Frederick W Chastney b. South Shields unable to find birth or death notification

[PaulThommo]

Hello Rootschatters, one of my ancestors Ada Pollard Purves married a Frederick W. Chastney 1st Q 1915 in South Shields (on Free BMD it is listed twice, one as Frederick W and one as Fred W, any reason why? which also appears twice on Family Search and Find my Past). 1891/1901 & 1911 census have Frederick living with his mother and sisters in South Shields, listing born 1885/6 in South Shields (Durham in 1891), the 1901 census states Frederick Wm. (so I presume William). However I can find no record of a Frederick W. Chastney being born in South Shields, there is a Frederick Thomas Chastney b. South Shields 1885 but that is not him. Is it possible that he wasn't baptised so no record, however his younger sister Margaret has a birth registration so it wasn't family policy.
Then we come to his death, again I can find no record of his death in the UK, could he have died in WW1 or moved overseas? help required from people able to access those records. Ada Chastney died 3rd Q 1948 in Durham (North Western) and I also have found a birth of a Frederick H Chastney b. 4th Q 1918 in South Shields with a mother maiden name of Purves, so Frederick Snr. had to have been alive at the beginning of 1918.
Any help to unravel this mystery would be appreciated.
Many thanks, Paul

[ShaunJ]

If it's the family in Chichester Road, Westoe in 1891, then the mother's maiden name (which can be found for each  of the 3 sisters) is Johnson.  This does point to Frederick being Frederick Thomas whose mother's maiden name is also Johnson.

Have you checked the 1939 register for Frederick's date of birth?  Compare it with that for Frederick Thomas Chastney per his 1969 death registration (27 February 1885). 

[2zpool]

The Frederick Thomas Chastney that was registered in South Shields district in 1885 had a mother's maiden name of Johnson.  The same surname as Rose Mary in 1883 and Margaret in 1889. Maybe they changed it after the birth was registered.  Too much of a coincidence.

The GRO indexes are for birth registrations not baptisms. By the 1880's registrations were mandatory. For that you need to know which church.

The reason Fred and Frederick may have been a correction to the record.

He was alive and married to Ada in 1939 in South Shields.  There is a son Thomas R born 1926, and one blocked out but I couldn't find a birth registration later that Thomas in 1926.

Janis

[River Tyne Lass]

I thought you may like to have the date of the marriage.

They were married on 20 January 1915.  The index reference suggests they did not marry in a parish Church.  Likely the wedding may have taken place in a registry office.

Best Wishes

[PaulThommo]

Thank you to Shaun, 2zpool & River Tyne Lass for your assistance. I have just discovered that Frederick (T or W) Chastneys father was called Thomas William, which of course are the 2 names that my Frederick went under. One question though, and I apologise for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but when Frederick was getting married he couldn't have just rocked up to the registry office and said "my names Frederick William Chastney and I want to marry Ada Pollard Purves". Surely even in those days some form of identification was required and the birth certificate was probably the only identification they had back in 1915 or would he have a war service card and maybe William was written as the middle name
Any answers or thoughts appreciated. Paul

[stanmapstone]

No he would not have to produce any evidence. The registrar and minister accept what they are told by the people getting married. There was no requirement to prove anything, that is the reason for the marriage book in a Register Office, and Banns in a Church, so that the details are available to the public so that any objections to the legality of the proposed marriage can be made. The system is 'informant' driven, that is the minister or registrar accept what they are told. People could be, and were, very rarely, prosecuted for perjury if any of the details were willfully incorrect, but they would have to be found out.
Today you have to provide proof of identity to get married in a Register Office.
Stan

[PaulThommo]

If it's the family in Chichester Road, Westoe in 1891, then the mother's maiden name (which can be found for each  of the 3 sisters) is Johnson.  This does point to Frederick being Frederick Thomas whose mother's maiden name is also Johnson.

Have you checked the 1939 register for Frederick's date of birth?  Compare it with that for Frederick Thomas Chastney per his 1969 death registration (27 February 1885).

Hi Shaun, Thanks for your information, I have been on the 1939 register and Frederick W Chastney was born on 29 February 1885, which is strange as there are only 28 days in February and a leap year is on an even year (ie 1886). I have looked at the original transcript and although the top loop of the 29 is faint it also looks like a 7, so maybe they said 29 then changed it to 27. Anyway it all points to Frederick T/W being the same person. Paul

[PaulThommo]

The Frederick Thomas Chastney that was registered in South Shields district in 1885 had a mother's maiden name of Johnson.  The same surname as Rose Mary in 1883 and Margaret in 1889. Maybe they changed it after the birth was registered.  Too much of a coincidence.

The GRO indexes are for birth registrations not baptisms. By the 1880's registrations were mandatory. For that you need to know which church.

The reason Fred and Frederick may have been a correction to the record.

He was alive and married to Ada in 1939 in South Shields.  There is a son Thomas R born 1926, and one blocked out but I couldn't find a birth registration later that Thomas in 1926.

Janis

Hi Janis, thank you for your assistance, have discovered that Fredericks father was called Thomas William, the 2 names we are discussing so could quite easily have changed it. Looking on the 1939 register Frederick, Ada and Thomas R are all together in South Shields. Thanks, Paul

[PaulThommo]

No he would not have to produce any evidence. The registrar and minister accept what they are told by the people getting married. There was no requirement to prove anything, that is the reason for the marriage book in a Register Office, and Banns in a Church, so that the details are available to the public so that any objections to the legality of the proposed marriage can be made. The system is 'informant' driven, that is the minister or registrar accept what they are told. People could be, and were, very rarely, prosecuted for perjury if any of the details were willfully incorrect, but they would have to be found out.
Today you have to provide proof of identity to get married in a Register Office.
Stan

Once again Stan thank you for answering my question, looks as though you could get away with things then!! Paul