Surname puzzle GOODYEAR/KNIGHT Wield, Hants

[ValJJJ]

I'm wondering if anyone has any theories about this puzzle please.

I have an ancestor Henry Charles Goodyear b. 1871 who appears in the Knight household in census data.   It's possible Charles Knight was Henry Charles father but hard to know for sure.

I haven't seen any original parish records, just those transcripts from Ancestry and FindMyPast and found mother Emily Goodyear b. 1852 Old Arlesford, who married Charles Knight on 15 Apr 1871 in Wield. 

Then on 7 May 1871, Henry Charles was baptised, with the mother shown as Emily Goodyear, not Emily Knight.

I had thought that the dates might have been transcribed wrongly, or perhaps the marriage is actually the date of the banns with the marriage later than the baptism.

Or would the church make a judgement and decide that as the child was conceived and probably born out of wedlock, the mother's maiden name should be used?

Any theories?

Thanks.

Val

[avm228]

On what date in 1871 was Henry born?

[avm228]

Birth reg as Henry Charles Goodyear, no separate mother’s maiden name, Jun qtr 1871 Alresford.  The marriage was registered in the same quarter, same district.

How sure are you of the April marriage date? Might it have been a banns date instead? (Edit - sorry, I see you have already considered this).

[avm228]

The free index to the 1939 Register suggests his birthdate was 4 March 1871.

I wonder whether he is the 1 month old “Albert” Goodyear, with Emily and family in 1871, subsequently renamed before his birth registration and baptism?  The census date was 2 April 1871.

The fact that he took the Goodyear surname into his adult life suggests to me that Charles Knight was probably not his natural father.

[ValJJJ]

Thanks to you all - I should have thought about the 1939 register for the exact birthdate, which I didn't have.

I hadn't look back at Emily's family before her marriage, so not seen 'Albert'. He could well have become Henry Charles.  I wonder how often names changed before the baptism?  I've noticed in some census data that young children, even up to 4 months old old, have no name - just 'infant'. Wonder if these babies were really unnamed or whether the person at the house when the enumerator called just didn't know it ?

[avm228]

I think often people genuinely didn’t settle on a name until they needed to, for registration/baptism purposes.

[avm228]

Bear in mind also that the census enumeration process wasn’t an interview on the doorstep - the household return would be dropped round a few days before census day with instructions for completion, and collected a few days afterwards for transcription into the summary schedules.  The enumerator could assist with any problems the householder experienced with compliance (whether due to illiteracy or otherwise), but it was primarily a paper process.

[ValJJJ]

I worked as an enumerator on the 1981 census and often wondered how similar the job was then to that of previous years.   I had always thought the early census forms were filled in by the enumerator as the handwriting is the same throughout, or are we not seeing the originals from the household?  Wasn't the 1911 one the first where householders were let loose with the form that we can see today?

[avm228]

Up to & including 1901 we see the enumerator’s summary schedules - in other words, his transcription and consolidation of the household schedules which had been collected (and were later destroyed).  The transcription process itself will inadvertently have introduced errors - we will never know what the enumerator had to contend with in terms of poor handwriting, inkblots etc in the raw material he was working with.

The 1911 is the first one for which the household schedules have been preserved and published.