discrepancy in names - where to go next?

[Janade]

I have found Elizabeth Ann Marsh b.1857, Preston. Parents John and Elizabeth Marsh. BC for Elizabeth states mothers maiden name as 'Hudson'. The only marriage I can find though for parents is John Marsh and Elizabeth 'Hilton'.

Do you think Hilton could be mistaken for Hudson. I cannot find a marriage for Marsh and Hudson.

I am getting confused and going round in circles |banghead|. A fresh pair of eyes may see something I am missing.

any help appreciated.
Jane

[Alan Welsford]

Is the birth certificate from the GRO ?

If so is it a photocopy of their registers, (themselves a transcript of the original).

Or is it a modern transcript, either typed or handwritten, (where they may have misread wherever they were taking it from).

What's your source for the marriage, please ? A certificate, just the GRO indexes, or a parish register entry ?

If its from PRs, have you sighted the original, if it's a certificate, same questions as for birth.

When is the marriage ? Is there a census, (preferably the 1851), where you can try and identify Elizabeth HUDSON or HILTON (or both!) not yet married ?

Alan

[Janade]

the birth certificate is handwritten, how can I tell if it is modern? My first thought was that someone had misread the name, do you think this is a possibility?

I have a marriage certificate which definately looks like a photocopy of register stating Hilton. I have checked all GRO indexes but cannot find anything matching for a Hudson. The marriage was 1856. I have checked census but cannot find any matching Hudson's. Also on the marriage certificate it only says "the parish church of Preston" so I do not know where to look for the original.

Jane

[MythicalMarian]

Jane, did Elizabeth have siblings? Buying another sibling's birth certificate often resolves matters. Do you have Elizabeth and her parents on the 1861 census?

I certainly had a birth certificate giving my ancestor's maiden name as Seal - when it was, in fact, Siddall. This was eventually sorted out with a will, but like you I could only ever find a marriage involving a Siddall, not a Seal. This surname was pronounced 'Siddle' by my family - hence perhaps a mis-hearing by the registrar. However, Hudson and Hilton don't seem to share any phonetic ambiguity whatsoever, so I wonder whether yours is a case of a copying error between original registration, copy sent to DRO/CRO and then further copying for GRO index?

As Alan mentioned above - GRO certificates now come with a sort of photocopied (for want of a better word) piece in the middle, a strip showing the actual data from their original index. If your certificate is from a local record office on the other hand, then a clerk will have copied it from their local register. Does the handwriting seem consistent throughout?

[Alan Welsford]

Hi Jane,

Firstly I'll apologise for firing off a stack of questions in my last post, without giving you a polite greeting first - I was getting into trouble for ignoring a meal call, and typed it all a bit too hastily :o

Any certificate is a "certified copy of an entry of.....", and as well as the event date, and date of original registration, will have down the bottom somewhere a statement like "Certified to be a true copy of blah, blah, blah..." which will be dated. So if you get a certificate now, it will bear a 2008 date at the bottom. So for any copy certificate you hold, you can tell when it was issued. (I have one here for my grandmother actually issued in 1879 on the date of registration).

So far as I can ascertain, copies of registers lodged at the GRO are just that, and even if you are sent a photocopy, it is of something that is probably at least a transcript of a transcript.

If you go to a local office, there will have been less transcriptions (I think - could be wrong!), in what they hold, but they are more likely to make a further typed or handwritten transcript onto your copy certificate.

So basically what you see, whatever the source, can be subject to transcription errors, often from mutiple copying.

I've just seen first hand experience of a wedding where the bride was a DARVILLE, but what's in the GRO indexes is SAVILLE - try finding that one!

Presumably on the marriage certificate both the bride and the bride's father are HILTON ? Can you confirm that please and that no witness was a HUDSON or HILTON ?

Finally do you have evidence which you think is "right", please (HILTON or HUDSON) ?

Alan

[Janade]

ah ha knew a fresh brain might come up with somthing. Checking sibling certificates may be a way forward. The certificate is from a local records office so this could be a copying error (I am hoping).

Jane

[Janade]

thanks Alan, no probs, hope you have eaten now....
The marriage certificate (which is the only match I can find) states both witnesses as HILTON so the only mention of HUDSON is on Elizabeths birth certificate which clearly states under mother "Elizabeth Marsh formally HUDSON". I want to go with HILTON as I have no evidence of any HUDSONS. But receiving the birth certificate has thrown me.

Jane

[Alan Welsford]

Further question....

Is the family at 87 Peel (?) Hall Street, Preston, Lancs in the 1861 [CORRECTED!] census, (father John a "Spinning Master Cotton Mill").

If so from the spread of children, and age of oldest, I'm assuming that when John married Elizabeth he was a widower, and that the older children in the house are for a deceased wife.

Do I have the right family ? If 'no', ignore the rest :o

But if 'yes' what are the "condition as to marriage" of John and Elizabeth on the certificate you have, please. I'm sure John should be recorded as widower, but what about Elizabeth ?

Alan

[Janade]

Alan
Yes thats the one which I think is the right one but on the marriage cert he is down as 'batchelor' not widower. And yes the older children confused me too.

Jane

[suedent]

Alan
Yes thats the one which I think is the right one but on the marriage cert he is down as 'batchelor' not widower. And yes the older children confused me too.

Jane

I have marriage certificates where known widowers have claimed to be batchelors in subsequent marriages. I wouldn't rule out the possibilty that he was a widower.

[Alan Welsford]

Alan
Yes thats the one which I think is the right one but on the marriage cert he is down as 'batchelor' not widower. And yes the older children confused me too.

Jane
Hmm it's starting to sound a bit flakey - I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the certificate said he were a widower. Unless he had posed as married for a while.......

The IGI has that marriage, (a proper extract from the Preston Parish Registers), and that confirms the bride's surname as HILTON. (It also names the church, for you).

JOHN MARSH
Spouse: ELIZABETH HILTON
Marriage: 09 JUN 1856 Saint John, Preston, Lancashire, England

So as IGI and GRO certificate agree, and whilst you'd need to view the register to be bullet-proof, I don't think there is much doubt that an Elizabeth HILTON married on that day.

I'm by no means yet convinced that the couple involved in that marriage are the one I've pulled out of the 1861 census though - in fact I suspect strongly they are not.

Obviously another birth certificate would add further evidence. A good choice might be Joseph. As he is only 4 days old in 1861 census, there should be little doubt that Elizabeth is his mother, and finding his registration should be easier.

In fact it's almost bound to be this one....

Births Jun 1861
--------------------------------
Marsh Joseph Preston 8e 490

At the moment, my money is it would say "HUDSON".

I'll dig some more.

Alan

[Janade]

I think i may have sorted it. John Marsh married Elizabeth HUSDON, (there is an earlier record of such a marriage) he then married again to ELIZABETH HILTON, this would account for the older children. Perhaps someone got confused when registering the birth of daughter Elizabeth Ann and muddled up the maiden names of the two wives. And he could have lied about his status as a batchelor. Or am I clutching at straws....

[suedent]

I think i may have sorted it. John Marsh married Elizabeth HUSDON, (there is an earlier record of such a marriage) he then married again to ELIZABETH HILTON, this would account for the older children. Perhaps someone got confused when registering the birth of daughter Elizabeth Ann and muddled up the maiden names of the two wives. And he could have lied about his status as a batchelor. Or am I clutching at straws....

Under stress it's possible that a new father may have confused his wives' surnames. I have one certificate when an overwhelmed new father gave his wife's christian name & his mother's maiden name. Thankfully the child had an unusual name & all the other details checked out or I would still be looking for the "right" certificate.

[Alan Welsford]

I don't think the John MARSH in the census married anybody in 1856, in fact I'm convinced of it.

