two names?

[Wilmit]

I do not have Charles Mitcham in the 1881 census as by then, Sarah was deceased and the children were with John Wilkinson, a couple of streets away.   As I said 'If I have John Wilkinson in a census then I do NOT have Charles Mitcham'.

John and Charles both claim to have been born in Cambridgeshire.

Whenever I have found a Charles Mitcham in a census after 1871, that could be a match he is always said to have been born wherever he happened to be living at the time but I have never been able to find birth records to confirm it.
Further to that - all the children fathered by Charles Mitcham and born in Essex or Mile End were said to have been born in Cambridgeshire once they were living with John Wilkinson in 1881

[brushbroomstick]

It sounds like a case of trying to cover up any scandal .

Sarah left John Wilkinson to live with Charles Mitcham somewhere they would not be known.
Sarah took her Wilkinson children with her and called them Mitcham.
The other children including you Grandfather were Mitcham by birth.
When Sarah died all the children went to live with John Wilkinson and "his wife" Julia adding Wilkinson to their names. The differing places of birth were again probably part of the cover up.

As to your Grandfather's marriage cert I would say he knew his father to be Charles Mitcham but as it would be obvious to most people that although living with John and Julia they were were not his parents so he compromised and named his father as Charle Wilkinson.

Thats my theory anyway.

[Wilmit]

Thanks   Those were all my thoughts too but it isn't funny growing up thinking you are a Wilkinson then in 'advanced age' finding that you are not - if you see what I mean.   Also - if only there was a way of proving that theory or the one that there was some sort of scandal so John took Sarah and their children down South and took his mother's maiden name and maybe her father's or a cousin's name but in law was still John Wilkinson.   How else could Sarah have been identified as 'the wife of John Wilkinson' on her death certificate, by an informant who was not identified or recognised as a family member?   Somebody must have known.

[regross]

Some one will always know.

Have you searched newspapers from the time? A really good resource that we often over look.

Was there an inheritance that may have required a name change?

We are all too familiar with witness protection identity changes today but that is another possibility that they were hiding from someone they gave incriminating evidence about.

Of course don't overlook the fact that it could have been the WIFE who needed a changed name. (she may well have helped unwed prgnant girls out of their problems which was quite scandalous and earned a heavy legal penalty in those years)


regards

Robyn