Carole, I have found several instances in the 1800s where a child who was born out of wedlock was given the mother's last name (her maiden name or her married name, if the mother was married to someone other than the father of the child), versus the last name of the biological father. It seems that this practice continues in many cases today. I have also found instances where the child's parents were married to one another....but where the child was then orphaned....and the family who took-in that orphaned child named/renamed the child such that the last name matched their own last name. This last scenario was apparently what happened with my maternal gg-grandfather (born about 1817). DNA testing on one of his living male descendants proves that he was a "biological Smith" (and I have now "traced" his "Smith line" back to the 1650s in Lancaster Co., VA), yet his name was Smith W. Brown (he was taken-in, named and reared by John and Mary (Bennett) Brown). In cases like this where the child was "adopted" (even though there were no official court-approved adoptions in the early-1800s, as I understand it), it was apparently fairly common to use the "biological last name" as the given first or middle name of the child....in honor of the child's "biological family." A change to the given name was probably done only in cases where the child in question was still an infant/toddler. Note: No proof, but I doubt that this was the common practice in cases where the child was the result of an "affair," since using the "biological last name" as a "given name" in those cases would be like "announcing the affair." DNA testing for "genealogy purposes" has become quite popular, and it has proven that "non-paternity events" like "adoptions" and "affairs" were more common in America in the 1600s-1800s than some people care to admit (and some people simply changed their last names in the 1600s-1800s, in an attempt to escape legal issues). I am a volunteer for the Davidson/Davison/Davisson DNA testing project website, and I would guess that about 10% of the men with that surname who have taken the test have a "DNA match" only to people who have some OTHER surname (and the "true number" may be higher than that, since we also have a significant number of men whose DNA is not a close "match" to ANY other DNA donor at this time, irrespective of the surname). Bill To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html