hilist I have an ancestor , born Agatha Teague, she married a John V Rogers , my problem is that john swanned off to australia on his own , and married another woman 3 years later in victoria. now all his children with agatha had surnames Rogers, Agatha took it upon herself to call them Teague,s, could she do this ,of course she did ,i mean nobody had id in them days except birth /marriage certs, would the census taker ask for proof of names etc, i think not., then in 1911 in which was filled out by the head of house themselves she reverted back to her married surname of rogers.and stating she was a widow., but john was alive and well in australia?., well after 23 years since he was gone you would ,would,ant you. Could someone divorce some one back in 1890-1911, a thought pensions came out about 1911 ? so if she had one would she not have to prove things. G.hodge

gary hodge wrote: > now all his children with agatha had surnames Rogers, Agatha took it > upon herself to call them Teague,s, could she do this ,of course she did > ,i mean nobody had id in them days except birth /marriage certs, would > the census taker ask for proof of names etc, i think not., then in 1911 > in which was filled out by the head of house themselves she reverted > back to her married surname of rogers.and stating she was a widow., but > john was alive and well in australia?., well after 23 years since he was > gone you would ,would,ant you. Since he hadn't sent for her and the children, she was perfectly entitled to assume he'd shuffled off the planet in the process of swanning off. Any one could, and still can, call themselves whatever they like so long as it isn't for fraudulent reasons. As you rightly state, no one asked for proof of ID back then so it wasn't really a problem. Agatha was obviously aware that, officially, she was still a ROGERS so used that on the 1911 census since that was an official document. > Could someone divorce some one back in 1890-1911, a thought pensions > came out about 1911 ? so if she had one would she not have to prove things. Divorce had been around for decades by then but it was an expensive process and beyond the means of most ordinary folk. At one time it had required a private act of parliament, then only husbands could divorce their wives, then wives were allowed to divorce their husbands although only on the grounds of both cruelty and adultery whilst the husbands could divorce on the grounds of adultery or cruelty and, I believe, for other reasons. I would think that, if Agatha was entitled to a pension, she would have explained the situation and probably have got her pension. Unless an investigation into his supposed death was carried out, there would have been no reason to have doubted her honestly held belief - unless he'd been in contact with her or their children, of course. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk