RootsChat.Com

Cheers, Cidermaker!
Ronald Williamson was a vicar - unmarried.
Beatrice Helen does have offspring - am battling with them at moment!!
Thank you so much for the leads - and that the one added LAMPLOUGH - wonder if that was for inheritance purposes?  Ummmmm
Thank you!  Jacqui

Hello, Is this lady known to you or in your tree?
At a local family history helpdesk a gentleman is trying to find any relative of the above lady who was born 1871 and died in Water Orton in 1967.  She spent most of her life in London/south-east, she was unmarried.  At some point after 1939 she moved to Water Orton in Warwickshire and lived with seemingly unrelated people.  Her probate was to a retired bank manager, Robert Geo Kimberley BAKER and to Helen Edith EDWARDS (whom she had lived with at Water Orton).
Any links or leads would be appreciated.  The enquirer has useful information for her relatives.

Hello list

Overnight, Suzie allowed me sight of the assembled copy records [thank you everyone for sharing] and this is my personal conclusion...

Elsie Jane is born as that.  The first occurrence of her as Elspet Jane is her marriage, and from then on, on official documents, she is Elspet Jane.  Why?  Did she dislike Elsie and revert to Elspet?  Or did the minister at her marriage suggest/decide that Elsie was the diminutive form of Elspet and that Elspet is what she SHOULD use "officially"?  There is no doubt that Elsie Jane is Elspet Jane from evidence of age, birth registration, parents on census, etc.

But why was ‘Elspet Jane’ given as Elsie Jane’s mother?  Elsie Jane and her sisters (from their marriages) knew their mother was “plain Jane”.  My personal take is that either the minister, or the registrar, made an error and simply used the bride’s name also as the mother’s name.  Once set in ink, it was taken as being hard evidence…until proved otherwise.  And that proving was only possible thanks to help of several Listers!

It boils down to not relying on one single record - even of "official" one - without supporting evidence!  And this copy marriage registration had two misleading items, so pick every document apart and find other evidence because even registrars and clerics can get it wrong when copying details!

Jacqui

Hi everyone

Could this all be caused by minister/registrar in 1900s deciding that Elsie must be a nick-name and that Elsie's real name ought to be Elspet?  When transcribing you come across nicknames, or family names ... and now and then a minister will decide that it really ought to be "a proper name" so Sukey becomes Susannah, Sally to Sarah...and in my family, Maggie became Margaret...!

Mumblings...

Jacqui

Very many thanks indeed.  I think I have done the personal reply properly!!

I do so hope that this is the right couple...in wrong place, but right names!  No right names found elsewhere in even a vaguely appropriate time frame!

Jacqui