A question about surnames

[Jane_Adams]

OK, this might get confusing, stick with me!!

I have got a birth certificate for my GGGrandfather. He appears to have been illegitimate.

His mother is Louisa Hancock and his father is William Estwick. His name was William Bentley Hancock, although if you search for William Bentley Estwick you will find the same record!?! (born in 1852)

A couple of things are now confusing me.

Firstly, I have found a potential match for her prior to William's birth in 1851 where she is shown as a 'widow'. In those days, would a widow revert back to her unmarried name or would Hancock be the name of her late husband?

I know that Louisa later married William Estwick and have found a record on the 1861 census for Louisa Estwick with William Bently (note, no Hancock) as 'visitor'. At this time I believe that William (the son) was living with another family member (and is also on the 1861 census at that address).

Does the fact that Louisa is listed as 'Wife' mean that William Estwick was still alive and was just not at the house at that time?

I am assuming that William is only listed as 'William Bentley' due to an oversight by the recorder.

I am also confused as on William Hancock's marriage certificate, he lists his father's name as 'William HANCOCK' which isn't true.

As Bentley is an unsual middle name, I am wondering if its a reference to a surname, so I am wondering (although I haven't done extensive searching on this yet) whether Louisa was a Hancock then a Bentley then an Estwick (or maybe Bentley, Hancock, Estwick).

I'm sure someone is going to tell me that there are no hard and fast rules on names, but some guidance would be helpful! I am sure this would be so much easier if everyone wasn't called William as well!!

[Rod Neep]

OK, this might get confusing, stick with me!!

I have got a birth certificate for my GGGrandfather. He appears to have been illegitimate.

His mother is Louisa Hancock and his father is William Estwick. His name was William Bentley Hancock, although if you search for William Bentley Estwick you will find the same record!?! (born in 1852)

A couple of things are now confusing me.

Firstly, I have found a potential match for her prior to William's birth in 1851 where she is shown as a 'widow'. In those days, would a widow revert back to her unmarried name or would Hancock be the name of her late husband?
No... she would keep her married name if she was a widow.


Does the fact that Louisa is listed as 'Wife' mean that William Estwick was still alive and was just not at the house at that time?
If she is stated as being "wife" on the census, then she is the wife of the head of the household. (The relationship colum in a census is precisely that. The relationship to the head of household).

Rod

[Peter Goodey]

"I'm sure someone is going to tell me that there are no hard and fast rules on names, but some guidance would be helpful! "

I'll leave that to someone else!

But I will say that there are absolutely no rules at all about what people put down for censuses.

Nobody has ever had to produce evidence to back up their statements on census returns. It was not unusual for a single woman to describe herself as a widow if she was pregnant or was bringing up an illegitimate child.

Illegitimate children were often given the surname of the father as a second forename.

You're trying to read too much into census returns. Censuses are very useful but the backbone of your family tree must be based on primary evidence - BMD certificates and church records. I think you need to plough through some more GRO indexes and get some more certificates before you can answer those questions.

[Sharron]

Nice one Peter.

I think that Ancestry should make every single person read that and tick a box to say they've read it and digested it, before they allow entry to the census returns!

[Jane_Adams]

Illegitimate children were often given the surname of the father as a second forename.

You're trying to read too much into census returns. Censuses are very useful but the backbone of your family tree must be based on primary evidence - BMD certificates and church records. I think you need to plough through some more GRO indexes and get some more certificates before you can answer those questions.


Fair point. I have ordered certs, which I'm still waiting for, but the census does help provide some background, I think. For instance, I thought Louisa had died in 1859 until I found her on the 1861 census, so in that case it was very useful!

I take what you say about illegitimate children being given the surname of the father as a second forename. However, according to his birth cert, Bentley wasn't his father's surname, it was Estwick.

I was therefore wondering whether Louisa was born 'Bentley' then married a Hancock. How can I find out who she was previously married to, and what her birth name was? I've tried searching on FreeBMD for marriages between 'Bentley' and 'Hancock' but their system seems a bit fragile at the moment so have drawn a blank so far....

Also, can anyone recommend a good place to search the 1841 census online (that includes London). I signed up on one site yesterday only to discover that London wasn't included.

[Geoffers]

I have got a birth certificate for my GGGrandfather. He appears to have been illegitimate. His mother is Louisa Hancock and his father is William Estwick. His name was William Bentley Hancock
Could you let us know the precise wording of columns 2, 4 and 5 of the birth certificate?

Do the census returns show any siblings? If so, when and where were they born and what surname sare recorded for them? Have you been able to locate entries for them in the GRO index?

What was the father's occupation? Was this anything where he might have been appenticed or a member of some professional guild, or needed a university education?

Geoffers

[Jane_Adams]

Could you let us know the precise wording of columns 2, 4 and 5 of the birth certificate?

