Author Topic: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by  (Read 893 times)

Offline plug44

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • constantly correcting
    • View Profile
burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« on: Friday 27 July 18 05:04 BST (UK) »
Hello,
       First post here for me and hoping someone may have an answer. I  have a issue which has been hanging about for a long time. My wife's mother Peggy futter b,1929 Norfolk daughter of Alfred futter b.1903 son of supposed James futter b???? my wife only knew her grandfather as futter and knows the whereabouts of his and wife's unmarked grave, however they were buried under the name of porter not futter! also their death certs informants were son (futter) and daughter in law, how can this be, more to the point why would this be, my wife is pretty concerned, also her male cousin has a tree based on futter, I think it could all be wrong, any explanations very welcome. We only have one family member of my wife's mothers generation alive, but only by marriage to her brother, she may not be a futter but a porter, and is stumped.
lodge forest of Dean, yorkshire
odling
everson
futter
fulcher
moore

Offline amondg

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,348
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #1 on: Friday 27 July 18 06:45 BST (UK) »
New GRO Index
Alfred James FUTTER was registered Erpingham District 1903 mothers maiden name ROWE

FreeBMD
Deleted entry

ADDED Have you considered the Norfolk accent it can be quite pronounced to the untrained ear.

Offline BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,623
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #2 on: Friday 27 July 18 07:01 BST (UK) »
Just a thought - I'm wondering whether there is an error in the burial book - could Porter be the owner of the grave, rather than the occupant.  Looking at the 1939 Register, it is possible that Alfred worked for a Mr Porter  :-\ :-\
Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline amondg

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,348
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #3 on: Friday 27 July 18 08:26 BST (UK) »
Maybe this is the explanation
1901 census Knapton Norfolk

James Porter ag lab 43 Steward on Farm born Saxlingham
Elisa 41  born Alby 
Frederick Joseph Rowe 18 stepson  born Erpingham
Ethel age 5 step daughter
Hilda E age 2 Step daughter

I looked at the image its definitely written Porter.

1911 Elisa is Futter and the ages are right


Offline amondg

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,348
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #4 on: Friday 27 July 18 08:35 BST (UK) »
There is a James Porter who married an Eliza Rowe 1899 Smallburgh registration district.
 
I think you need this marriage certificate in case of a transcription error.


Offline BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,623
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #5 on: Friday 27 July 18 08:45 BST (UK) »
1911 - Hilda is now aged 12.

1911 again - said to be married for 22 years, but there has been an alteration, as it could also be read as 12 years.



Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline amondg

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,348
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #6 on: Friday 27 July 18 09:01 BST (UK) »
1891 census  Frederick Joseph Rowe  is living with Charlotte Rowe (to be determined)

Registration in Aylsham
Frederick Joseph Kerrison Rowe 1883 Aylsham
Florence Ethel Futter Rowe 1896 Aylsham
Hilda Ella Rowe 1899 Aylsham
No mother maiden name listed for any of them, indicates illegitimate.

The Kerrison in Frederick's name could indicate his father
The Futter in Florence Ethel's name could indicate her father.

Offline plug44

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • constantly correcting
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #7 on: Friday 27 July 18 09:17 BST (UK) »
thank you for all your replies, I am somewhat overwhelmed now, suffice to say that I will have to digest all your replies and find a way of compiling an answer which will hopefully make sense. I am certain my wife who did visit james futter and elizas grave did so in the belief that they were futters, of course a cover up may be in place, and her mother knew, perhaps illegitimacy, the 1911 census started this off for me as I couldn't find a marriage, although it says 22 yrs, I think eliza had been married before and the age of james on the census has been altered, I will come back after putting some other facts in place.
lodge forest of Dean, yorkshire
odling
everson
futter
fulcher
moore

Offline Annette7

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,011
    • View Profile
Re: burial book shows surnames different that they were known by
« Reply #8 on: Friday 27 July 18 10:10 BST (UK) »
If the tree you are referring to is by a Darryl I definitely think it is wrong.

They have James Futter as born circa 1857 Gt. Yarmouth and death in Gt. Yarmouth registered Mar.qtr.1911 which is definitely wrong as 'your' James was still alive for 1911 census in April and certainly not born in GY.

At the moment it definitely looks like for some reason James Futter was previously a James Porter.  Got to go out now so can't check further at the moment.

Annette
Scopes (One-Name Study - Worldwide)
Suffolk - Grist, Knights, Bullenthorpe, Watcham
Scotland - Spence, Horne, Cowan, Moffat
London -  Monk

Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.   Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow.   Just walk beside me and be my friend.

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk