RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: mikegh1109 on Monday 31 December 18 15:04 GMT (UK)
-
For me an amateur this has me stumped but maybe someone more experienced can help out. My great grandfather was William Hollis, born Etwall Derbyshire in 1853. From his marriage certificate of 1882 I know his father was George Hollis, a joiner. I recently got William's birth certificate in which his mother's name is Hannah Hollis but the boxes for the name of the father and father's profession are blank. I realise this could mean that William was illegitimate, but why would his mother Hannah register herself as Hannah Hollis if she wasn't married to George at the time? Or is there another reason why the father's boxes are blank? Many thanks.
Mike
-
Welocme to rootschat :).
I suspect that the probability is that William SAID his father was George Hollis; often illegitimate children gave a grandfather's name or a fictitious name as father on a marriage certificate.
Have you found Hannah on censuses before William's birth?
-
Hi and welcome to Roots chat one reason could be Hollis was Hannah's maiden name and William could have supplied a father figure name and occupation stepfather uncle or grandfather or could have made it up to cover up that he was illegitimate
As for the father's name being blank on the birth cert unless the father accompanied the mother and registered the birth with her his name couldn't be added if they weren't married
-
Yes, if you find Hannah (and her son, of course) in censuses earlier and later, that should sort it out.
If in 1851 and 1841 Hannah is Hollis, then that's her maiden name.
Finding both Hannah and her son in later censuses can help narrow down her birth year.
If you find Hannah with her father as George Hollis, it doesn't imply incest, but that William used his name later as father, either because he was brought up as Hannah's sibling, because he thought of George as his father rather than Grandfather, or simply because he didn't wish on marriage to draw attention to his lack of father.
Don't fret, we all have problems like that encountered at an early stage.
-
A possibility - there may be a connection to a Pegg family [head is George]
1851 HO107; Piece: 2011; Folio: 262; Page: 23
George Pegg 45
Sarah Pegg 44
Hannah Pegg 15
James Pegg 22
Ann Pegg 23
Ann Bottom 69
1861 RG 9; Piece: 1960; Folio: 33; Page: 20
George Pegg 55
Sarah Pegg 53
Herbert Brooke 49 [should be 29] son in law
Hannah Brooke 24 daughter
Sarah Brooke 2
Fanny Brooke 7/12
William Hollis 8 visitor
1871 RG10; Piece: 2898; Folio: 37; Page: 22
George Pegg 66
Hannah Brooks 34
Frances Brookes 9
William Hollis 18 lodger
-
Oh, and welcome to Rootschat. You'll find some real experts ( not me!) who will be able to help you to get really stuck in to family history.
-
Welcome from me too.
Herbert Brooks married Hannah Pegg, Sep qtr 1857 Burton in Trent.
Perhaps Hannah Pegg was the mother & she’d had William by George Hollis without marrying him?
-
Yes I agree; a baptism would be a good find.
ADDED: Found it
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KB61-QYK
-
Yes I agree; a baptism would be a good find.
ADDED: Found it
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KB61-QYK
That is a good find.
Hannah was baptised 31 July 1836 at Etwall as Hannah Pegge, daughter of George and Sarah. So she would have been about 16 or 17 when William was born.
-
Many thanks to you all, a bit overwhelmed by such helpful and friendly support. I hadn't thought of William "making up" a father's name but a quick google about the shame of illegitimacy in those days helps explain why he might. I'll follow up on censuses and baptism suggestions. I think I've been too focused on finding (unsuccessfully) the mysterious George who might not even exist I suppose .
Josey - yes, I found William with the Pegg family and thought it a bit odd that in two consecutive censuses a child was not living with his parent(s). But maybe Hannah couldn't afford to keep him which would be consistent with the illegitimacy possibility. Anyway, this has been a great help and has opened up new avenues to research.
Happy New Year to you all.
-
If Hannah Hollis was Hannah Pegg she may not even have told her husband that she had had a child before she married him so her parents didn't claim William on the census as a grandson, but put him as a visitor then lodger. Herbert Brookes was born in Hilton - this was the next village but he may not have known Hannah in 1853.
However, a local vicar would not have let Hannah Pegg call herself Hannah Hollis for the baptism unless he thought she had married, but again she could have said she had married out of the parish & had become a widow very soon.
