PDA

View Full Version : Why would a family give a child a different surname?



Jane_Adams
14-02-2006, 1:35 PM
I posted a while back about a bit of a mystery surrounding my grandmother's brother and the fact that he had a different surname from her. I have found more information now, but am unsure as to what (if anything) I can do next.

My grandmother was Ellen Louisa Hancock, her parents were William Hancock and Frances Louisa Hancock (nee Ferris). I have birth/marriage certificates to back this all up.

My grandmother's brother was known as Sydney Archer.

We had a lot of trouble trying to track down his birth record, but a couple of weeks ago I found a record that was in the right place and the right time, but the name was Arthur Sydney Hancock. The birth certificate arrived this morning, and it shows Arthur Sydney, son of William Hancock and Frances Louisa Hancock, formerly Ferris. So it would appear that its definately him.

Obviously now we have no idea why he was called Archer if he was registered as Hancock, and was indeed the son of the same parents as my grandmother.

He lived his whole life as Syd Archer, and his wife became Rose Archer when they married. No one had any idea why he had a different name (whenever their father was asked, they were simply told "theres no funny business" and that was the end of the discussion - he was by all accounts a stern man, and if he said it wasn't for discussion then it wasn't discussed further).

I have found a VERY tenuous link, which I haven't yet had a chance to follow up, with the name Archer. Sydney's great grandmother had a sister who married an Archer, and I have tracked down that in 1851 they were actually living in Poplar, East London, which is where Sydney (and most of the rest of the family) were born. This could just be a big coincidence of course.

So, does anyone have ideas as to why someone might have been given a surname that was not theirs. If it helps to give you a picture of the era, he was born in 1907.

busyglen
14-02-2006, 6:58 PM
Jane, could it be that Sydney was the illegitimate son of an Archer and Francis Hancock? Or, could it be that he was the child of an Archer, but brought up by the Hancocks as their own, which was why he had a different name?

There are SO many reasons that could have happened to give him this name. I hope that you manage to unravel it in time.

I am still trying to unravel my Gt.Gt. Grandfather's name. His name was given as Jarvis on his marriage certificate and his father was named as John Green!! This was before the 1837 birth registrations, so trying to find out his parentage is almost a non starter.

Good luck.

Glenys

Wirral
14-02-2006, 9:23 PM
Could the original name change be one generation further back? In other words, could William Hancock have been born William Archer, then have changed his name to Hancock (presumably from his maternal line, maybe to stop the name dying out, or to favour a rich relative)? Then when his own son was born he wanted to preserve his own surname, so called him Sydney Archer. That could explain the lack of "funny business", as all were legitimate - it is just the name being changed to benefit the family in some way. Did the family come into any money, property?

Jane_Adams
14-02-2006, 9:41 PM
Could the original name change be one generation further back? In other words, could William Hancock have been born William Archer, then have changed his name to Hancock (presumably from his maternal line, maybe to stop the name dying out, or to favour a rich relative)? Then when his own son was born he wanted to preserve his own surname, so called him Sydney Archer. That could explain the lack of "funny business", as all were legitimate - it is just the name being changed to benefit the family in some way. Did the family come into any money, property?


Nope, no Archers in the direct line (the first one I have come across is the sister of Sydneys great grandmother who married one).

As far as I know there was no money or property involved - not of any significance anyway. William Hancock's job was "general labourer" although we do know he was quite well respected in the area as people would go to him when they needed something read or written for them.

Would his name have to have been changed to Archer officially in order for him to have used it for marriage etc? I'm pretty sure that when I got married I had to give my birth certificate and if applicable any change of name since birth. As far as Sydney was concerned, he was always named Archer although his birth cert shows him as Hancock!

Its very strange. Until we got the birth certificate through we were thinking that he was probably illegitimate. Seeing both of my grandmother's parents names there has thrown us a bit (although I assume you didn't need to be entirely truthful???)

Jo from Australia
16-02-2006, 10:08 AM
Arthur and Archer are very similar names....could it be that he was called sydney arther to differentuate bewteen another Hancock and hence the name stuck? Does that make sense?

I know a gret deal of men who are known by their second names because their first names were very similar or the same as someone elder in the family. Perhaps Arthur Syndney Hancock became Sydney Aurther and then it evolved into Sydney Archer???

not as juicy as some of the other posts though huh :o)

Jo

Ps this little Aussie just spelt sydney wrong twice!!

susan-w
16-02-2006, 1:50 PM
Have you looked for the death of an Arthur Sydney Hancock, in case he died, and Sydney Archer took his place?

There is one who died on FreeBMD aged 2 in 1887 in Grantham - no doubt not yours, but you never know :)

Jane_Adams
16-02-2006, 3:46 PM
Have you looked for the death of an Arthur Sydney Hancock, in case he died, and Sydney Archer took his place?

There is one who died on FreeBMD aged 2 in 1887 in Grantham - no doubt not yours, but you never know :)


That thought has crossed my mind although I've not had much chance to look stuff up recently.

The one you refer to isn't him though, he was born in 1907 in Poplar (East London).

Jane_Adams
16-02-2006, 3:50 PM
Arthur and Archer are very similar names....could it be that he was called sydney arther to differentuate bewteen another Hancock and hence the name stuck? Does that make sense?

I know a gret deal of men who are known by their second names because their first names were very similar or the same as someone elder in the family. Perhaps Arthur Syndney Hancock became Sydney Aurther and then it evolved into Sydney Archer???

not as juicy as some of the other posts though huh :o)

Jo

Ps this little Aussie just spelt sydney wrong twice!!



I am guessing he was known as Sydney as Arthur Archer is a bit of a mouth full! I'm not sure anyone actually knew his name was actually Arthur Sydney though - it was a surprise when we found the birth certificate!



One thing I still have in the back of my mind, actually, is a record of a Sydney Alfred Archer born in 1884, again in Poplar, and whether its in some way related to the Archer that Sydneys great aunt(?) married, and who lived (at least in 1851) in Poplar......

Still not sure why our Sydney would be registered as Hancock but be called Archer though. Bizzare.

Jane_Adams
16-02-2006, 4:59 PM
Ooooh, might have just had a bit of a breakthrough.

First of all, just to explain the relationships.....

Sydney's father was William Hancock
William Hancock's father was William Bentley Hancock
William Bentley Hancock's mother was Louisa Hancock
Louisa's sister, Elizabeth, married William Archer....

I decided to look up the Archer family and tracked down the 1861 and 1871 census records - I got a bit of a surprise.

First of all, on the 1861 census, Louisa is living in the same house and Elizabeth and William Archer, with William Bently (sic) showing as 'visitor'. I had got this record for Louisa before but hadn't even noticed the Archers next door.

Then, more curiously, on the 1871 census, William Bentley Hancock is actually showing as William Bentley ARCHER, and being Elizabeth and William Archer's son (its definately him as all the other details are correct). I am pretty sure that both of William Bentley's parents had died by this time.

Now, William Bentley Hancock married Harriett Brockwell in 1875 (he was shown on the marriage cert as Hancock). However, William Hancock (Sydney's father) APPEARS to have been born in 1874 (although this is working out from the census which we know is notorious for being inaccurate on this area). I'm now wondering whether in actual fact William Hancock was born to William Bentley Hancock and one of the Archer daughters, and was in fact William Archer.......

Maybe then he decided to call one of his children Hancock and one Archer.......?!?!?!