Hi Celia, I had this situation with one of my London families. In a big city they could get away with it by having the baby baptised in one church as if they were married and marrying in another church a few weeks later. If she sported a wedding ring and they both managed not to look shifty, the vicar baptising the baby would have no reason to suspect they were living in sin. You obviously need to go on checking to see if the baby was baptised in another Birmingham church after they married but keep an open mind. These ancestors do dish out the surprises. Lesley -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Celia S Summers Dear List Members, Could someone one be christened with the father's surname when their parents weren't married yet? Please, this is my dilemma. John Wills & Ann Hill appeared to have been married 17 Feb 1824 in Saint Phillips, Birmingham, Warwick, England. Ann was born calculated 1802 in Kirkby Mallory, Leicestershire, according to the 1851 census (residence: Edgbaston, Warwick, England; Source information: HO107/2049, Registration district: Kings Norton, Sub-registration district: Edgbaston, ED: 2e, Folio: 192, Page: 10, Household schedule number: 38) I couldn't find Ann Hill's christening on familysearch, but I did find a Sarah Wills, chr. 28 Dec 1823 in Kirkby Mallory, Leicester, parents: John & Ann Wills. According the New York passenger list (arrival date: 16 Sep 1851, ship: Jersey) they had a daughter Sarah Wills, born calculated 1823 (but she was not with them on the 1841 or 1851 censuses). (The rest of the children were christened in St. Phillips, Birmingham.) If this is indeed their daughter she would have been christened 1 month 20 days before they were married, but I would think she would have the mother's name for a surname. Could the parents have gotten married two different times? Hopefully the answer lies in the Kirkby Mallory Bishop's Transcript. Thank you, Celia