1851 Census shows

7 Castle Street, Preston, Lancs
John MARSH, Head, Marr, 25, Cotton Spinner, b Lancs Hatton
Betty MARSH, Wife, Marr, 26, Cotton Spinner Rover, b Lancs Singleton
Aaron MARSH, 5, Scholar, Born Lancs, Blackburm
plus 2 further Children, John's brother & 2 lodgers

Class: HO107; Piece: 2266; Folio: 370; Page: 33

1861 Census shows

87 Peel(?) Hall Street, Preston, Lancs
John MARSH, Head, Marr, 35, Spinning Master, Cotton Mill, b Lancs Hatton
Elizabeth MARSH, Wife, Marr, 35, Cotton Spinner Rover, b Lancs Singleton
Aaron MARSH, 16, Cotton Cut ?????, Born Lancs, Blackburm
plus 4 further Children, John's brother & 3 lodgers/visitors

Class: RG9; Piece: 3139; Folio: 134; Page: 60

It looks like the same wife to me, so I think you need a marriage before or around the time Aaron was born (reg. Dec Qtr 1845)

Here is what I believe is the correct marriage in the GRO indexes....

Marriages Sep 1844
----------------------------------
HUDSON Elizabeth Chorley 21 243
MARSH John Chorley 21 243

And in the IGI

JOHN MARSH
Marriages:
Spouse: ELIZABETH HUDSON
Marriage: 10 AUG 1844 Saint George, Chorley, Lancashire, England

(again it's an extract from registers, not LDS member submitted).

This gives you a MARSH/HUDSON marriage at the right time, and matches the wife's maiden name on the birth certificate.

So no transcription errors after all, nor gentlemen misrepresenting their marital status, it seems!

Hope that helps,

Alan

[bumblebee]

Possible Marriage

John Marsh 1844 Q3 Chorley Lancashire Volume: 21 Page: 243

Elizabeth Hudson on same page

Bumblebee

[bumblebee]

See we have been following the same path Alan, Elizabeth and Betty I think are one and the same person, making the marriage much earlier.

Bumblebee

[Alan Welsford]

I think i may have sorted it. John Marsh married Elizabeth HUSDON, (there is an earlier record of such a marriage) he then married again to ELIZABETH HILTON, this would account for the older children. Perhaps someone got confused when registering the birth of daughter Elizabeth Ann and muddled up the maiden names of the two wives. And he could have lied about his status as a batchelor. Or am I clutching at straws....
For that to be true, both Elizabeths would need to have been born in Singleton, Lancs, and be close to the same age, (see census info above).

Why do you believe this Robert ever married Elizabeth HILTON, please ? - I can see no evidence of it.

Who is shown as informant on the birth certificate where Elizabeth's maiden name is shown as Hudson ?

Alan

[Janade]

A big thank you for your help for pointing me in the right direction.
Your experience is invaluable, onwards now with checking out the HUDSONS.
I think I had somehow got mislead with the HILTON link but yes your MARSH/HUDSON marriage looks more like it.

Jane

[Alan Welsford]

Just because I'm a curious sort.....

Was the Elizabeth HILTON marriage certificate one you had recently purchased because you thought you had the right wedding ?

I wasn't clear if it was one already in your possesion by some other route ?

Alan

[Janade]

Thanks Alan, You have helped greatly and I think sorted it with your find. I was told by relatives that Elizabeth was eldest child so hence assumed that the wedding was later and HILTON was the one I latched on to. But the existence of older siblings would explain the reasoning behind her being thought of as an eldest child and your family appear to be correct ones so my birth certificate is correct and her maiden name could have been Hudson which I will check against siblings. Your fresh look at things may have cleared up my mystery.

Jane

[Alan Welsford]

Good,

I'm glad you seem to be sorted.

I wouldn't have been surprised to find a remarriage in there, as the census showed a large gap in the ages of the children at one point.

But as you have an marriage to a HUDSON before any of the children, and HUDSON as the mother's maiden name on the birth of one of the later ones, it looks fairly certain it was one wife through until at least that 1861 census.

Perhaps there were some children who died in infancy, before a census could capture them? That might account for the age gap in the middle of the children in the 1861 census.

Alan

[tommy166]

I've done a quick search on http://www.lancashirebmd.org.uk/ and found:
BIRTHS:
Aaron 1845 Preston [no maiden name]
Dorothy Ann 1848 Chorley HUDSON
Adam 1853 Preston HUDSON
Elizabeth 1857 Preston HUDSON
Joseph 1859 Preston HUDSON
Joseph 1861 Preston HUDSON

No other births listed with maiden name given as MARSH

MARRIAGE:
1844 HUDSON Elizabeth MARSH John St George, Chorley

HTH
Tom