Logical?

[jorghes]

I was searching through the records for some distant relations and came across an interesting case. I wanted to run it by the venerable minds of the forum to see if my process is logical.

It concerns a lady by the name of Alice Emily Pyefinch. She was born to James Moss Pyefinch and Sophia Elizabeth Williams in 1867. She appears with her family on both the 1871 and 1881 censuses in Hackney.

In 1890, she marries Charles Morris Wells. (Her name at this point is spelt Alice Emilie Pyefinch). Her father on the marriage register (accessible via Ancestry's London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns 1754-1936 - in the St Matthew, Upper Clapham) is given as James Pyefinch, Clerk. (it should have read deceased, as he died in Feb 1890, prior to the wedding in August)

She appears with Charles in 1891, still in Hackney (Clapham St Matthew), aged 23. Also in 1891 is a baptismal register entry for a daughter, Edith Florence Wells (there is also a birth register entry in Hackney, mother's surname Pyefinch)

This is where the story becomes murky. Alice Emily and Edith Florence seemingly disappear. Charles Wells appears on the 1901 census, in Hackney, living with his mother Caroline. By 1911, Charles Wells seemingly has gotten re-married to an Ellen, and has two daughters - Edith May and Violet Florence. Both are too young to be the missing Edith Florence.

Stymied without any possible clues to the whereabouts of Alice Emily, and without a likely death register, I decided to search for Edith Florence.

Ancestry, ever helpful, suggested some records for an Edith Florence Dent, born 1891. My interest was immediately piqued. Edith Florence Dent appeared in the 1901 census with her father Harry James Dent and her mother, Alice Dent, born in 1873. They appeared again in 1911, with Edith Dent's mother still appearing to have been born in 1873. For both censuses, they were living in Hackney.

While this seemed promising, I needed to consider further. I went looking for an birth entry for Edith Florence Dent in 1891 to discount her from my inquires. The closest Edith Florence Dent was born in 1893 in Altrincham, with a mother whose surname was Banyard. Seemed a little unlikely, since the Edith Florence Dent I was tracing, according to the census records, was born in London.

I decided to dig a bit, and on the 1939 register, living with Edith Florence Dent (birth date given as 16 Jun 1891) and her husband George Henry Wolff, was a widowed Alice Dent, birth date given as 2 May 1867. Note, Alice's presence in the house can only be seen when viewing the image.

It seemed to me that this was possibly Edith's mother, but it was interesting that her birth year was not that given in the censuses, all which suggested a birth year of 1873. But I thought it was worth further investigation.

I found a marriage record (in Bethnal Green) of a Harry James Dent and an Alice Emiley Finch in 1898. Alice's father is given as Henry Finch, Clerk, deceased.

Then I found a poor law record for Alice Emily Wells (aged 23) and her daughter, Edith Florence Wells (17 mths). When reading it, it says "husband Charles Maurice Wells, 29. Away and deserted". The family seemingly had three homes in three months and at some point Charles Wells disappeared.

So after all that I am wondering if it is logical that Alice Emily, after her husband deserted her in 1893, that she remarried (most likely bigamously as he did) under an assumed name as "Alice Emily Finch" to Harry James Dent, thus giving her daughter a new father and surname, and gave a fake age on the censuses.
This is seemingly backed up by a brief search of the 1921 census, which gives an Alice Emily Dent living in the same house as an Edith Florence Wolf and a George Henry...

Any ideas?

 

[peter]

it should have read deceased, as he died in Feb 1890, prior to the wedding in August

No it shouldn't - there is no requirement to show that the father is deceased.

she remarried (most likely bigamously as he did)

Many people assumed that if they hadn't seen or heard of their spouse for 7 years, and believed them to be dead, they could remarry legally, and whilst this wasn't true, you'll know from Professor Probert's recent talk that it was a good defence to a charge of bigamy.

You haven't told us the birthdate of Alice Emily Pyefinch, which would surely be the clincher? As she was baptised on 6th September it's quite conceivable that she was born on 2nd August.

 

[jorghes]

No it shouldn't - there is no requirement to show that the father is deceased.

Didn't know that one, but then often it does appear!

