) and they had one son.
The couple's next child, a daughter, was born in Lancashire in 1915 and the mother's maiden name is stated as Burton - fine so far ( I don't have the certificate, just freebmd info).

The next child, DH's DM, was born in 1917 and I think the grandfather is now living with another woman - Helen Warren (also from the same village in Yorkshire). As far as I can tell they never married - I can't find a record and DH's DM was always cagey about her parentage.
However, here's where the confusion arises - the birth certificate states the mother as 'Helen Warren formerly Burton' (Helen was the informant).
I've checked Helen Warren as far as possible and I think she was single, never married, so it's unlikely that Burton was her maiden name too.
So why would she have put Mary's maiden name on the birth certificate?

Helen and grandfather stayed together and she did actually bring up the two girls and went on to have several children with him - although she used 'Warren' as the mother's maiden name on the birth certificates of these children.

It appears that Mary and their son returned to Yorkshire but she left the two daughters behind with her husband and Helen. I don't know whether she ever had any further contact with the girls.

So.....
Has anyone come across a dodgy entry on a certificate before?
Why would Helen name herself as the mother on the birth certificate but then give Mary's maiden name? Was Helen trying to indicate that although Mary birthed the child, she was 'unofficially' adopting her?
Or did Helen try to pretend she was the birth mother but was scared of authorities finding out so used Mary's maiden name to make it appear legal?
Who was the actual mother - Mary or Helen? I think it was probably Mary but just can't imagine having a baby and immediately passing the baby and my young daughter to the 'other woman'.

Thanks for sticking with it.

There are these sorts of stories in lots of families. Illegitimate children weren't uncommon but still taboo and people just lied through their teeth. More common to lie on census returns or baptismal registers but you have to remember that 100 years ago there was no way of proving who the parents of a baby were - no DNA, not even blood group testing.

Maybe Helen did have a baby, but your grandfather wasn't the father. Maybe he started a relationship with her when pregnant, or maybe there was something else going on altogether.

DNA testing might help sort it out but you'd ideally need to test several descendants to see who shares matches with who.

Short answer - yes. People lie to the authorities.

TheGenealogist - thanks for the reply.
I'm just being selfish really because now I'm going to have to trace the ancestors of both ladies rather being able to eliminate one and concentrate on the other.
This is DH's family and I doubt he'll have a DNA test - he can't get his head around why I'm interested in any of this in the first place.

'Helen Warren formerly Burton' - hmm. Is that the actual wording? If so, then it could mean that Burton was not in fact Helen's maiden name, but was a previous married name, and she had been widowed. This all takes place around the time of WW1 doesn't it? Can you find any other people called Helen of the right age, or another family called Burton in that locality on the 1911 census?

People in years gone by very often used to marry their deceased spouse's sibling or other close relative. Small children needed to be looked after, and people often married again very soon after being widowed, out of sheer necessity.

If I were you, I'd send for the birth certificate of all the other siblings, so all of Mary's and Helen's children. Try and find out not only where they were born, but also where they were baptised. Your DH's grandfather was first married to Mary. Do you have their marriage certificate? It is well worth sending for it so you can check the names of the witnesses. They were often cousins or siblings. It all helps to build a picture.

Also try to find out whether the grandfather's age at marriage ties up with his birth and death certificates, and the censuses. I can't help but wonder whether he had a male cousin about the same age with the same first and last name. It does happen. It could be that Mary's husband was not the same one as Helen's. Especially bearing in mind the sudden location change to Lancashire.

aerosocks - You've given me quite a few lines to check/follow up. I must confess, I've only looked at what is under my nose and tried to build a picture from that, obviously it's time to look deeper. Also, I hadn't considered a potential male relative with the same name.
Thanks for your input, it's much appreciated.

If your DH can get his head round dna then it might confirm one mother or the other in this situation. It can’t rule someone out necessarily, as you can be related but not show up as DNA matches, and of course people sometimes married the sister or cousin of a wife, which can confuse matters, but it will give you more information.

I second the advise above of getting all the relevant certification too. Looking at witnesses can give you important links.

I'm going to order the birth/marriage certificates as advised. My family trees are on Ancestry so I think I might try Findmypast too - just to cast the net a bit wider.
Thanks to everyone for their advice.

Hi! A few questions - have you found a death certificate/burial record for Mary, and also for Helen?

What are Mary and Helen’s familes like on the 1901 census?

Do any of the family appear on the 1939 register? I’m lying in bed with a stomach bug today, happy to have a look for you if I can be of help, take my mind off feeling rubbish

Hi BasicB, sorry you're feeling rubbish.
Thanks for the offer - but on my original post I name-changed those involved. Not such a great idea now I think about it.

On the 1901 census both ladies were living in the same village (Shelf, Yorks.) with their respective parents and siblings.
On the 1911 census Mary is now married to DH's grandfather, still living in Shelf.
Helen is also still living in Shelf but with her brother (who shares the same surname). She is described as 'single' but now has a 2yo son - James 'Smith' Warren. I'm guessing the middle name of 'Smith' may have been an acknowledgement of the child's father - I can't find the named used elsewhere in the family.

