First name on 1861 very different from birth/death certificate

[juno-liverpool]

Hi everyone,

Just a small question: I have a case of a child who is listed under the name of "William" on the 1861 census, but matches all the details of a child who's name is "Zachariah" on his birth and death certificate and burial records (he died before the next census). I can imagine parents might have sometimes given a child's shorter nickname for the census, but these names do differ quite a bit.. Has anyone seen something like this before?

Thanks!

[chris_49]

Was he a baby in 1861, not yet registered? (you're allowed 6 weeks I believe.) Perhaps they thought the name Zachariah was just too unusual.

I ask because one of my families has a young baby named Imri (another Biblical one) on a census, but  a son born at that exact time was was registered, baptised and lived to an adult as George - it can really only be the same person. No other evidence for an Imri.

 

[groom]

I would guess that he was registered as Zachariah but called William within the family. Obviously then his death and burial would have to be under his official name. Were any ancestors called Zachariah or was the family a particular religion?

[juno-liverpool]

@chris_49: The census in 1861 was actually just before his death.. But yes, it is quite an unusual name, especially within the family (mostly Richards, Margarets, Henry's, Elizabeths)..

@groom: I haven't found any (direct) ancestors called Zachariah. The family was Church of England (though it appears they have baptized their two youngest children in a (methodist) Free Gospel chapel. I haven't been able to find a baptism record of Zachariah though..).

[Stanwix England]

Maybe he took a new name as an adult but there is no record of it?

[groom]

Maybe he took a new name as an adult but there is no record of it?

Sounds from the original post as if he died as a child.

[Gan Yam]

Has anyone seen something like this before?

My gg grandmother Jane appears on the 1891 census as Margaret.  As I couldn't find her as Jane anywhere I assumed she must have died. By chance I discovered a death notice in the paper in 1901 just before 1901 census. She was living with her daughter who was Margaret, so assume there was an error by the enumerator.

[sparrett]

Hi juno-liverpool,
I am just checking with you here that you have looked at the original digitized document of this household in the 1861 census.
Not merely the transcribers' version. I have seen some wildly off-track transcriptions

Assuming that you have, I would agree with Gan Yam, there is a strong possibility of enumerator error.

If you give details of the entry, perhaps the helpers can add more thoughts  by viewing the original document.

Sue

[Rosinish]

I have a 'Maggie' Jude on Irish 1901 census aged 6 then on 1911 census aged 16 (i.e. born c 1894/1895)

My aunt recalled her as 'Maggie' after her marriage.
Had it not been for the details on the marriage all known to my aunt she would have doubted 'Maggie' was actually Lilian & told me so.
I would never have found the marriage if my aunt hadn't know their surname was Crooks which was 2007 pre free downloads i.e. full price!

Born/married/died as Lilian (have all certs)!

Annie