Many people assumed that if they hadn't seen or heard of their spouse for 7 years, and believed them to be dead, they could remarry legally, and whilst this wasn't true, you'll know from Professor Probert's recent talk that it was a good defence to a charge of bigamy.

You haven't told us the birthdate of Alice Emily Pyefinch, which would surely be the clincher? As she was baptised on 6th September it's quite conceivable that she was born on 2nd August.

I don't actually know the exact birthdate, I would have to order a certificate to find it (and I will probably do so, since I think I've cracked something!). But her register entry is for the Apr-May-Jun quarter, which would suggest she was born prior to August/September and baptised later - which would match the May birthdate given on the 1939 Register.

They do have a bit of form, as it were, for not baptising their children promptly (for want of a better word) - several were baptised a year or two after birth, then there are a bunch of children who I haven't been able to locate a baptism record for. So to me it doesn't seem unlikely that they may not have baptised Alice Emily (their second youngest child) within a couple of months of her birth.

 

[peter]

which would match the May birthdate given on the 1939 Register

Sorry, I should have written 2nd May, not 2nd August.

 

[Helen7]

I don't actually know the exact birthdate, I would have to order a certificate to find it (and I will probably do so, since I think I've cracked something!).

If Alice's birthdate on her birth certificate matches that on the 1939 register, that would clinch it, as Peter says. Until then, I'd reserve judgement as to whether Alice Emily Dent = Alice Emily Wells nee Pyefinch, though the evidence you've found does suggest that could be the case. After all, going from 'Pyefinch' to 'Finch' doesn't seem a great leap, and it would be logical for her to alter her name - and that of her father - on entering a bigamous marriage.

Regarding the discrepancy in her age as given in the 1901 and 1911 censuses, could she have knocked 6 years off her age so as not to appear older than her husband Henry Dent? I see they are both listed as aged 38 in 1911 (and 28 in 1901). One of my ancestors gave her age on censuses as 5 years younger than she actually was, whilst she was married to a younger man (her second husband). After he died, she reverted to her correct age on the next census. I wonder if she lied to her husband about her age.

 

[Stuart]

Regarding the discrepancy in her age as given in the 1901 and 1911 censuses, could she have knocked 6 years off her age so as not to appear older than her husband Henry Dent? I see they are both listed as aged 38 in 1911 (and 28 in 1901). One of my ancestors gave her age on censuses as 5 years younger than she actually was, whilst she was married to a younger man (her second husband). After he died, she reverted to her correct age on the next census. I wonder if she lied to her husband about her age.

That does look likely in this case, where at least one of the couple was being deceitful. I doubt if you'll ever know if she lied to him or if he knew her situation and they concocted a cover story.

In general, I'd suggest that male pride is 90% a couple's unwillingness to record his being much younger than her. And without that element of deceit, there would not be strong motive for lying to a census enumerator. I'm sure most people knew it was meant to be confidential, but guilty embarrassment could undermine any trust in that secrecy.

Marriage registers, on the other hand, are much more public documents, likely to be seen by other family members. So there are a lot more lies in those, and not just about ages. Occupations routinely get bumped up a status notch or two, and unmarried mothers-in-law become widows.

My great-uncle Bill had all of these on his, including massaged ages. The 1911 census was honest that he was 33 and she (a domestic servant) was 16. They married in June 1912 - 15 months later - and now he was 29 and she was 19! And that was after she'd had the baby, which I'm sure everyone knew about.

 

[jorghes]

Regarding the discrepancy in her age as given in the 1901 and 1911 censuses, could she have knocked 6 years off her age so as not to appear older than her husband Henry Dent? I see they are both listed as aged 38 in 1911 (and 28 in 1901). One of my ancestors gave her age on censuses as 5 years younger than she actually was, whilst she was married to a younger man (her second husband). After he died, she reverted to her correct age on the next census. I wonder if she lied to her husband about her age.

She could very well have knocked them off to match her husband. Since he was younger than her, I thought it was an idea. It's probably not completely true, since she is still giving the birth age of 1872 in the 1921 census (if she is of course Alice Emily Pyefinch), and Henry died in 1919. She was living with Edith Florence and her husband, same as the 1939 Register.

