Ancestry Beginner Confusion

[canthavetoomanylights]

I have fallen down a free trial rabbit hole and am finding the whole thing fascinating and will certainly continue but I could really do with some tips.
I seem to be flitting about looking at their hints, haven’t worked out how to look back at records I’ve accepted and am tying myself in knots.
Having said that I seem to have quite easily (thanks to families staying in the same areas for generations) gone back to the 1700s.
Are there any useful guides out there? I only have a smartphone and I’m sure that’s not ideal.
Any pointers would be so welcome.
Thank you.

I’d look at the birth dates of the children in the second family. If they start, after you believe the couple got together, they are likely to be his.

I have found through all the branches of my family from 1600 onwards, if a man married a widow with children, he may have provided for the children, but they didn’t take on his surname.

I did find a widow, whose husband died three weeks before the end of WW1, who had two children after his death, and who were christened with his surname - but they couldn’t possibly have been his children! He was dead before their conception!

Which part of the country are you researching? Lancashire has amazing church records on line - really comprehensive.

Unlike a pp, I have found a GG grandparent who did take on the surname of his stepfather. Took some unraveling. But definitely don't take people's memories as gospel, they're useful but unreliable.

Unlike a pp, I have found a GG grandparent who did take on the surname of his stepfather. Took some unraveling.

Same. I have an ancestor who took stepfather's name, and was married under that name. Looking at all the other family trees on Ancestry and FMP, I seem to be the only person who knows that was not her name at birth.

Re. the widow whose children were christened with the dead husband's surname, you're applying modern social norms to historical records.

Naming the children of an unmarried couple after the man is a modern convention (despite people doing it claiming it's traditional).

Traditionally a child takes the surname of the mother. Women almost universally took their husbands surname on marriage, so any children born to her after the marriage had his surname, but they had it because it was also now her surname.

A child born to the couple before the marriage (which did happen) was usually baptised with the mother's surname, in the same way as any other illegitimate child, and was often given the father's surname as a middle name. Once they married the child would often be referred to by the father's surname/mother's married surname and use that going forward.

So, going back to your widow - her children were given her surname, which was of course the same as her dead husband's.

So, going back to your widow - her children were given her surname, which was of course the same as her dead husband's.

Yes. I have this exact scenario in my family tree. My 2× great grandmother was born five years after her mother's husband died. Yet so many other people have concluded that as she has his last name, she must be his daughter. Nope. (In fairness many may not have realised he had died, I had to get his death record to be certain.)

Im wondering if he didn’t really marry this second ‘wife’ and her younger children were not really his, just using his name.
Im reasonably confident it’s him because 2 of his children and also in the household

It may just be the way the census was filled in, or they gave the information to the enumerator. You have the head of the household, if that's a man then his wife, then the other family occupants usually in descending order of age, then any boarders or servants.

I have seen several instances where the same surname is used for head, wife and their joint & collective children even though some are step children. (And a few instances where step children are described as "in laws".)

And in a time when divorce was beyond the reach of ordinary folk, it is very common for the woman to use her second 'husband's' last name in the census and presumably in her daily life but revert to her legal last name for death certificate, will, gravestone.

Conversely their children will likely be registered with their mother's legal last name (even if their father is on their birth certificate) but use their father's last name in daily life and continue to use that last name for their own marriage, death etc.

So to know whether the children are his you need to track them into their adult lives to see what names they use, hopefully find a marriage record to see who they name as father and or order their birth record.

And a few instances where step children are described as "in laws".

'In law' was commonly used for 'step' in the past. Jane Austen used it. Had me thoroughly confused at the beginning of Sense and Sensibility when I first read it, before I knew that it was used that way.

And yes to illegitimate babies being given the father's name as a middle name. Very common practice.

I once came across two brothers (not in my family) who switched between mother's and father's name from one census to another. One of them had an unusual first name, which helped to sort it out.

Just thought I’d come back and say thanks again for all your advice. I am totally addicted (the interest has been there years, the time hasn’t been). One success to share…the Ancestry hints and other members trees all suggested one of two maiden names/families for my great grandmother. I noticed one of the witnesses at her marriage had a very unusual name so I searched… and she’s one of her maternal aunts! So through that I was able to cross check and find the real family, which was another altogether. Feeling rather chuffed with myself.

Ha, yes very addictive and time consuming! In my early days I have been known to stay up all night followed a thread.... (Not so much these days.)

Well done on following up the witness, good sleuthing. I had a similar experience with a death registration: wasn't sure it was my ancestor's death certificate, didnt recognise the name of the person registering it. Discovered it was his great grandson and unpacked a whole branch of family! And my great grandmother's will: I didnt recognise the name of the executor - turned out to be a half-sister and again that unblocked so many dead ends.

If you're looking for Scottish records then Scotland's People is much better than Ancestry. Saying that, Scottish census information is available on Ancestry at no charge (to subscribers) but you have to buy credits on SP to see full details, including the handwritten records.

Happy Hunting!

So you mean to say, that a woman living in a small village in the 1920s had two children, three and five years after the death of her husband (so obviously she was having sex with another man) and nobody cared? I feel that is very odd, with the general stigma about extramarital sex and single mothers at the time?

My family tree is littered with illegitimate children who grew up, had jobs, got married. Im not convinced they or their mothers were ostracised social pariahs.

I think money and context played a large part, much like now - is it an established relationship, can you financially support your offspring.

Very common:

• couples having a child or two before marriage
• getting married shortly before birth of first child
• second families where children are illegitimate due to inability to divorce.

What are the alternative scenarios?

And how do we know nobody cared?

Anyway, my main point is that convention was being followed by giving the children the mother's surname so nothing unusual.

Secondarily, from a feminist perspective, it's important to note that women's surnames belong to them and are not just borrowed from a man.