Author Topic: Strange registration  (Read 1370 times)

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Strange registration
« on: Monday 12 April 21 16:38 BST (UK) »
Thomas Kedge's first Sophia, wife died in January 1838 her burial record says she was 48 and a possible baptism for her was on 4 Jul 1791  then from the censuses
1841
Thomas KEDGE  50
Sarah  15
Louisa  8
/ Elizabeth BARNETT  30
Mary Ann  2
Elizabeth  4 m

1851
Thomas KEDGE 63
Elizabeth Wife  Mar  42
Mary A   Daur  12
Elizabeth  Daur  10
Emily  Daur   8
George  Son  6

Mary Ann and Elizabeth look like they are on both censuses  in 1841 as Barnett and in 1851 as Kedge
which looks like they were children of Elizabeth Barnett who has now "married " Thomas Kedge BUT
no such marriage has been found and there is this odd anomaly
The GRO Index for the children born after registration
Kedge Mary Ann no mother's name March qtr 1839
Kedge Elizabeth no mother's name March qtr 1841
Kedge Emily mother Barnett Dec qtr1843
Kedge George mother Barnett Sep qtr1846

No baptisms have been found for Sarah and Louise. But Sophia would have been 43 at the birth of Louisa

What I find so odd is the children with out a mother's name usually indicates base child of a mother withher surname but in this case it looks like they have the father's name and the mother is not listed. Can anyone suggest what the real story is please.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Offline josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,539
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #1 on: Monday 12 April 21 17:10 BST (UK) »
Do you have any of the birth certificates to see who registered the births?

I think that if Elizabeth Barnett registered the births, for Mary Ann & Elizabeth's registrations, she was maybe calling herself Kedge & wanted the children registered as such but didn't state a maiden name; by Emily & George's registrations she had the courage to call herself married with the 'married' name of Kedge & maiden name of Barnett.
Seeking: RC baptism Philip Murray Feb ish 1814 ? nr Chatham Kent.
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN, ENGLISHBY; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, WILLIAMS,DUNEVAN Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Halifax & Pictou: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON

Offline josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,539
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #2 on: Monday 12 April 21 17:34 BST (UK) »
Here is Sarah's baptism
Name:   Sarah Cage
Baptism Date:   21 Jan 1827 Uxbridge St Margaret, Hillingdon
Father:   Thomas Cage
Mother:   Sophia Cage
Register Type:   Parish Registers

Name:   Sarah Coger
Record Type:   Baptism
Baptism Date:   27 Jan 1827 Uxbridge St Margaret, Hillingdon
Father:   Thomas Coger
Mother:   Sophia Coger
Register Type:   Bishop's Transcript

The surname must have been misheard on the parish register [Cage for Kedge] then both name and date mistranscribed on the Bishop's Transcript. Thomas a gardener in both instances, as he is on census. Both images are available on ancestry.

ADDED: I cannot yet find a baptism for Louisa but I think Louisa Kedge married Adrian Hare in 1853 in Eton, there is a postem against Adrian Hall on freebmd saying Hall is probably a mistranscription for Hare from the parish register
Marriages Dec 1853 
Field    Thomas        Eton    3a   554    
Hall    Adrian        Eton    3a   554     Postem  "of the opinion that this was a transcription error from the original parish register entry. This should read 'Hare' instead of Hall because Adrian Hare married Louisa Kedge"
KEDGE    Louisa        Eton    3a   554    
Tarrant    Eliza        Eton    3a   554   
Seeking: RC baptism Philip Murray Feb ish 1814 ? nr Chatham Kent.
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN, ENGLISHBY; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, WILLIAMS,DUNEVAN Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Halifax & Pictou: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #3 on: Monday 12 April 21 22:15 BST (UK) »
please forgive this late reply. Thank you very much this is a great help I would never have found them under those names but your explanation makes perfect sense .
I wonder if you can find two more possible children for Thomas and Sophia.
I have a group of two brothers with a father Thomas from their marriages and from a letter in a newspaper from the son of one talking about his uncle
These are William born about 1821 and Isaac born about 1824  in both cases their birth year has been derived from their ages on death.  William was a career soldier.
I am so very grateful for your help. :)
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.