-
Hannah and Herbert Are not living together by 1871, herbert is living with Sarah and another daughter Hannah.
Jennifer
-
Again, thanks for the baptism information and the thought that Hannah Pegg might have been William's mother by a George Hollis. That's another possibility I need to explore. But in that case wouldn't Hannah Pegg have recorded her name as Hannah Pegg on William's birth certificate, instead of which it's recorded as Hannah Hollis? Would it have been legal for her to use the father's surname as her own if she wasn't married to him?
-
It’s not unlawful to use any name in England if you’re not using it for fraud etc. In family history in any case it’s always much less about legal technicalities and much more about human behaviour, and in particular the need to appear respectable. People often pretended to be married or widowed when they were not, if it saved their blushes about a child born out of wedlock. This was (obviously) easier to get away with in a place where one was unknown, and harder in one’s home parish.
We don’t yet have any clear evidence that Hannah Pegg was the mother, just a circumstantial finding that the child appears with her family. Unfortunately I can’t see anything about a paternity claim in relation to William’s birth in online newspapers - sometimes this is how we can clinch these cases.
-
Another possibility is William could have been boarded out to the Peggs and raised by them they maybe no relation to his birth mum and just a coincidence the Pegg's have a daughter Hannah
I think it would be unlikely a 16/17 year old would be able to convince the local vicar she had been married and widowed to be able to christen her son under Hollis
-
The baptism register entry image is on Ancestry. There's a big B next to the entry, as there is later on the page for another "mother only" baptism
-
The baptism register entry image is on Ancestry. There's a big B next to the entry, as there is later on the page for another "mother only" baptism
Ah yes. So nobody was pretending this was anything other than a birth out of wedlock.
-
In 1841 there is a 7 year old Hannah Hollis living with possibly her mother and siblings at Burton upon Trent which is just over 7 miles away Possibly the same Hannah who marries Samuel Bailey in 1862 in Walton upon Trent father William
-
We don’t yet have any clear evidence that Hannah Pegg was the mother, just a circumstantial finding that the child appears with her family.
Absolutely, she is only a possiblity at the moment.
Ahh, Wendy, I didn't find that Hannah Hollis so another candidate.
I see from the baptism image that Hannah Hollis' abode was Etwall at that time. ADDED: She has no occupation unlike the other 2 'mother only' baptisms who are servants, might this indicate that she is fairly young?
-
Well, I need to go and have a think about all this but on the basis of the all the help I've received, at the moment my leaning is towards William "inventing" the name George Hollis on the marriage certificate, (possibly after George Pegg, who would have possibly been the nearest thing to a father?), and combined it with his mother, Hannah Hollis, to disguise his illegitimacy. (Where the occupation joiner came from I do not know). Hannah could conceivably have boarded William to the Peggs for financial reasons. Hannah Pegg is not William's mother though I realise I have to remain open-minded about that.
I suppose my next task is to try and follow my ancestry through Hannah Hollis though if anyone would suggest anything else, or disagree with my thinking above, I'd be grateful. I've learned a lot today thanks to you guys but I'll leave it now till next year!
Many thanks again and Happy New Year.
-
if you have aa Ancestry subscription there are a couple of trees with the Hannah Hollis who married Samuel Bailey you could check they have and cross check with records you can find they maybe able to rule out this Hannah and good luck with your research
-
I hadn't thought of William "making up" a father's name but a quick google about the shame of illegitimacy in those days helps explain why he might. I'll follow up on censuses and baptism suggestions. I think I've been too focused on finding (unsuccessfully) the mysterious George who might not even exist I suppose .
I've twice wasted much time (but fortunately no money) on searching for invented fathers. One was the baby's grandfather, the other a combination of forename of step-GF and the mother's surname. There were several illegitimate children in 2 generations of this family.
One boy, first child of eldest daughter, born when she was 19 seemed to have been brought up by his grandparents and named his grandfather as his father on his marriage certificate and called his eldest son after him.