So perhaps something about the 1939 Register prompted her to tell the truth?

The birth register has been ordered, so we'll soon find out if my logic was correct!

My great-uncle Bill had all of these on his, including massaged ages. The 1911 census was honest that he was 33 and she (a domestic servant) was 16. They married in June 1912 - 15 months later - and now he was 29 and she was 19! And that was after she'd had the baby, which I'm sure everyone knew about.

That's quite a fudge. I have a distant relation who kept fudging her age on censuses, often by a different number of years each time. By the final two censuses (1921 and 1939) she had knocked 15 years off her age. It makes finding her on censuses and other records difficult, although her husband was much easier to find in London with a distinctive Italian name. He was 16 years younger than she was.

She was committed to it until she died (admittedly it was unexpectedly in the Blitz) but all her death records have her fudged date of birth. They all suggest she died at the age of 53. She was in fact, 66.

 

[jorghes]

Well, the certificate is in... and Alice Emily Pyefinch was born on the 3rd of May, 1867.

I'd say that's some confirmation that she and the Alice Dent on the 1939 census are more than likely the same person and my assumptions were likely correct.

Her first husband (only legal husband?) disappeared likely after 3 years of marriage and she "re-married" in 1898 to Henry Dent.

I don't think that's enough time after her husband's disappearance for any semblance of legality.

It is worth noting that Charles Morris Wells had remarried at the latest by 1900. (He claims to have been married for 11 years on the 1911 census to his "second" wife).

 

[Helen7]

on the 1939 register, living with Edith Florence Dent (birth date given as 16 Jun 1891) and her husband George Henry Wolff, was a widowed Alice Dent, birth date given as 2 May 1867.

I see on the 1939 register that Alice's date of birth is given as 3 May 1867 (not 2 May) so exactly matching the birth cert. So it looks like your initial idea that Alice, having been deserted by husband Charles Wells, had married Henry Dent only 5 years later was correct. That's insufficient time to assume Charles had died to be a defence to a bigamy charge, if one had been brought - which I assume it wasn't, so she stayed happily married to Henry until he died.

 

[peter]

So it looks like your initial idea that Alice, having been deserted by husband Charles Wells, had married Henry Dent only 5 years later was correct. That's insufficient time to assume Charles had died to be a defence to a bigamy charge, if one had been brought

We don't know precisely when Charles deserted Alice, only that he was recorded as living with her on the 1891 Census, but has gone by January/February 1893. Alice didn't remarry until December 1898, so it's quite possible that it was 7 years since she had last heard of Charles.

We also have to take into account the possibility that Charles deliberately spread rumours of his death - after all, he was the one who had 'done a bunk'.

I think Alice deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Helen7]

I think Alice deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

But why did Alice give a false name for both herself and her father, and state she was a spinster on the marriage register, if she had nothing to hide?

I have lots of sympathy for Alice, but to my mind I think she knew Charles was still alive. Otherwise why didn't she state herself to be a widow and give her correct surname? I notice she also knocks 5 years off her true age on the marriage register (to match her new husband's age, as on the censuses).

 

[peter]

But why did Alice give a false name for both herself and her father, and state she was a spinster on the marriage register, if she had nothing to hide?

Believing that your husband is dead is a good defence to a charge of bigamy, but the marriage would still be void should it be discovered that her errant husband was alive at the time of the marriage. Why take an unnecessary risk by admitting that you've been married before?

In any case, who's to say that she gave a false name? She might well have been known by that name prior to her second marriage. You don't have to give former names when you marry.

 

[Helen7]

In any case, who's to say that she gave a false name? She might well have been known by that name prior to her second marriage. You don't have to give former names when you marry.

That's true, but why did her father's name change from James Pyefinch (1st marriage) to Henry Finch (2nd marriage)?

 

[peter]

That's true, but why did her father's name change from James Pyefinch (1st marriage) to Henry Finch (2nd marriage)?

Why does it matter? It doesn't affect the validity of the marriage, nor does it mean that she knew her first husband was still alive. She certainly waited 6 years before remarrying, and it could well have been 7.

