RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Sorcha on Tuesday 19 September 06 08:42 BST (UK)
-
Hi, we know about the sometimes haphazard nature of census returns, but how reliable do you believe certificates to be? I suppose the obvious answer is that they're as reliable as the information that is given to form them but a recent marriage certificate I received has provided me with more questions than answers. I was excited to discover that my great x4 grandmother was Bridget Conell and that her father was John Conell, sailor. Can I find them on the 1841 or 1851 census? Nope. Not as Conell anyway, and now I'm wondering whether the surname is Connell rather than Conell as listed on the marriage certificate. Neither Bridget or her husband could write so I suppose there is a certain reliance on how te registrar interprets the spelling of the name. I suppose the question is - could the certificate be 'wrong' or is it more likely that the name 'Conell' has been transcribed as 'Connell' on the census returns?
This is doing my head in....there are so many rumours and stories about this branch of the family and their antics and supposed origins that it should be no surprise that here is another puzzle for me to try to sort out!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Was the certificate signed , or marked with an X
If the latter, then she was illiterate, and spelling is likely to be the Registrars best guess
Bob
-
The bad news is that all of the suppositions you have put forward are equally valid.
Spelling of surnames is not always standardised as we would think of it.
I have Mclellan Maclellan and Mclelland all referring to the same individual.
In addition to this you have the problem of "church names" and family names eg from my own records born Ann, Christened Anna, married as Ann Emilia, census returns Amelia died as Amelia. Personally I treat all finds as possibles until I either have corroborating evidence or there is enough doubt to dismiss a link.
-
Hi, if neither Bridget nor her husband could write then both the registrar and the census enumerator would write down what they heard. A census transcriber would then put their interpretation of what was written. If other details on the census sheet match; birthplaces, children etc. then you probably have got the right family.
Three of my surnames have appeared on various census sheets in several variations.......does not make it easy to keep track of them!
Perhaps some of the 1841/51 census sheets are missing; I know they are on other years.
Nanny Jan
-
what's more, the further back you go, the worse it gets.
Clark and Clarke are more or less interchangeable.
My Cocks become Cock further back
Dolby sometime Dalby
Pickford can be Pickforthe
etc etc
Bob
-
Try O'Connell. Very often the 'O' was dropped completely!
-
Have to agree with everyone else. I have found spelling variations in my names well into the 20th Century. Sometimes by accident, sometimes, I think, by design.
Not only are the scribes writing what they hear, but if they come from different areas to the folks giving the details, they may well hear things completely differently to what a local would hear.
Trish
-
Was the certificate signed , or marked with an X
If the latter, then she was illiterate, and spelling is likely to be the Registrars best guess
Bob
No, No, No, an X does not necessarily signify illiteracy.
Times were different then and those of working class were not supposed to be able to write as this was considered dangerous to society. In many cases a person would be told to make their mark and would be expected to make a mark not sign.
There have been studies done on literacy and stats show that simple literacy was as high in the late 19th century as it was in the late 20th century.
It has even been shown that the peasants revolt of 1381 was organised by written notes passed between villages.
Cheers
Guy
-
On one of my certs I have everyone correct except for the grroms surname!
His father's name is exact as is his occupation. Bride's father is excat right down to the occupation and so is the bride's
The groom decided to go with Wiliam AP William on the day instead of William Thomas. Confused the staff no end when I asked for a search at the records office but when I got there I looked myself and realised what he had done.
So no they aren't often 100% correct in anything.
Carol
-
I'm coming round to your thinking, Sorcha. Great grandfather lists his age and his father with occupation on his marriage cert. I cannot find either of them on the 1851/61/71 census. I cannot find him on BMD either - the 4 or 5 certs I've sent off for are not him. He is proving to be a wiley character!
To confuse matters further, he maybe a Stuart or Stewart!
I believe though that the work one does to unravel the mysteries enlightens as one has to have a very open mind to look at all the possibilities. I took it as read that the info supplied in the marriage cert was correct (afterall, why would anyone in my family lie ;D) It was a chance remark in another thread I was reading suddenly made me think, perhaps all is not what it seems!
Sallysmum
-
Thanks very much for your input everybody; I was interested in others' experiences and it has encouraged me to look at even certificates with a sceptical eye. For the record, both people signed with an X so I suppose there might have been some interpretation by the registrar.
I suspect the Conell is Connell; whether I'll really find out I don't know. As I've said, this branch of the family have historically proved to be unreliable so my mind is totally open. I can't find the birth certificate of the child of these two (my grandma x3) because it would seem that the information gleaned from census returns after she was born aren't necessarily reliable. It drives you bonkers honestly, doesn't it?
-
I've found marriage certificates to be particularly unreliable because of the public nature of the signing. If someone was illegitimate and married in a different parish, they could have invented a father to match the surname they used.