Do the census returns show any siblings? If so, when and where were they born and what surname sare recorded for them? Have you been able to locate entries for them in the GRO index?

What was the father's occupation? Was this anything where he might have been appenticed or a member of some professional guild, or needed a university education?

Geoffers


I haven't got the documents to hand as my mum has the file. However, from memory these columns have the following information on them:

Name: William Bentley Hancock
Name and surname of Father: William Estwick
Name, etc of mother: Louisa Hancock (it doesn't mention a maiden name)

Also, Louisa registered the birth, and the address given was the same as for William's place of birth.

The father's occupation on the birth certificate (where he is shown as William Estwick) is "Waterproof Manufacturer". On the marriage certificate (for William, the son, where father's name is listed as 'William Hancock') he is listed as "Coppersmith" (this seems to be an occupation that repeatedly appears with the Hancock family, probably due to where they lived in the east end of London, near the docks.

As for siblings, there are no census returns where William (the son) is showing as living with either of his parents as far as I can make out. He was born in 1852, so obviously not on the 1851 census. In the 1861 census he is showing as 'son' of Job and Fanny Hancock, with the various other children (all of whom I have now ascertained ARE the children of Job and Fanny). William also appears on the 1861 census as a 'visitor' with what appears to be his mother, Louisa Estwick, although his name is listed as 'William Bently'. As far as I can make out, so far, William was the only child of William and Louisa.

[Jane_Adams]

Just made a grim discovery. The William living with Job and Fanny is NOT our one!!

My mum had originally started doing this trace and she found the census with Job, Fanny et al. However I have this morning found the 'familysearch.org' website which has been very useful. I put in 'William Hancock' son of 'Job' and it has found him. He was born in the same area of London about a year after ours.

Stupidly, I hadn't checked my mum's research that he was the correct person!

Back to square 1 then, although it does potentially make things a bit more straightforward!

[Geoffers]

IName: William Bentley Hancock
Name and surname of Father: William Estwick
Name, etc of mother: Louisa Hancock (it doesn't mention a maiden name)
I don't see that this is definitely an illegitimate birth. I suggest trying the local registrar to see if they can confirm the mother is 'Louisa formerly Hancock' or if she is 'Louisa Hancock' with a maiden name which is either not recorded, or has been missed from the GRO records. You might also try the parish register for a baptism to see what name she is recorded under.


The father's occupation on the birth certificate (where he is shown as William Estwick) is "Waterproof Manufacturer"
Someone in business may well show up in earlier and later directories (as sold by Archive CD Books). This may help to identify him in census returns, especially the 1851 census. Also, William Estwick may have left a will and these can make very interesting reading.

Geoffers

[Jane_Adams]

I don't see that this is definitely an illegitimate birth. I suggest trying the local registrar to see if they can confirm the mother is 'Louisa formerly Hancock' or if she is 'Louisa Hancock' with a maiden name which is either not recorded, or has been missed from the GRO records. You might also try the parish register for a baptism to see what name she is recorded under.


Someone in business may well show up in earlier and later directories (as sold by Archive CD Books). This may help to identify him in census returns, especially the 1851 census. Also, William Estwick may have left a will and these can make very interesting reading.

Geoffers


Thanks for that. I know that Louisa and William didn't get married until 1856, 3 years after William was born. I found a William Estwick on the 1851 census married to an Ann, who it appears died in 1855. I ordered the marriage cert (for Louisa and William) last week so hopefully that should show their previous marital status. If the records I have found for both of them are the right ones, then they 'should' both say 'Widow'. However, I'm not holding my breath!

I've done loads of searches this afternoon and am having trouble tracking any of them down. I found what is potentially Louisa and William Bentley on the 1861 census, but no sign of Estwick. I can't find any of the 3 of them on the 1871 census (although I did find a William (son) who was a patient at a hospital, but his age was 2 years out so I have discounted that for the time being). I believe that William Estwick died in 1862, but i'm not positive on that yet.

William married Harriet in 1875, but I am having trouble tracking them down on the 1881 census. I have found them on 1891 and 1901 though.

EDITED TO ADD: just found them on the 1881 census, searching under 'Harriet' which is obviously less common! Appears there was another son, who presumably died, called Thomas.

[Jane_Adams]

Just received Louisa and William's marriage certificate.

Louisa's maiden name was Phippen, it turns out. Both Louisa and William were listed as Widow/er. I have now established that Louisa married a James Young Hancock in 1846. James subsequently died in 1848.

Louisa and William had William Bentley in 1852, while William was still married to Ann (or at least he was still married to her in 1851).

Louisa and William married in 1856, and William subsequently died in 1862 (she didn't have much luck did she!?)

So still not sure where the Bentley name comes from, perhaps she just liked it and there isn't any hidden meaning!