name change - transcription error?

[bugbear]

I have a wedding;

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NLSP-B6D

between Thomas Gregory and Martha Powlter, in 1769, at Little Hormead,Hertford,England

I have a birth;

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NR4N-F3J

of a Martha Powter, 1748, at Little Hormead,Hertford,England

That would make her 20 at the wedding, which is a good fit.

There are also a good number of sibling births around this time, with the same "Powter" surname.

I'm slightly worried about the surname change at the marriage. Can anyone with access to the marriage PR image check the spelling of the bride's name?

 BugBear

[smudwhisk]

Its indexed as Powlter on the Hertfordshire RO marriage index - https://www.hertsdirect.org/ufs/ufsmain?ebz=2_1417303075704&ebd=0.

Unless you can find a burial for the Martha Powter in Little Hormead, its quite likely it could be her and the parish clerk couldn't spell the surname in either entry.  Little Hormead registers aren't online so not able to check name or whether she was illiterate, which could affect the spelling on the marriage.  The HertsRO marriage index does provide the facility to purchase a copy of the entry.

[Ruskie]

Powter/Powlter -the slight difference is insignificant. Martha would not have been asked how her surname is spelled. The vicar would have just written what he (thought) he heard. Spelling correctly would not have been seen as important, and in fact often the same names were spelled differently within the same document, especially the further back you go.

I would check around the area for other families with similar surnames - if this is the only one, then it's pretty sure to be your Martha. Are there any additional clues in the PRs such as abode or place of birth?

[smudwhisk]

I agree Ruskie that they rarely checked with the parties on the spellings, but if the family were definitely illiterate then there is even more chance it would be wrongly spelled because the parish clerk or vicar would never have seen it signed.   At that time they would be signing marriage registers if they could, not that the vicar would necessarily remember that.

I've a couple of marriages where the vicar managed to get the wrong father's name on the marriage, even though each couple were literate and in one case one of the witnesses was the mother of the bride.   Nobody obviously checked the entry before signing it.

[Ruskie]

Very true smudwhisk.

Mistakes still happen today ...... and we are all literate, and often spell out our names.

My daughter has had mail addressed to her with her surname as Right, rather than Wright - one of the most common surnames and only one way of spelling it as far as I am aware.   

I have also read that some people did not sign even if they were literate. Not sure why, but perhaps it was assumed by the clergy that they were not literate, and maybe they were asked to make their mark instead, which they did rather than insist that they were able to, and wished to sign. I also believe that some people learned how to sign their name but were unable to read or write anything else.

[bugbear]

I would check around the area for other families with similar surnames - if this is the only one, then it's pretty sure to be your Martha.

Ironically, this was how I found her; I failed to find the birth record for my bride "Martha Powlter", and so (slightly) widened the wildcarding/phonetics for the surname, and still got a VERY small numbers of hits, including the rather excellent looking 1748 birth, in the same village as the marriage.

So - I've already done the search you suggest, and it looks good!

I'm building up quite a nice little tree (Miles, Pickett, Gregory, Powlter, Pratt, Jordan, Bunce) in this corner of Herts.

Map attached - note the scale!! The map-pins are events associated with people in my tree.

   BugBear

[Ruskie]

It all seems to tie in bugbear.  It would be nice to have additional proof that you have the right Martha, but sometimes when you get back that far there is nothing more to find.

[Jeuel]

I don't think I have a single surname in my family tree that hasn't been recorded in at least 2 different ways, often more!

One example from Gloucestershire: Mealing, Mealins, Malin, Malen, Mailin, Mellen

So I wouldn't worry about your lady, I'm sure she's right!

[bugbear]

I don't think I have a single surname in my family tree that hasn't been recorded in at least 2 different ways, often more!

One example from Gloucestershire: Mealing, Mealins, Malin, Malen, Mailin, Mellen

So I wouldn't worry about your lady, I'm sure she's right!

Ouch - I haven't found one as extreme as that. Although admittedly, I'm not sure I've ever
used wild enough wildcards to find them if they were there!

 BugBear