On the other hand, if the vicar knew them well, they might well have married under their mother's maiden name because the vicar knew they were illegitimate, whereas they always used their father or stepfather's surname through rest of their lives.
I got a new one the other day - I have lots of relatives where the a wife had died and the chap married her sister. This was illegal throughout the 19th century, so the marriage usually took place somewhere else and then the couple returned to their village and everyone more or less accepted it. However, the vicar of this particular relatives's parish must have been a right stickler. Fanny Beer, died and the husband married her sister Jane. When it came to the baptism of the children, the parish records say daughter/son of Jane Beer, a single woman although the births are regstered under the married name and they appear as such on the censuses ::)
Just shows - don't be surprised at anything - people are strange beings ;D
Angela
-
I got a birth certificate where the mother's name was given as Isabella Ruice. I did some digging, found no trace of anything similar and queried it with the issuing body. They swore blind that it was correct. A little later I discovered it was actually Isabella Prince. Now you might have thought a little common sense would be applied in transcriptions like looking for a common name before putting down something exotic (as a FreeBMD transcriber, I try to adhere to that principle), but obviously not in this case.
-
No, No, No, an X does not necessarily signify illiteracy.
Times were different then and those of working class were not supposed to be able to write as this was considered dangerous to society. In many cases a person would be told to make their mark and would be expected to make a mark not sign.
There have been studies done on literacy and stats show that simple literacy was as high in the late 19th century as it was in the late 20th century.
But, Guy, there would have been a large percentage in the 19th century who really were illiterate, wouldn't there? And there must have been significant numbers who could read (simple literacy?) but could not write, or were not confident enough to sign their name - writing is a totally different skill from reading.
I can certainly understand that showing that you could write (or even read) might cause suspicion amongst fellow workers, and bosses probably felt threatened, too.
Interesting!!
K.
:)
-
Guy, You've cheered me up a bit. Quite a few of my ancestors were marked as "scholar" on the census and should have learned something at school but signed their marriage certificate or as informant on a death certificate with an X.
What exactly was taught in schools in the 19th century and when did schooling become obligatory?
Pat
-
The Education Act of 1880 made education compulsory for 5-10 year olds.
It is very difficult to ascertain literacy levels of the past but the government so concerned at the growth of newspapers (newsheets) that they placed a half-penny tax on them.
Cheers
Guy
-
Is it true that some made a point of being able to sign their own name, even if they were unable to write? Some of the signatures on some of my certificates look pretty shaky, and were not written with a confident hand.
I have family surname changes too - Scorcha, yours with the extra "n" is fairly minor and a very understandable "error".
-
I now have about 80 certificates and I would say that they are about 99% accurate. (Not counting 7 certs that are not mine.....the price of genealogy... :P :P :P :P)
Well, yes there are a few spelling errors....to be expected.....but for the most part the certs that I have bought are right on. I have one were the groom used his uncle's name as his dad..but that is because his uncle raised him after his dad died...understandable.
As far as the "scholar" issue on census returns......scholar simply means a child in school. From the research that I have done, the fact that a child was in school had nothing to do with his/her ability to read and write. Girls were taught laundry, sewing, etc. And most boys didn't go to school beyond 12-13 years of age in the 1800s because they were needed to help support the family.
I think that registrars were very careful to record the information that they were given to the best of their ability.
-
I had an aunt whose sister taught her to write her name so that she could sign her marriage certificate in the early 20th century - her mother would not let her go to school.
I've also got a marriage certificate which shows a totally ficticious father as the individual concerned did not want to admit to being illegitimate.
Regards, Bill
-
Bill,
And..I think that that is the clue....
Certs are as reliable as the information given...
If the cert has false information.....it is probably not the registrar's fault.
And there the puzzles begin! ::)
-
Surely that should be the registers are as accurate as the information given.
I got a copy of the certificate (Scottish) for my mother's second marriage, she is down as
Anita Elizabeth Imy or Gittens even though her mum and dad are shown with the surname Guy.
After photocopying it I sent it back and the new cert came back with the name Guy.
Mistakes do happen even when they shouldn't.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've had some weird and wonderful spellings of the name Clementson. I've also got a first name written as Jno. Any ideas on what it stands for?
All the info you give to new people like me is a great comfort and help. I'm learning all the time. Have you got any tips on books relating life for working classes in the 19th and 20th century?
Regards,
Pat
-
Hi Pat
Welcome to RootsChat.
Jno is an old abbreviation for John, stemming from the days when registers were written in Latin. It is quite common up to the 18th century.
Regards, Bill
-
Jno is a short way of writing John (even if all it does is lose just 1 letter).
I have a certificate where both the first and last name of thw wife is wrong - She was Ann Birkhead but married as Hannah Birkitt. It certainly made it harder to find.
-
Thanks a lot for the info.