A girl, youngest child born to a woman who was either widowed or deserted, was registered with mother's husband's surname as mother's maiden name but father's box on birth certificate was blank (1858). The widow married again in July 1861. The mother's youngest child and her 2 illegitimate grandchildren are both on 1871 census with her 2nd husband's surname and relationship as his daughters and son. The 2nd husband was dead before 1881 census and the 3 young people had reverted to their original surnames and correct relationships. When the daughter married she put as her father, her mother's first husband (the dead/disappeared one) and his occupation. The grandchildren used the made-up combination names of their surname and their step-GF's forename plus his occupation at their marriages . Each called a son after the made-up grandfather. (There should be a "confused" emoticon.)
-
Josey - yes, I found William with the Pegg family and thought it a bit odd that in two consecutive censuses a child was not living with his parent(s). But maybe Hannah couldn't afford to keep him which would be consistent with the illegitimacy possibility.
Bear in mind that a census return is only a "snapshot" of a household on one day at 10 year intervals.
-
A possibility - there may be a connection to a Pegg family [head is George]
1851 HO107; Piece: 2011; Folio: 262; Page: 23
George Pegg 45
Sarah Pegg 44
Hannah Pegg 15
James Pegg 22
Ann Pegg 23
Ann Bottom 69
1861 RG 9; Piece: 1960; Folio: 33; Page: 20
George Pegg 55
Sarah Pegg 53
Herbert Brooke 49 [should be 29] son in law
Hannah Brooke 24 daughter
Sarah Brooke 2
Fanny Brooke 7/12
William Hollis 8 visitor
1871 RG10; Piece: 2898; Folio: 37; Page: 22
George Pegg 66
Hannah Brooks 34
Frances Brookes 9
William Hollis 18 lodger
The 1841: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7SG-G54
Was William a bricklayer in 1881: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27K-BPPK
Little Brooks:
BROOK, HARRIET mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1853 M Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 238
BROOKS, SARAH mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1858 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 286
BROOKS, FRANCIS mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1857 D Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 243 Order
BROOKS, GEORGE mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1860 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 294
BROOKS, FRANCES mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1860 D Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 265
BROOKS, WILLIAM mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1861 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 288
I wonder why William HOLLIS isn’t on the early censuses as grandson. I’ve seen many instances of illegitimate children down as grandchildren of head of household.
Jamjar
-
it may be that his father was George and the registrar just assumed the surnames matched
My great great grandfather (George Fido) was illegitamate, his father (from baptism) is Thomas Williams however one of his marriage certificates the father is down as Thomas Fido (who doesn't exist) on another it's Thomas Williams (George was widowed) - all I can think of is on one marriage he was asked for his father's name and said Thomas and they wrote it down assuming they had the same Surname
-
A possibility - there may be a connection to a Pegg family [head is George]
1851 HO107; Piece: 2011; Folio: 262; Page: 23
George Pegg 45
Sarah Pegg 44
Hannah Pegg 15
James Pegg 22
Ann Pegg 23
Ann Bottom 69
1861 RG 9; Piece: 1960; Folio: 33; Page: 20
George Pegg 55
Sarah Pegg 53
Herbert Brooke 49 [should be 29] son in law
Hannah Brooke 24 daughter
Sarah Brooke 2
Fanny Brooke 7/12
William Hollis 8 visitor
1871 RG10; Piece: 2898; Folio: 37; Page: 22
George Pegg 66
Hannah Brooks 34
Frances Brookes 9
William Hollis 18 lodger
The 1841: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7SG-G54
Was William a bricklayer in 1881: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27K-BPPK
Little Brooks:
BROOK, HARRIET mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1853 M Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 238
BROOKS, SARAH mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1858 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 286
BROOKS, FRANCIS mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1857 D Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 243 Order
BROOKS, GEORGE mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1860 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 294
BROOKS, FRANCES mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1860 D Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 265
BROOKS, WILLIAM mmn PEGG
GRO Reference: 1861 J Quarter in BURTON UPON TRENT Volume 06B Page 288
I wonder why William HOLLIS isn’t on the early censuses as grandson. I’ve seen many instances of illegitimate children down as grandchildren of head of household.
Jamjar
Many thanks for all this. Yes, William was a bricklayer and he's the one you've identified. It's a possibility that his mother, Hannah Hollis, boarded him out to the Pegg family. As a single mother of an illegitimate child, she may not have been able to support him. But that's pure speculation on my part. I believe William's baptism record makes it clear he was illegitimate so it was no secret - so no reason for him to be recorded as a grandson, if that's what you mean. And there's nothing (so far) to suggest that William was related to the Peggs but I'll be keeping that possibility in mind.
