Ellen / Elizabeth

[steadyrollingman]

Has anyone had any experience of women named Elizabeth on the marriage register later being referred to as Ellen or Eleanor, particularly in the 1700s - either formally or informally? I'm currently working through the Durham St Nicholas records and have two Elizabeths marrying two Gladley brothers (TBC) but then the subsequent baptism records for those two's (TBC) children show the wife's name as Eleanor (no maiden names), as does the burial record for both of the wives. I have more than covered the timespan they could reasonably expect to live and there are no records of any Elizabeth Gladley being buried...

I ask partly because I was looking at a vestry book in the CRO recently and there is a mention of an Ellen Adamson marrying a William Pattison in 1797 (this part of the vestry book was copied from the church service book written 100 years earlier). Her parents are named, and the date appears, so I know that this is the Elizabeth Adamson I had already added to my tree - and as the original notes were written by my ancestor, the parish clerk and father of the William Pattison in question, you'd assume they'd be correct, unless the transcriber made a mistake...

[iluleah]

When humans are involved there can always be human error and the more distance from the original record the more mistakes can be made, of course even with original records spellings can vary, pet names used and of course they could have been baptised and/or given both of those names.

I knew my great Aunt Ellen she was born in the 1880 and lived to a good age, so when I researched and couldn't find her in records I was 'lost' only to later realise she was registered as Nellie, baptised as Nellie as well, even married twice as Nellie but death cert and buried as Ellen. I can only assume it was the name she chose to use later in life

[stitchwitch]

When humans are involved there can always be human error and the more distance from the original record the more mistakes can be made, of course even with original records spellings can vary, pet names used and of course they could have been baptised and/or given both of those names.

I knew my great Aunt Ellen she was born in the 1880 and lived to a good age, so when I researched and couldn't find her in records I was 'lost' only to later realise she was registered as Nellie, baptised as Nellie as well, even married twice as Nellie but death cert and buried as Ellen. I can only assume it was the name she chose to use later in life

Information on a death certificate is ony as accurate as the knowledge of the informant. It's more likely that whoever registered the death knew her as Nellie and assumed it was a diminutive for Ellen.

[iluleah]

When humans are involved there can always be human error and the more distance from the original record the more mistakes can be made, of course even with original records spellings can vary, pet names used and of course they could have been baptised and/or given both of those names.

I knew my great Aunt Ellen she was born in the 1880 and lived to a good age, so when I researched and couldn't find her in records I was 'lost' only to later realise she was registered as Nellie, baptised as Nellie as well, even married twice as Nellie but death cert and buried as Ellen. I can only assume it was the name she chose to use later in life

Information on a death certificate is ony as accurate as the knowledge of the informant. It's more likely that whoever registered the death knew her as Nellie and assumed it was a diminutive for Ellen.

No they knew, the informant was my grandfather (her younger brother) who also ordered and paid for the grave stone and years later I asked why 'Ellen' and not her 'real' name Nellie and was told she chose to be known as Ellen since the 1940s.
Strange family who all used their middle names daily not their first given name, a father born/baptised one full name ( first/last) used his middle name and mother maiden name, so born with one name, lived from the age of 20 to death using a completely different name ( nightmare to find them all pre internet) his head stone shows him buried in the local village church yet he is buried 5 miles away in another church yrd..... 'nowt so funny as folk'

[arthurk]

.... his head stone shows him buried in the local village church yet he is buried 5 miles away in another church yrd.....

Just being slightly pedantic, a headstone in itself isn't proof of where someone is buried. My 2x great grandfather is named on memorials at the 'guinea grave' where he was buried and at a later family grave elsewhere in the same cemetery, and he can't be in both of them. My wife has also come across a memorial in Kent to someone who was buried in the USA.

If the headstone says "Here lies...." etc it might be correct - but if it was erected some years later then the information on it may only be as good as the memory/assumptions of the person responsible.

[iluleah]

You are correct re headstones, however as children myself and cousins always thought and was told he was buried there as the grave stone 'said so' as did the family. Research later on proves he isn't and it really was to prove a point ( same as you are) ONLY real primary records can 'prove' one way or another, not transcriptions, not secondary records, not trees online or family stories.......... and even primary records can be wrong but they are the best we have.