DH's DM birth certificate (which started all this) is the only one I have at the moment.

As for the 1939 register:
Mary is back in Yorkshire living with her (and grandfather's) son and is described as a widow. She may have remarried after she returned to Yorkshire but I haven't yet found anything to support that.

Helen is living with grandfather in Lancashire with (possibly) Mary's two daughters and their joint children.
Helen was always thought of as Grandma by my DH and his siblings - so my 'discoveries' were somewhat eye opening 😀

Hope you'll soon be feeling better.

How about this for a scenario @Trimphone ?

Grandfather (G) marries Mary (M).

A then has an affair with Helen (H) who has an illegitimate child. They all live in a small place, and to stop the gossip, H gives her child the middle name of Smith (nice and anonymous, and very common).

M finds out, and G & H run away to Lancashire and live there together, posing as husband and wife. Perhaps H even used M's name.

M remains in her home village and (again, to stop scandal) tells everyone that G has died so she describes herself as a widow.

If you are going to go the DNA route, make sure you read the TS and C's very closely:

theconversation.com/home-genealogy-kit-sales-plummet-over-data-privacy-concerns-132082

@aerosocks

How about this for a scenario *@Trimphone* ?

Grandfather (G) marries Mary (M).

A then has an affair with Helen (H) who has an illegitimate child. They all live in a small place, and to stop the gossip, H gives her child the middle name of Smith (nice and anonymous, and very common).

M finds out, and G & H run away to Lancashire and live there together, posing as husband and wife. Perhaps H even used M's name.

M remains in her home village and (again, to stop scandal) tells everyone that G has died so she describes herself as a widow.

Some interesting ideas. I had considered that G & H had maybe had an affair and runaway to Lancashire, but just couldn't explain why M (according to the two daughters birth records) was also in Lancashire. Maybe It was H all along masquerading as M - particularly as the second daughters birth certificate states both M and H's surnames.

I'm glad I asked the question though - lots of other perspectives. Lots to ponder - thanks.

@Trimphone

Hi BasicB, sorry you're feeling rubbish. Thanks for the offer - but on my original post I name-changed those involved. Not such a great idea now I think about it.

On the 1901 census both ladies were living in the same village (Shelf, Yorks.) with their respective parents and siblings.
On the 1911 census Mary is now married to DH's grandfather, still living in Shelf.
Helen is also still living in Shelf but with her brother (who shares the same surname). She is described as 'single' but now has a 2yo son - James 'Smith' Warren. I'm guessing the middle name of 'Smith' may have been an acknowledgement of the child's father - I can't find the named used elsewhere in the family.

DH's DM birth certificate (which started all this) is the only one I have at the moment.

As for the 1939 register:
Mary is back in Yorkshire living with her (and grandfather's) son and is described as a widow. She may have remarried after she returned to Yorkshire but I haven't yet found anything to support that.

Helen is living with grandfather in Lancashire with (possibly) Mary's two daughters and their joint children.
Helen was always thought of as Grandma by my DH and his siblings - so my 'discoveries' were somewhat eye opening 😀

Hope you'll soon be feeling better.

Thanks so much! I am feeling a bit better

I understand everything now. @aerosocks’ theory sounds plausible and would make sense.

Is there an entry in the probate register for DH’s granddad? His death certificate might also be helpful - if Helen was the informant, it would be interesting to see what she was named as (likewise hers, if she died first).

We had a surprise adoption discovered - my granddad, born 1909. I noticed how all his 8 siblings’ births were evenly spaced every 2 years based on censuses/birth records - then along he came 9 years after the second youngest - his mother would have been almost 50 (not impossible but odd after 8 earlier births evenly spaced). We learned he’d been adopted at 3 months through a church scheme - handily, the 1911 census came out later that year and he was actually recorded as ‘adopted’ with his birth surname (he later used the adoptive family surname). His baptism entry in the parish register was revealing - his middle name was highly unusual, and we think it somehow linked him to the (possibly married, well known?) father. Not only this but a note was written in the margin next to his 1909 baptism saying ‘omit from parish magazine.’ We assume that had his baptism been published in the magazine with that distinctive middle name, it would have raised eyebrows and possibly exposed the father.

[quote ItsAllGoingToBeFine]If you are going to go the DNA route, make sure you read the TS and C's very closely:

theconversation.com/home-genealogy-kit-sales-plummet-over-data-privacy-concerns-132082[/quote]
Thanks for the link. I am thinking of doing a DNA test for my own tree but have had some doubts. I hadn't considered it before but read somewhere that going ahead would (obviously) impact my DS's - and basically remove their options from them.

BasicB

Grandfather didn't leave a Will (nothing's ever easy is it?). I haven't got his death certificate - I'll add that to my list.

It always makes me smile that in those days living together was seen as 'sinful', children born out of wedlock were shunned etc etc and yet there was so much going on under the surface 😀