Can anyone help. A birth certificate I have from early 1900's says the following.

Name, if any.........William CASTLE.
Name and surname of father..........Entry is struck through - no father named.
Name, surname and maiden name of mother......Eliza LITTLEWOOD formerly WALKER.

My question is should the child be William Castle LITTLEWOOD or William CASTLE?

He was actually married as William CASTLE.

Hope you can help. Vulcaneer.

Can anyone help. A birth certificate I have from early 1900's says the following.

Name, if any.........William CASTLE.
Name and surname of father..........Entry is struck through - no father named.
Name, surname and maiden name of mother......Eliza LITTLEWOOD formerly WALKER.

My question is should the child be William Castle LITTLEWOOD or William CASTLE?

He was actually married as William CASTLE.

Hope you can help. Vulcaneer.

Castle because that is his name on the birth certificate. It is up to the person registering the birth to say what names should be on the certificate. It is only custom that says a child is given his/her parent's surname.

I think that surnames can only be changed by marriage (women) or deed polls.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Chimay for your quick reply.

I thought it might have been Littlewood as William Castle are both entered in what would normally be just the christian name box.

Thanks Chimay for your quick reply.

I thought it might have been Littlewood as William Castle are both entered in what would normally be just the christian name box.

You can't just stick a surname on if no name was written in the surname box. It could just have been a mistake that Castle was written in the Christian name box.

Do you have any idea where the name Castle came from?

hi chimay

If there is no father entered ie illegitimate wouldnt his surname have been Littlewood after his mother. Vulcaneer

hi chimay

If there is no father entered ie illegitimate wouldnt his surname have been Littlewood after his mother. Vulcaneer

Hi Vulcaneer,

No, any surname can be given. Castle could have been his biological father's name even though no father's name was not given. This naming game hasn't always been straight foward. Some children were given the surname of other relatives (especailly if the surname was in danger of dying out through no direct male child) or benefactors. Do you know if William Castle was brought up by his mother? Do you think it could have been that he was handed over to a family named Castle?

All these variations make building your famiy tree more interesting. I'm on holiday and I'm spending far too much time watching 'Heir Hunters' on BBC day time TV!!!!!

If Castle is in the forename box along with William, I would suggest checking what the BMD register actually has the birth registered as.
It could be that Castle is the father's surname and William has been given it as a second forename.

I have just checked it and that the birth (if it was June quarter 1903 Sheffield) is registered as William Castle (forenames) with the surname Littlewood.

Heir Hunters - I've sky plused it for when I get home from work.

My family were all Castles but to say the least Eliz was a bit "warm".

The children were all (5) either no father named, middle name castle, or father was named as castle. All born 5 years before they actually got married. She even called herself as with the surname Castle on one of the births in 1907 and didn't become married to Castle until 1915. What a gem.
It makes for a confusing tree.

Maybe unconnected, perhaps useful....
An Eliza(beth) Littlewood married in Sheffield, Dec.1902 (Vol 9c, Page 839)
Unfortunately, I can't find the name of her spouse.....

Hello Minino

I must admit I do read it as Littlewood myself

Maybe unconnected, perhaps useful....
An Eliza(beth) Littlewood married in Sheffield,

What year - I have her marrying in 1918

Vulcaneer

Maybe unconnected, perhaps useful....
An Eliza(beth) Littlewood married in Sheffield, Dec.1902 (Vol 9c, Page 839)
Unfortunately, I can't find the name of her spouse.....

On that particular volume and page she would have had to have married either George Fanshaw or Wilfred Powell (same numbers).

Doing my research I found I am on two different volumes as having two different surnames, 1 my father's and 1 my mother's but my birth certificate has my father's.

Illegitimate children, where a line is struck through the "father's name" take the surname of the mother. In this case it would be LITTLEWOOD.

His decision to take the name CASTLE must have been for "personal reasons" though I'm not sure of it's legality.

ElizA LITTLEWOOD married William CASTLE in the March Qtr. 1915. Ecclesall Bierlow 9c. 441

It wasn't unusual for the parents to marry long after their children were born, I have my 2x great grandparents marrying when my great grandmother was 10 years old and, you wouldn't have thought it as the family was quite strict in other areas.
The other thing I would mention is that prior to 1927 when official adoptions came into force there was a very relaxed way of naming children. My father who was born illegitimately in 1923 was registered as one surname, then "adopted" by a couple who Baptised him in their name so his natural parentage completely disappeared. His natural father's name wasn't on the birth certificate, just his mother's who was a WW1 widow (just to confuse things even more).
In the days when people used to Baptise their children there was opportunity to change the child's name from their birth registered name also.
Have you looked the family up on the 1911 census to see what they say?
Regards,
Duffems