The massive dilemma is back....

[v.wells]

"My conclusion was based mainly on a process of elimination rather than positive evidence"

I read this to mean he has no certificates/paper work to support his findings.

If you have documentation and your gut instinct tells you that you are right, that is all you need

[raineshoe]

I have quite a few things which I feel prove my case, but then he does have some valid points as well, but then I have some documentation too.

Me -

James Coots is named on Georges marriage certificate.
Two census returns give Framlingham (although poorly spelt have checked all possiblities with people who live in Suffolk for any alternatives and there are none).
Have a copy of the parish register transcripts for which all information relating to people in Framlingham births, marriages and deaths were ascertained.
There is a George born Framlingham listed 1826 which fits with our census returns age and marriage age and also father matches as James.
Also, two others from the same Framlingham family move to Hackney ie Henry and James. George lives in Hackney also.
Several other people doing the Cootes line from other incoming branches have drawn the same conclusions.

Him -

No marriage certificate for his George so cannot confirm George's fathers name.
Only one census with Framlingham as place of birth.
Has tried to systematically eliminate any other Coots/Coats from his enquiries by process of deduction.
No other family members live nearby, probably to be fair though because he is in the army and moved around alot.
Some births, deaths, marriages confirmed through Familysearch.org
(Unfortuantely, can't find anyone else yet following this George as looked myself to see if they had drawn a different path) so at the moment not known if anyone has drawn the same conclusion as this gentleman.

There are things that could work both ways. I have now applied to the National Archives for a copy of the army record for George Coates to see if that gives any useful information.

Anyhow, all good fun. Just want to prove or conclude as best we can what is correct, although we may never really get to the bottom of it.

Ops meant to say to is complicated by the fact that the name Coots becomes Cootes, Coats, Coutts, Coates, etc, etc and vice versa for Coates.

[MythicalMarian]

Rainshoe - does your chap and his descendants as far as you can trace retain the name Coots - or is it Coates?

Then ask yer man if HIS George's descendants retain the name Coates rather than Coots.

I know you have told us that there are variations on the spelling of the surname, but surely it settled down one way or the other. If his became Coates consistently and yours became Coots consistently, I would say you have two definitely different men.

[raineshoe]

Not sure about the other chappy, but our Coots name between present day and about 1880 settles as Cootes. Prior to that between 1879 back to say 1840 settles as Coots. Prior to that its a hotch potch. The family we both are considering during 1818-1840 the name changes within the same family from Coots, Cootes, Coates, Coats, Coutts, with no particular consistency. Even when the children marry and have their own children the names keep swinging one way then the other.

Also, in the 1840s it becomes Coote as well as Coots. Awful name to research as seem to be so many variations.

I will ask the question though as you suggest. In the meantime I have started to delve for myself into his tree to see if I can draw the same or different conclusions.