With the dearth of information offered up for the actual Peers family I'm assuming people have had problems finding out anything about Thomas Peers bc.1876 Liverpool.
I think I might have unravelled it - will see what others working on this thread think:
A John Pearce, son of John, married an Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, dau. of Nicholas, on 2/6/1873 Liverpool.
In 1881 the couple are listed as Pierce with 2 children i.e. Margaret 3 and Walter 1.
By 1891 Elizabeth is a widow and family shown as Peers! Looks like husband died as John Peers Mar.1891 Liverpool. (She was clearly pregnant at the time as a dau. Sarah Elizabeth Peers birth Sept.qtr.1891 Liverpool). Children in 1891 were Thomas 15, Margaret 13, Walter 11, William 8 and Isabella 2.
In 1901 family transcribed on Ancestry as Piers - shows Elizabeth with John 27, Walter 20, William 18, Isabella 12 and Sarah 9.
Bit surprised to see a John (jnr) as he wasn't with family in 1881 or 1891, nor, in fact, was Thomas with family in 1881 - perhaps the 2 boys were together somewhere.
Checking the childrens births on GRO site all shown mmn as Fitzpatrick -
John Peers Mar.qtr.1874 Liverpool
Thomas Pears Jun.qtr.1876 Liverpool
Margaret Peers Jun qtr.1878 Liverpool
Walter Peers Sept.qtr.1880 Liverpool
William Peers Jun.qtr.1883 Liverpool
Isabella Peers Mar.qtr.1889 Liverpool (took a while to find as mmn transcribed as Kirkpatrick)
Sarah Elizabeth Peers Sept.qtr.1891 Liverpool
So, Thomas' father John married as Pearce in 1873, all childrens births registered as Peers although Thomas' transcribed by GRO as Pears, family Pierce in 1881, Peers in 1891 and Piers in 1901, and John senior died as Peers in Mar.1891.
Took some unravelling but think this is right - would others agree this is the right family?
Annette