Yates query

[jonw65]

Haven't found any baptisms to Thomas + Mary Ann Yates so far. Or a marriage.
On 20 Nov 1889 at St John Walworth, a double baptism - John Yates and Priscilla Yates, parents John and Mary Ann. Father a Carman. Abode 11 Liscott Street.
Just thought I'd throw it in!

[jonw65]

Here are the Bavins in 1901.
Baven on here for some reason, it's quite clearly Bavin on the original
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9HS-L57

Son John, 11, born Westcott St
No sign of a Thomas, or a Priscilla! Could Liscott Street have been an error for Westcott on those baptisms - though they may not be connected - I can't find any such street.

[jonw65]

Anyway, Charles Bavin, 22, Carman, is at 41 Westcott Street in 1891, and seemingly is not Mr. Yates!
Age is wrong on this transcription
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QHNS-XZM

[jonw65]

1890 electoral register has
John Bavin at 41 Westcott Street
William Slade at 11 Westcott Street
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9FL-39JZ-2?i=294&cc=2228170

It seems possible that Mary Ann Slade was in a relationship with, but not married to, Mr Yates, and had son John. Then she married Charles Bavin, and John appears as Bavin in the 1901 and 1911 census.
If you think this is plausible, you may need that 1889 St Saviour birth certificate for John.
John

[keyboard86]

Hi cannot figure out yet where the children are but in 1901 Wallingford is a G A Edginton 32 occ Charwoman Lunatic with a J Eggleton 35 and G Edginton 29 b Wokingham
Census ref RG13/1138/134/11
Only a posible though for her!
Keyboard86

[daveroot]

Thanks for all your help - especially with the Yates/Bavin possibilities. What concerns me though is if Jonw65 is correct and Jon appears as Bavin in the 1901 and 1911 censuses, why then is he married as John Yates later in 1911 with his father listed on the certificate as Charles YATES, and when a Bavin is one of the witnesses?

[daveroot]

The more I've looked into it, the more likely I think the Bavin connection is. The names all fit; it can't just be coincidence that John's mother was a Mary Ann Slade, and there's a Mary Ann Slade married to a Charles Bavin whose son is witness to John's wedding. Also, in the 1911 census, number of years married is given as 24, yet we know Charles and Mary married in 1892 - perhaps this was done for John's sake as he was 22 then. I still don't fully understand John's mc - if he knew he had been born out of wedlock to a Yates then I can see he might want to honour that, but why would his father be down as Charles Yates when  that man is Charles Bavin - wouldn't that be fraud or didn't they check things particularly closely then?

[jonw65]

Hi
I don't think they needed to prove who they were. It's not unusual to see dodgy details for the father! It's seems to be an amalgam of two people, father and step father.
Of course we only know what Charles Bavin put down on the census form. John could have been known as Yates rather than Bavin in everyday life.

A sensational development! Possibly.
Looking for that older brother Thomas Yates - I thought he must have died before 1901, but it appears not (can't see a death under Yates or Bavin or even Slade)
Could this be him, and father Thomas in 1901
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9H8-8LK

His place of birth is different in the next census. Father Thomas a Carman.
Looking at birth registrations of the younger children, Louisa's maiden name is Monger
And Thomas Yates, a Carman, married Louisa Monger at St John Waltworth, 22 May 1891.

That's less than two months after we saw Thomas and Mary (hopefully nee Slade) in Bermondsey in the census.
Louisa appears to be with her father William the wood chopper in the 1891 census (as Munger).
So it's possible that Thomas Yates and Mary Ann Slade broke up, found new partners, and divided their two children between them? Slightly unusual perhaps.
John