1939 Register Codes and changes in surname

[carol8353]

We are talking about the 19th century where many enumerators did not ask for spelling of names, so someone saying "Chumley" would get that on their census form, even birth registration.  The number of ways that some of my relations are spelled defies imagination sometimes...and it has taken other people patience to find and decode them for me!

The 1939 register was taken in the 20th century- almost in the middle of it 

[lydiaann]

I know, but [Ray] had put in military information from the 1890s, which might suggest earlier errors...just thinking out loud!

[JenB]

I know, but [Ray] had put in military information from the 1890s, which might suggest earlier errors...just thinking out loud!

But the military info. was from WW1 not the 1890’s. As far as I can see he appears as Chumley up-to and including (originally) the 1939 register, including marriage and the birth of his daughter. That’s far too many times,surely, to be a phonetic rendering of Cholmondeley?

[lydiaann]

Maybe, who knows? (I think I was looking at dobs).   I think we're probably nit-picking here and anyway it's time I went and made a cuppa, otherwise Himself will nick all the Christmas cake when I'm not in the kitchen!  Names, places - they're all so fascinating and so many people see different sides of stories all the time, it's always difficult to know who's right and who's wrong.  I bow to superior knowledge as always. 

[Gan Yam]

Is he the same Samuel Douglas Chumley whose birth is registered Sept quarter 1896 in West Ham? If so seems to be a bit of variation in his dates of birth!
If he's the same person who married Daisy in 1941, he had changed the spelling before 1943.

[polarbear]

I was wondering about that 1896 birth reg as well. There doesn't appear to be an earlier reg and parents were married in 1891.

Assuming there is only one Samuel Douglas Chumley......

He is age is 4 and 14 on the censuses after his birth (so born 1896/7) and 21 when he marries for the first time in 1915 (so born 1893/4). Something seems odd? He does apparenly have a sister reg'd in J qtr 1893.

PB

[Gan Yam]

I was wondering about that 1896 birth reg as well. There doesn't appear to be an earlier reg and parents were married in 1891.

Assuming there is only one Samuel Douglas Chumley......

He is age is 4 and 14 on the censuses after his birth (so born 1896/7) and 21 when he marries for the first time in 1915 (so born 1893/4). Something seems odd? He does apparenly have a sister reg'd in J qtr 1893.

PB

If its the same one then there's possibly a brother in 1892, as well as his sister in 1893 and another sister in 1894. Definitely seems odd!

[heywood]

Perhaps he didn’t want to appear younger than Annie when he married and this continued into the marriage years.

[Gan Yam]

Perhaps he didn’t want to appear younger than Annie when he married and this continued into the marriage years.

Would he not have needed parental consent if he was under 21, another reason to add a few years to his age!