ARE OUR ANCESTORS HAVING US ON ?

The pursuit of ancestors or, to put it more formally the study of Genealogy, as a hobby, is currently undergoing a rapid increase in popularity. More and more of us are tracing old birth and marriage certificates, dusty and unreadable census returns and ancient church records hoping to find information which will lead us back to our roots. Some of my own experiences lead me to ask whether we are, in fact, being led by the nose straight up the garden path.

Official forms are, now, so much a part of our day-to-day life that we just take them for granted.  On the whole, most people, most of the time, fill in these forms as accurately as they are able. They are, no doubt, helped along by the threats of retribution if they do otherwise.  We value our worldly goods; we value even more the wherewithal to purchase even more worldly goods. The prospect of being deprived of some of that wherewithal is, in a society where relatively very few people have nothing, a sufficient threat to keep the vast majority of us in line. I have reason to suspect that this was not always the case.

150 years, or even 100 years ago, the vast majority of the population had very little of anything in the way of money or possessions.  Add this to the fact that there was not the bureaucracy that exists today, that there were many who were still illiterate, and that human nature has not changed a great deal over the years and there is a whole different ball game.  We have to wonder why the populace at large should have been bothered to be accurate, or even truthful, in their answers to the questions that were asked of them on the rare occasions that they were confronted by an official form. Well, I’ve got news for you – they weren’t.  They were frequently neither accurate nor truthful. The next time you look at a census return or a marriage, birth or death certificate it is well worth remembering that the whole shooting match could be a tissue of lies.

Let me introduce you to Elizabeth. Elizabeth was my great grandmother. Now, I only have three great grandmothers, instead of the usual four. My two grandmothers were sisters, two of Elizabeth’s many children. The fact that I feel deprived by virtue of the fact that I am one great grandmother short is actually of secondary importance. What is vital is that this circumstance elevates the significance of those that are left in any consideration of my ancestry. Elizabeth occupies a very strategic position in my family tree and it is critical that any records that she may have left should be accurate. Of course, she is not now here to speak for herself and so I am not going to make any accusations. In fact, I have a photograph of Elizabeth and a very formidable looking lady she appears to have been – I wouldn’t dare to accuse her of anything !!  A lady who sends a copy of her latest studio portrait to her married daughter and signs it ‘From Mother’ is not to be trifled with.  I will confine myself to a presentation of the facts.

Elizabeth was born probably in late 1850 or early 1851. For reasons which will soon become apparent it has not been possible to trace her birth exactly. We meet her first in the 1881 census resident in Lambeth, Surrey – or S.E. London as it now is. She gives her age as 30 years and her place of birth as Stamford, Rutland.  She has four children and the age of her eldest child points the way to a trace on her marriage which is found to be in July 1870 in Clapham, Surrey. She here gives her father’s name as Joseph and his occupation as that of Upholsterer. Her age she gives as 19 years. With this information a trace of her birth should be possible.  I should be so lucky !!  Too many certificate applications later and there is absolutely no sign of her.

The marriage venue enabled the appropriate entry in the 1871 census to be found relatively easily wherein we learn that Elizabeth is now 20 years old and that she is living in lodgings with her husband and first born son. Her place of birth she now gives as Newport Mon. Not only was I born on St. David’s day it now appears that I am a Welshman !  She obviously believes that she knows how old she is, but equally obviously hasn’t the slightest idea where she was born – or hasn’t she ? With her marriage certificate and two censuses behind us where else can we look. There’s always the 1891 census.

The problem with the 1891 census was that I had no idea where to look. Searching in Greater London without a pretty close idea as to the address is not a very rewarding undertaking. Then I had some luck. Searching in the 1891 census for somebody in a family that was as yet unrelated to Elizabeth but shortly destined to become so, I found her living only a few doors from the original target of my search. Whoopee !! Imagine my surprise when I found that although she was now aged 40, as expected, she was claiming to have been born in Stratford, East London (Essex). Are you getting confused ?  Then tough – so am I !!!!.

There was still left to me one further avenue of approach. I was aware that Elizabeth had had a second marriage, but no idea when or where. I embarked on the daunting task of  endlessly searching the indexes to find my great grandfather’s death and Elizabeth’s second marriage. Fortunately I did have a clue as to her remarried surname and in an 1899 index I found the entry.  Elizabeth remarried in July 1899  (she appears to have liked July weddings), she here gave her age as 45 which was very optimistic of her, but since her new husband was also 45 one must assume that she did not wish to be seen to be marrying a toyboy !  It was at this point that I discovered that her father was now William Frederick (deceased, so he couldn’t object) and that he had occupied himself as a Carpenter

I hope you are all following this closely. We now have two different age structures, two different fathers, (with two different occupations) and three different places of birth. We also have a totally fictitious birth certificate for Elizabeth’s last child, born in 1894 a couple of months after her first husband’s death and found only because I knew where to look. However, since the lad in question unfortunately died in W.W. 1.  we won’t confuse the issue any more than we have to by going any further into that one !!

Before you ask the obvious question – yes, I am sure that this all refers to the same person. I have a surfeit of proof, but this is not the place for that much detail or rigour. So, be warned, the next time you are reading a certificate or transcribing a census entry, all is not necessarily what it says on the page. Actually the reality could be totally different.

I have refrained from giving Elizabeth’s surname. I do not wish to cause offence to, or otherwise upset, anyone bearing the same name. In any case there is no certainty that the maiden name she gave at her first marriage, or the name Elizabeth by which she was  known, were the names actually given to her at birth! However, if there is anyone out there who recognizes the plot from having studied the same references then, believe me, I would be delighted to hear from them. In less than a year’s time we get access to the 1901 census and the next instalment in this thrilling saga will at last be available  -  I can’t wait!!!!!!!!

This, of course, was written a few years ago and the 1901 census did, in fact, become available. Its contents didn’t contribute anything to the eventual solution of the problem which finally came about by the usual means of diligent research and the occasional stroke of luck. But, beware, what you read in the records must be checked, rechecked and checked again before you finally accept it – and even then it could still be wrong !