Another question if I may. I've found out recently that my gt grandfather was born out of wedlock and was registered under his mother's name (that's why I couldn't find him). His mother married a couple of months later so can I safely presume that the husband was the father? He took the husband's name but I don't think it was ever done officially. But, should I be called Clementson or not and can I assume that the Clementson family are my ancestors?
Regards
Pat
-
I have a marriage where the surname of one of the witnesses is totally different on the marriage certificate from what is in the parish register - it's a man, so it's not a question of married vs maiden name. So sometimes it pays to look at both sources for clues.
I also have a known illegitimate birth, where the mother seems to have invented the father's name, and doctored her own, so that the child ended up with her surname but appeared to have two parents, which he did not in practice. I wish I knew why she chose what she chose. She's gone now, and her son doesn't know either!
Does anyone know how the parish registers and the certificates fit together, in terms of when they were filled out, and by whom? I have wondered if the clergy did them both, or whether there was someone else involved.
-
think you could be on dodgy ground there, Pat! I wouldn't be too quick to make an assumption like that without further evidence to back it up.
Regards, Bill
-
I agree with Bill, for what it's worth.
-
Thanks for your views Bill and Loo but what can I do to find out if it's really my family. Is their a way of finding out if the name was changed officially?
Would it be usual for a man to marry a woman with a 2 month old baby that wasn't his?
Robert was the only child of the marriage which was unusual in those days I think.
Nice to see I'm not the only one up early Loo.
Regards
Pat
-
Hi Pat
There could be a number of explanations - you don't say how old the parties were at the time of the marriage, or if either had been married before. Also, have you considered the possibility that the husband was unable to father children, or that the marriage was one of "convenience" to give the child a father - perhaps the real father had died or was unable to marry the mother - the possibilities are endless.
Men often did take on a woman with one or more young children - particularly if they were getting on in years, or if they had young children of their own and had recently lost a wife.
Sorry to be so negative, but I think you are going to have your work cut out to find the truth. Is there a will that might give further clues? Quite often they were very specific about the exact relationships between various parties!
Regards, Bill
-
Hi Bill,
Joseph was 19 and Mary 18 when they married so they wouldn't have been married before. I've not looked for a will (where do I look?). Joseph died in Winwick Asylum in 1904 when he was 59. You're probably right about them not being able to have more children as they took in one of Mary's nieces whose mother wasn't married at the time of birth.
I'm still surprised that they got married only 2 months after the birth if it wasn't Joseph's child but then again, if it was his child why didn't he go to register it with Mary?
Regards,
Pat
-
Hi Pat
If they were that young, it is quite possible that he was the father, although you might never know! Maybe she had a bad time during the birth and couldn't have any more children. It was not at all uncommon forthe birth of the first child to come before the marriage, as the man didn't want to saddle himself with a barren wife who could not give him children to look after him in his old age! You will quite often find the baptism was delayed until after the marriage, though; the closest I have come across in the registers was a baptism that took place directly after the marriage - on the same day!
Do you know when he went into the asylum? The reason I ask is that, if he was in there some time, he probably would not have been capable of making a will. Alternatively, it might be that he was admitted to the infirmary attached to the asylum shortly before he died because it was the nearest local hospital.
Regards, Bill
-
I have a lady who had an illegitimate child in 1828, I was lucky to find a bastardy order naming a John Newington as the father, not long after the date on the order said woman married another man, so no you cannot be sure.
Have you a baptism for the child, I also have illegitimate children in my tree baptised with their mothers surname but the father is named in the records.
Suey
-
It's also possible that nobody knows for sure who the father was! This happens more often than you may think. She may have told him it was his child (or she may not have). When you marry AFTER a child is born, you are definitely marrying the woman, and the origin of the child may be a secondary consideration. Maybe he just liked kids!
To be certain, I think you'd have to do DNA, but Bill has a good idea too, about the will. A will will usually specify the nature of the relationship, e.g. "...to my adopted son / stepson / son, John..." If it just says "son", you still won't know for sure, I would think.
It's my understanding that a formal change of name was not required by law at that time.
Here is a link that will help you find a will:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1183.htm You can go to the office in London and look them up yourself, or pay them to do it for you.
-
Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. I'll certainly try and look up a baptism. I'm going to be really busy next time I come to England.
Bill, my Joseph was n't on the 1901 census with his wife but there's a G Clementson in Rainhill Asylum in 1901. He's got the same age and occupation as Joseph so I tink it's probably him. I know that Winwick didn't open until 1902 so maybe he was transfered then. I'll have to go to the records office in Liverpool to be sure. On Joseph's death cert the cause of death is "general paralysis 2 years" so he couldn't have made a will, could he?
Loo, I like the idea of him "marrying the woman" (sentimental) and thanks for the site on wills, I need to look it up for other ancestors.
I understood that you should never take things for granted in genealogy, back it up with certificates but now I realize you can't always believe certificates.
Best regards,
Patricia