I think I may be able to shed some light on why there are interchangeable surnames/ family names in RB's early life narrative, and the explanation may be of help for those searching various records.
I was listening to the beginning of RB's testimony again about the early years and picked up on something I missed before because of poor sound quality. When asked why Freddy and Desiree (jnr) took the surname David, RB started to say something about the Napoleonic Code before going in a different direction. I again had a Eureka moment when I remembered something weird about French (and thus Francophone) family names back in history pre the Napoleonic code which introduced a more regulated system. Anyhow I consulted Dr Google which gave me a link to this text which explains it more succinctly than I can at the moment:
https://www.quora.com/Did-Napoleon-...ment-the-same-number-of-surnames-as-back-then
TEXT:
"There have been family names for a long, long time across the whole world. What Napoleon introduced was the bureaucratic requirement for them as part of the Code Napoleon, which was an extensive set of laws used in all the territories he controlled, starting, obviously, with France in 1804.
It probably sounds strange to us now, but until the 18th century there was very little official record keeping compared to what we take for granted now. For example, there was no legal requirement to record births, deaths or marriages in much of Europe before then, though some parishes, burghs, towns and cities did keep records of them. It wasn't until 1752 that marriages had to recorded in Britain.
The same goes for family names. Although they were in common use, there was no legal requirement for them in France and not many elsewhere in Europe, and neither was there the state bureaucracy to record and track them. Carrying your father's surname was traditional but apart from that, your surname (or even lack of surname) was basically a matter of personal choice. If you ever trace your family history back to Europe, you'll come across this once you get as far back as the early 18th century.
The whole purpose of the Code Napoleon was to create a standard set of laws to enable effective and efficient government, which is something the pre-Revolutionary Ancien Régime lacked. Enforcing consistent surnames were a part of that.
As for the number of family names remaining constant - no. Rare family names can die out as families marry into more common names. New family names can also be created through legal name changes, depending on the country.
Interestingly, many surnames changed during the waves of immigration into the US during the early 20th century. Many people arrived without documents, or took new names for their new lives, and
many, especially from non-English speaking countries simply had their names misheard by immigration officers, then subsequently spelled and pronounced differently on their new US documents.
.... it’s worth adding that
the Bayonne decree (28th of July 1808) made it mandatory for Jews in the States ruled by Napoleon to adopt and officially register a family surname (as opposed to using a patronymic). Not only was this an important step toward the assimilation of Jews into society in France (including present day Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine), Northern Italy, Switzerland and other countries who looked to Napoleonic legislation as the model for their own, it would also explain the origin of the question. As Steven Wilds says, family names predate the Napoleonic era. The Emperor’s contribution was to make them compulsory, as part of the organisation of civil society on a secular foundation."
For more information on that topic, you can look up this article by Ben Weider, who was Jewish himself and founder of the
International Napoleonic Society
"
So...
(a) maybe there was a family story that 'way back' the father's family name was de Hedevary but it wasn't recorded on any documents?
(b) inconsistency in taking the Coppernolle, David, Wouters name as your family name regardless of who was the biological father might not be considered as weird in that family culture as it sounds to us today?
(c) it makes tracking down the names very difficult
(d) referring to the second highlighted point, it could explain why RB doesn't consider name changes that strange? of course illegal motives are not excused but it might explain why RB said on a number of occasions...why not, if it is legal?
Don't get me wrong, I am not justifying it...IMO his MO is of a cunning con artist who exploits people and opportunities...it just sheds light on why he might be able to convince himself (and others) that it's OK.
