How Foundling Institutions Assigned Surnames

Published by Surname Origin · Last updated:

A surname could begin with admission

Researching an institutional surname requires two separate questions: how was the name assigned, and which records connect it to a particular person? An explanation of the naming practice answers the first question. It does not automatically answer the second.

The examples below concern particular institutions and periods, rather than a single European system. In eighteenth-century London, the Foundling Hospital routinely renamed children. In Florence, the history of the Innocenti includes surnames associated with the institution and a later effort to avoid names that disclosed that association. These practices created different problems for tracing an individual backwards through records.

London: new names did not necessarily preserve sibling connections

The Foundling Museum describes routine baptism with new names at London’s Foundling Hospital and notes that siblings would not normally receive the same surname. Its account of twins admitted on Christmas Day 1767 provides a specific exception: accompanying tokens requested the given names George and Joseph, which were retained, while both boys received the new surname Priaulx. The museum identifies their shared surname as unusual. The Hunter Twins

The research implication is important: searching only for children with one surname could miss a sibling. Conversely, a shared institutional surname is not sufficient evidence that two children were related. The admission evidence matters more than the apparent family grouping created by the names.

Admission arrangements could affect whether a name changed

Even within one institution, avoid treating a general practice as an exceptionless rule. The Foundling Museum’s account of Joseph Moss, who died in 1773, identifies him as a parish child supported through an arrangement with local parishes. The museum explains that his name would therefore have remained the one given by his parents. Foundling Hospital staircase

Before interpreting a surname, establish when the child entered care and under which arrangement. An institution’s name on a record does not alone establish that it assigned the child’s surname.

Florence: names associated with an institution could carry stigma

The Istituto degli Innocenti’s historical chronology lists Degli Innocenti, Innocenti, Nocenti and Nocentini among surnames formerly assigned to children in its care. It also records a sovereign rescript in 1817 seeking to avoid surnames that explicitly identified the institution, because of the stigma this could attach to a person. Bilancio Sociale 2010

This is evidence for a naming practice in a particular Florentine setting. It does not establish that every bearer of one of these names descends from a child admitted there. Nor does the date of a directive establish how consistently it was implemented in every subsequent entry. Use the historical policy to frame a search, then examine the relevant records.

Documents and tokens could connect identities across a name change

At London’s Foundling Hospital, mothers in the 1740s–1760s left identifying objects with children in the hope of reclaiming them. Because admission involved renaming, these tokens provided a possible connection independent of the child’s new name. Tokens were kept with admission papers, known as billets, rather than given to the children. Tokens

The same museum account explains an important limitation: some objects were later removed for display without recording which child they belonged to. Researchers have restored some connections, but others remain uncertain. An object associated with the hospital is therefore not automatically evidence about a particular child. The documented connection between object, admission paper and individual is what gives it genealogical value.

Build a record trail rather than a surname theory

Use the following sequence as a research method, adapting it to the records that survive for the institution and period:

Start with a documented individual. Work backwards from a securely identified adult or child. Do not select an institution merely because a surname sounds suggestive.
Identify the administrative setting. Establish the institution, admission period and responsible authority. Consult its archive guide for the relevant record series.
Transcribe names in context. Keep the original spelling, date, entry number and wording. Distinguish a name recorded before admission from one assigned afterwards; mark that distinction as uncertain if the document does not explain it.
Seek explicit connections. Compare admission references, dates, ages and named carers or relatives where recorded. Ask whether surviving baptismal, placement, discharge or later records can connect successive appearances of the person.
Test competing explanations. A similar name could belong to someone else. A different spelling could be a transcription issue, while a completely different surname could reflect renaming. Neither possibility should be accepted without supporting evidence.
State the stopping point. If the trail establishes an institutional identity but does not identify birth parents, report that limit. Do not fill the gap with another family carrying the same surname.

For help evaluating evidence, see the Beginner Genealogy Source-Rating Guide.

What an institutional surname can—and cannot—tell you

Etymology concerns the linguistic origin of a name. Institutional history concerns how a name was assigned in a particular setting. Genealogy requires evidence connecting people across records and generations. These are related questions, but an answer to one is not proof of the others.

A surname can suggest a useful archive or historical question. It cannot establish a person’s parentage, the circumstances of admission or a shared ancestor with another bearer. Equally, an ordinary-looking surname does not rule out institutional assignment.

Describe what a record actually establishes and separate it from interpretation. Avoid turning an administrative label into a judgment about a child or their parents. The same evidential caution applies more broadly in Why Common Surnames Do Not Prove Shared Ancestry.