Position:Home>Genealogy> Census confused. One of the children has different last name and shes only 11?
Question: Census confused!. One of the children has different last name and shes only 11!?
One of my ancestors remarried, so her name went from HALE to LLOYD
her child from her previous marriage is on the 1841 census as ANN HALE but in the 1851 census it says ANN JONES her sister was MARY HALE on the 1841 census and her name is also changed on the 1851 to MARY WATKINS
where did these last name come from!? they couldnt of remarried as they are both under 16 (11 and 13) and they didnt take on their mothers new married name as it was LLOYD not watkins or jones!.
Why would this be, no one else in the house got those last names only the daughters!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Without actually looking at the documents I can make a few guesses and you can see if any of them fit!.
First, with names like Ann and Mary it's possible there were additional children (maybe servants or their kids) or cousins in the home with the same fist name!. This was very common at one time and some families did name female children after relatives the way we associate with male children today!.
Around this time it was also common for people, especially women, to use their middle name for everyday purposes!. Sometimes the Christian name would end up on the census, and sometimes the middle name!. For the same person it's possible to see one in 1841 and another 1851!. In some cases they may even use a nickname (i!.e!.: Mary Margaret might be Mary, Polly, Margaret, or Maggie) on the census!.
You may also be looking at a census record that seems to fit, but isn't actually your ancestor at all!. Again with such common names that's very likely, unless you have documentation that was the dwelling they resided in at the time (or can assume from continuity)!.
It would also be helpful to know if you're looking at the actual record or a transcription!. If it's a transcrption it's possible the transcriber made a line error!. Check the records above and below a few lines to see if that helps!. It could also be an outright typo and it isn't HALE at all but BEAL, which in script looks like HALE!. If it's an actual record, this could also be possible since the official record is typically the 2nd or 3rd generation taken from an oral source and written by the taker, then written again!. The person giving the information didn't normally proofread the info the 1st time, let alone when it was re-written in the offical book!.
Maybe the least likely, but still possible, is if the family was living as servants the children might take the master family's name!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Is there any chance the children could have been adopted!? If their mother was suddenly unable to take care of them and so put them up for adoption then they would change their names!. Although in saying that, would they still be on the census with their birth mother or their adoptive families!?
Sorry, that's the best suggestion I can think of and not a great one at that!. If you are really intrigued by it then maybe you should do some more research into this section of your family tree!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Uk answer!.
I just wondered if you knew that up until 1929 the minimum age for a girl to marry was actually 12 years old, it was 14 for a boy!. Up to 1969 the parental consent was needed till a minor attained the age of 21!. In 1969 it was reduced to age 18!.
Maybe the older girl was married!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
My best guess is:
Ann & Mary were not Mr!. Hale's daughters!.
They had different fathers and assumed the last name of Hale while their mother was married to Mr!. Hale!.
After Mr!. Hale died or the Hale's divorced, the girls resumed using their birth names!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Census records are notorious for their inaccuracies so I would only take them at face value unless you have additional documentation to support it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Who are we supposed to be looking up!?
Where did they live!?
Do you have any more clues!?
And please use punctuation to make the questions clearer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
You can post all you want, but I don't think you'll find an answer unless you can consult civil legal records!. Funny things happened with divorce proceedings in the 19th Century, especially if property or inheritances were involved!. Or if out-of-wedlock births had occured!.
I am not familiar with UK adoption laws from that time period: I do know that they were weird!. Methinks you have a genealogical mind-pretzel of a mystery here!. I wish you the best and all I can suggest is that some of the records are wrong or you lack information about the motivations, character, or disposition of the parents!.
I hate the mind-pretzels, but they do challenge us to keep up our fighting spirit!. Best wishes!.
Short answer: Legal records!. Church and census probably won't explain this!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Very odd!.
Do the girls have middle names!? Could they have been originally named Ann Jones Hale and Mary Watkins Hale and when the enumerator read the form he thought their middle names were their last names!?
Have you found the girls in the 1961 census or getting married!? If you have what are they called there!?
Edit
For other people answering the question!.
Here are the images but you will need a sub to Ancestry to look at them!.
http://content!.ancestry!.co!.uk/iexec/!?htx!.!.!.
http://content!.ancestry!.co!.uk/iexec/!?htx!.!.!.
They are a difficult lot aren't they, it would help if they didn't spell their names so many different ways!.Www@QuestionHome@Com