 

[Helen7]

Why does it matter? It doesn't affect the validity of the marriage,

Agreed, but it's another falsehood that seems odd if she honestly believed her first husband was dead. It makes me wonder if we can believe anything on marriage registers!

 

[peter]

Agreed, but it's another falsehood that seems odd if she honestly believed her first husband was dead.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "better safe than sorry"?

It makes me wonder if we can believe anything on marriage registers!

Of course not - documentary evidence must always be regarded as suspect, and marriage register entries are notoriously unreliable. It's only when the evidence stacks up that we can begin to decide what's almost certainly true and what very probably isn't.

 

[jorghes]

I'm honestly just glad that I can make that link - and hopefully it helps someone more closely related to Alice than me!

And of course from hindsight it is difficult to know why Alice did what she did, but I agree with Peter, she deserves the benefit of the doubt as Charles was the one who disappeared on her and their daughter.

 

[Pauline]

documentary evidence must always be regarded as suspect, and marriage register entries are notoriously unreliable

I think you may be over-stating the situation a bit here, and given the number of highly dubious online trees around, I would be wary of saying anything that might discourage the use of documentary evidence.

Obviously it is unwise to assume something must be correct just because it has been written down in an official-looking document, and yes, we do need to be aware that there are errors and omissions in the records and, where post-1837 marriage registers in particular are concerned, that some people were somewhat economical with the truth, inventing fathers, blurring their true age, and upgrading occupations. However, with experience, and knowledge of the people concerned, these kind of things can be relatively easy to spot.

Until very recently using documentary evidence was essentially the only way to build a family tree, and provided we remain aware of the potential pitfalls, can be regarded as mostly very reliable. My tree has been almost wholly constructed from documentary evidence over many years, and more recent evidence from DNA testing (as far as it is capable of going) has not so far highlighted any concern as to its accuracy. Moreover, where I had identified, for example, apparent misinformation in marriage registers, DNA evidence again has so far validated my interpretations from that misinformation.

 

[peter]

I think you may be over-stating the situation a bit here, and given the number of highly dubious online trees around, I would be wary of saying anything that might discourage the use of documentary evidence.

But it's equally dangerous to accept evidence just because it's "official". You'd be surprised how naïve some researchers are, even some who would otherwise be described as experienced.

The majority of 19th century marriage register entries from 1837 onwards are incorrect in some respect, and there are plenty which have several defects. Until the 1990s people getting married were not asked to provide any evidence, so it's hardly surprising that there are many errors, some of them deliberate, but many the result of confusion or misunderstandings.

Your tree has proven to be correct because in most cases you had multiple pieces of evidence to support the entries. If you review the evidence I'm sure you will find numerous errors, many of them small and apparently insignificant, but each capable of leading a more gullible person up the garden path (if viewed in isolation).

 

[Pauline]

But it's equally dangerous to accept evidence just because it's "official". You'd be surprised how naïve some researchers are, even some who would otherwise be described as experienced.

I did say above that it would be unwise to assume everything in "official" documents must be true, and no, I don't think I would be surprised at how naïve some researchers can be - I've seen it enough times! But that wouldn't make me go as far as to say documentary evidence must always be regarded as suspect, only that we should always be alert to the possibility that it sometimes may be.

The majority of 19th century marriage register entries from 1837 onwards are incorrect in some respect, and there are plenty which have several defects.

I couldn't honestly say that this has been my experience though I have, of course, found errors. Mostly these have been minor age discrepancies - and some that are maybe not so minor - and it is not uncommon for people born illegitimate to either invent a father or to give only partially correct details. But it does vary in different places, and within different families.

If you review the evidence I'm sure you will find numerous errors, many of them small and apparently insignificant, but each capable of leading a more gullible person up the garden path (if viewed in isolation).

Yes, I've found plenty of errors in original documents, and you're right that when viewing one event in isolation any mistake there is more likely to mislead. I would still say that such errors only appear in a relatively small proportion of record entries, though again it does vary. I remember once extracting all references to a particular surname from an 18th century Wiltshire register and commenting afterwards that either men in that parish changed their wives like some people changed their socks, or the clerk was prone to making mistakes! But I remember that occasion because it was exceptional.