-
it may be that his father was George and the registrar just assumed the surnames matched
My great great grandfather (George Fido) was illegitamate, his father (from baptism) is Thomas Williams however one of his marriage certificates the father is down as Thomas Fido (who doesn't exist) on another it's Thomas Williams (George was widowed) - all I can think of is on one marriage he was asked for his father's name and said Thomas and they wrote it down assuming they had the same Surname
Thanks. More food for thought! That's possible. But I've been unable to find a George Hollis who fits.
-
if you have aa Ancestry subscription there are a couple of trees with the Hannah Hollis who married Samuel Bailey you could check they have and cross check with records you can find they maybe able to rule out this Hannah and good luck with your research
Thanks for this tip. Yes, I do have and Ancestry subscription so I'll do as you suggest.
-
Another possibility is William could have been boarded out to the Peggs and raised by them they maybe no relation to his birth mum and just a coincidence the Pegg's have a daughter Hannah
I think it would be unlikely a 16/17 year old would be able to convince the local vicar she had been married and widowed to be able to christen her son under Hollis
Thanks Wendy. As things stand, this is where I am at the moment in terms of the likeliest explanation. But more digging to be done
-
Josey - yes, I found William with the Pegg family and thought it a bit odd that in two consecutive censuses a child was not living with his parent(s). But maybe Hannah couldn't afford to keep him which would be consistent with the illegitimacy possibility.
Bear in mind that a census return is only a "snapshot" of a household on one day at 10 year intervals.
Thanks for this cautionary note Josey. I think it's reasonable speculation, but just speculation nonetheless!
-
I hadn't thought of William "making up" a father's name but a quick google about the shame of illegitimacy in those days helps explain why he might. I'll follow up on censuses and baptism suggestions. I think I've been too focused on finding (unsuccessfully) the mysterious George who might not even exist I suppose .
I've twice wasted much time (but fortunately no money) on searching for invented fathers. One was the baby's grandfather, the other a combination of forename of step-GF and the mother's surname. There were several illegitimate children in 2 generations of this family.
One boy, first child of eldest daughter, born when she was 19 seemed to have been brought up by his grandparents and named his grandfather as his father on his marriage certificate and called his eldest son after him.
A girl, youngest child born to a woman who was either widowed or deserted, was registered with mother's husband's surname as mother's maiden name but father's box on birth certificate was blank (1858). The widow married again in July 1861. The mother's youngest child and her 2 illegitimate grandchildren are both on 1871 census with her 2nd husband's surname and relationship as his daughters and son. The 2nd husband was dead before 1881 census and the 3 young people had reverted to their original surnames and correct relationships. When the daughter married she put as her father, her mother's first husband (the dead/disappeared one) and his occupation. The grandchildren used the made-up combination names of their surname and their step-GF's forename plus his occupation at their marriages . Each called a son after the made-up grandfather. (There should be a "confused" emoticon.)
Emoticon agreed! I suppose I'm lucky in just starting out on all of this that I've been made aware of the possibility of invented fathers, something that would never have occurred to me. On the other hand, it's made me aware that family research isn't just about finding out names but gives an insight into social attitudes of the times. I was aware like most people that there was a shame about illegitimacy in a family back then but what I didn't realise was that this stigma was carried by the (innocent) child throughout their life, to the extent that they might fictionalise their father! Very informative.
-
Yes there are plenty more variations on the theme. A ggg-grandmother of mine registered a son as though he was born to her and her husband - problem being that the husband had died several years earlier. Helpfully she gave the child middle names which pointed to a particular local man being the natural father, and indeed she later went on to marry that man.
I feel rather envious of anyone just starting out on this “journey” - so many discoveries await :)
-
I've today been alerted to a profile on WikiTree of a sister of 2 of the mothers of illegitimate offspring whom I mentioned in my reply #21. (They each had 2 children born out of wedlock and the eldest sister came to the notice of the authorities who wanted to send her back to the village where she was born because she was "a Singlewoman great with child & poor".) The WikiTree profile is an "orphan" i.e. no profile manager, so I've adopted it. The 3 sisters were from a family of 13 children. At least one other sister had a child before marriage, plus there's a mystery toddler on 1841 census who has no birth
registration or baptism and no record of existence post 1841. Where are those confused emoticons?