Offline Jomot

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,566
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 13 April 21 01:59 BST (UK) »
There's also a weird thing the GRO does when both parents are named on the certificate but state they aren't married to each other - they index it under the father's surname but with no mmn.

In those instances I'd expect the FreeBMD entry to have both surnames, but perhaps they didn't do that in the early days of civil registration?
MORGAN: Glamorgan, Durham, Ohio. DAVIS/DAVIES/DAVID: Glamorgan, Ohio.  GIBSON: Leicestershire, Durham, North Yorkshire.  RAIN/RAINE: Cumberland.  TAYLOR: North Yorks. BOURDAS: North Yorks. JEFFREYS: Worcestershire & Northumberland. FORBES: Berwickshire, CHEESMOND: Durham/Northumberland. WINTER: Durham/Northumberland. SNOWBALL: Durham.

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 13 April 21 06:09 BST (UK) »
Jomot that is exactly what has happened here, but there is no corresponding Barnett registration . Unfortunately this family is not on my main trunk so I haven't got the birth certificates.
Its a family historians gift as every child of Thomas an Sophia has a really interesting story.
One daughter married a second time becoming the second wife of a second cousin on my tree which is where I came across their story.
Two of their sons married two of Elizabeth Barnett's sisters so if she has married Thomas she was both aunt and grandmother to their children.
One of their sons was condemned to death at an Old Bailey trial had the sentence reduced to life transportation but killed a prison guard in Tasmania and was executed.
Now if it can be proved that Isaac and William were sons you have a perfect tail of a good Samaritan in the death of Isaac who had an accident with the two horse timber waggon he was driving . He was picked up by a passing traveller who organised a driver to take the waggon on to its designated destination took the victim to three doctors and a hospital before getting him to be seen at a Workhouse infirmary where the poor chap died but the inquests are a compelling read,
Then William was a career soldier serving in several conflicts abroad ending at the Crimea and on leaving the regular army became a Militia Sergeant. He married a governess and their son was a certificated teacher becoming a head master at 21. He worked at the school until his death earning it good reputation he was also the church choirmaster.
So many strong stories in one family well worth a bit of digging.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Online BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 13 April 21 07:28 BST (UK) »
There's also a weird thing the GRO does when both parents are named on the certificate but state they aren't married to each other - they index it under the father's surname but with no mmn.

In those instances I'd expect the FreeBMD entry to have both surnames, but perhaps they didn't do that in the early days of civil registration?

FreeBMD would not be able to list under both surnames, as they work solely from the GRO indices.
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 AntonyMMM

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Researcher (retired) and former Deputy Registrar
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 13 April 21 08:33 BST (UK) »
FreeBMD would not be able to list under both surnames, as they work solely from the GRO indices.

FreeBMD does reflect the entries on the GRO index (at the time the images were taken and transcribed), but it is GRO who originally indexed births to unmarried parents (where both are named) under each surname, so that is how FreeBMD show them.

GRO have changed the way they compile their indexes a number of times over the years - adding ages to death indexes in the 1860s and then mother's maiden name in the early C20th.

When the new on-line index was created they changed the indexing rules again and a number of things are different.

It is quite normal (and expected) to find different results when searching using FreeBMD and using the new GRO index.

Offline AntonyMMM

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Researcher (retired) and former Deputy Registrar
    • View Profile
Re: Strange registration
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday 13 April 21 08:37 BST (UK) »

which looks like they were children of Elizabeth Barnett who has now "married " Thomas Kedge BUT
no such marriage has been found and there is this odd anomaly
The GRO Index for the children born after registration
Kedge Mary Ann no mother's name March qtr 1839
Kedge Elizabeth no mother's name March qtr 1841
Kedge Emily mother Barnett Dec qtr1843
Kedge George mother Barnett Sep qtr1846

What I find so odd is the children with out a mother's name usually indicates base child of a mother with her surname but in this case it looks like they have the father's name and the mother is not listed. Can anyone suggest what the real story is please.

Birth registers (before 1969) show no surname for the child at all, so what you are seeing in the indexes is always the surname the parent(s) are using (which may be the mother, father or both). It is impossible (with 100% certainty) to know from an entry in the birth index whether a father is named on the register, or even whether the parents are married (even if a maiden name is shown).