Edit. You might look at bastardy bonds or quarter sessions petitions for affiliation & maintenance orders. (I turned up only one mention among all the possibilities for my lasses.)
-
As for the father's name being blank on the birth cert unless the father accompanied the mother and registered the birth with her his name couldn't be added if they weren't married
The requirement for father of an illegitimate child to be present at registration if his name was to be included on birth certificate dates from 1874.
An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths in England 1874 (37 & 38 Victoria); Clause 7.
-
Following this one with interest… quite a mystery!
Here’s another possibility to throw into the mix. In 1841 there is a Hannah Hollis (Mollis on Anc*) aged 15, a servant at Elvaston, Shardlow, and in the same household is Elizabeth Pegg 50, shown as visitor but then crossed out.
With the 1841 roundings Hannah’s age could be anything up to 19, so a possible baptism for her is at Radbourne, St Andrew on 26 Jan 1823, Hannah, spurious daughter of Margaret Hollis.
I notice that Sarah Pegg [nee Bottom] was also born in Radbourne, and there is a marriage in Radbourne in 1821 of a Hester Bottom to Joseph Appleby, with one of the witnesses being Margaret Hollis.
Hester Bottom b1804 & Sarah Bottom b1807 were sisters, their parents being Henry & Ann
Unfortunately I completely lose track of Margaret Hollis after Hannah’s birth, but she does seem to provide a link between the Hollis, Bottom & Pegg families.
ADDED: Possible baptism for her at Dudleston, Shropshire:
5 Dec 1802 Margaret d/o Thomas & Hannah Hollis
-
Well that's all food for thought, Jomot.
-
Following this one with interest… quite a mystery!
Here’s another possibility to throw into the mix. In 1841 there is a Hannah Hollis (Mollis on Anc*) aged 15, a servant at Elvaston, Shardlow, and in the same household is Elizabeth Pegg 50, shown as visitor but then crossed out.
With the 1841 roundings Hannah’s age could be anything up to 19, so a possible baptism for her is at Radbourne, St Andrew on 26 Jan 1823, Hannah, spurious daughter of Margaret Hollis.
I notice that Sarah Pegg [nee Bottom] was also born in Radbourne, and there is a marriage in Radbourne in 1821 of a Hester Bottom to Joseph Appleby, with one of the witnesses being Margaret Hollis.
Hester Bottom b1804 & Sarah Bottom b1807 were sisters, their parents being Henry & Ann
Unfortunately I completely lose track of Margaret Hollis after Hannah’s birth, but she does seem to provide a link between the Hollis, Bottom & Pegg families.
ADDED: Possible baptism for her at Dudleston, Shropshire:
5 Dec 1802 Margaret d/o Thomas & Hannah Hollis
Well that's introduced another dimension. However, forgive my ignorance, but in your third paragraph you say:
"With the 1841 roundings Hannah’s age could be anything up to 19, so a possible baptism for her is at Radbourne, St Andrew on 26 Jan 1823, Hannah, spurious daughter of Margaret Hollis".
What do you mean by 1841 roundings and how can these mean she could be up to 19yo? Also by "spurious daughter" do you mean that Margaret could have falsely presented Hannah as her own daughter?
-
In the the 1841 census ages of adults were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5, so a 19 year old would be recorded as 15.
Spurious daughter means illegitimate.
-
In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as age 20, and a person age 59 would be listed as 55. In practice, many census officials either did not round down at all or only rounded down for higher ages, such as over 20, or (less frequently) rounded down ages below 15. In general, the age of a person under 15 is probably accurate to within a year or two. For persons over 15, any age that is not a multiple of 5 is likely also to be accurate – for example, if a person is listed as 27, he or she probably really is 27 or thereabouts, rather than 25. The area you have to be careful of is persons over age 15 whose age is a multiple of 5 – they may be up to 4 years younger than their census listing shows – so if your ancestor is listed as 50, remember that he or she is likely actually between the ages of 50 and 54. This, of course, does not even take into account the errors made by census officials and family members reporting the ages of others ! Finally, if the age of a person was unknown, children were supposed to be recorded as “under 20” and adults as “over 20”.
As for 'spurious daughter' it seems to imply illegitimacy; would be worth looking st the actual parish register to see if other 'mother only' baptisms were marked as 'spurious'. Ministers/vicars had various ways of indicating the fact [and their opinions] on illegitimate births.
Crossed in the post Jomot but decided to post anyway....
-
Just in case Margaret Hollis is the correct mother for Hannah, I’ve found a possible candidate for her. In 1881 she’s at Oak Cottage, Oswestry, Shropshire, aged 78, unmarried, born New Marton & living as aunt to a family called Richardson. Children of the family include Margaret Hollis Richardson 1871 (mmn Hollis) and Mary Hannah Richardson 1868.
Working back, 1841-1871 she is working for the Park/Yates family in Ince, Cheshire
In 1841 aged 30, not born in county
In 1851 aged 45 & born Newmarton
In 1861 aged 55 & born Ellesmere
In 1871 aged 65 & born Ellesmere
Searching for baptisms for Margaret Hollis in Shropshire 1806 +/-5 years brings up only the one mentioned previously, in Dudlestone, which Google tells me was in Ellesmere parish.
Margaret died in 1881 leaving a will, one of the executors (Edward Wynne Griffith) being the husband of one of the Park family.
-
In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as age 20, and a person age 59 would be listed as 55. In practice, many census officials either did not round down at all or only rounded down for higher ages, such as over 20, or (less frequently) rounded down ages below 15. In general, the age of a person under 15 is probably accurate to within a year or two. For persons over 15, any age that is not a multiple of 5 is likely also to be accurate – for example, if a person is listed as 27, he or she probably really is 27 or thereabouts, rather than 25. The area you have to be careful of is persons over age 15 whose age is a multiple of 5 – they may be up to 4 years younger than their census listing shows – so if your ancestor is listed as 50, remember that he or she is likely actually between the ages of 50 and 54. This, of course, does not even take into account the errors made by census officials and family members reporting the ages of others ! Finally, if the age of a person was unknown, children were supposed to be recorded as “under 20” and adults as “over 20”.
As for 'spurious daughter' it seems to imply illegitimacy; would be worth looking st the actual parish register to see if other 'mother only' baptisms were marked as 'spurious'. Ministers/vicars had various ways of indicating the fact [and their opinions] on illegitimate births.
Crossed in the post Jomot but decided to post anyway....
Thanks to you and Jomot for the explanations. We live and learn!
-
Yes, I'm pleased that we all do; and much of the 'learning' for me comes from wonderful RC people and their experience!!
-
it may be that his father was George and the registrar just assumed the surnames matched
My great great grandfather (George Fido) was illegitamate, his father (from baptism) is Thomas Williams however one of his marriage certificates the father is down as Thomas Fido (who doesn't exist) on another it's Thomas Williams (George was widowed) - all I can think of is on one marriage he was asked for his father's name and said Thomas and they wrote it down assuming they had the same Surname
Thanks. More food for thought! That's possible. But I've been unable to find a George Hollis who fits.
I was meaning that the father could be George something else - maybe even the George Pegg he's with on two censuses as a child
-
In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as 20 ...
Instead of "round up" in the first sentence it ought to have been round down, as the rest of the post explained.
My 3xGGM, then aged 19 years and 2 months, was recorded on 1841 census as 15. Her future husband and father of her baby was down as 20 years old but may have been 23.
-
How old was Hannah Hollis when William was born?
-
it may be that his father was George and the registrar just assumed the surnames matched
My great great grandfather (George Fido) was illegitamate, his father (from baptism) is Thomas Williams however one of his marriage certificates the father is down as Thomas Fido (who doesn't exist) on another it's Thomas Williams (George was widowed) - all I can think of is on one marriage he was asked for his father's name and said Thomas and they wrote it down assuming they had the same Surname
Thanks. More food for thought! That's possible. But I've been unable to find a George Hollis who fits.
I was meaning that the father could be George something else - maybe even the George Pegg he's with on two censuses as a child
Yes I understand what you mean now. Thanks
-
How old was Hannah Hollis when William was born?
Unfortunately I don't yet know who precisely Hannah Hollis is. I only found out her name a couple of weeks ago when I obtained William's birth certificate. There have been one or two possibilities given by the helpful folks on here but no firm conclusion. Sorry I can't give you an answer. I would love one myself!