Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Will someone explain to me how a Yorkshire born female ancestor of mine is shown formally but separately with a surname of both Goldsborough and Goulden, and for good measure but in a less authorative way (baptismal records) as Gooldy?]
I have actually been working on this enigma with two other lady researchers (M & N), one via Ancestry and the other Roots Chat, between us we are working on different children of John Richardson and Hannah (often shown as Ann in Censuses) Goldsborough. Both living in Sheffield with Hannah or Ann born Greasbrough (Rotherham). We are talking the early to mid 1800's.
My own contribution of sending for a birth certificate for their daughter Matilda - shows her mother to be Hannah Goldsborough and (a Marriage Certificate) confirms her father as John Richardson (Steel Melter)
M has communicated that she has a Marriage Certificate for John Richardson (Blacksmith) married to Hannah Goulden and his father John Richardson (Hatter). Now the two John occupations tally as John the husband is shown in Censuses as a Furnaceman and his father as Hatter (in all cases). So that leave Hannah as Goulden not Goldsborough and a father George Goulden, shoemaker.
YET: M records her baptism record show her father to be George Goldsborough, shoemaker.
YET AGAIN: M has a record for another daughter (Harriet) whose mother is Ann Goulden.
M (who is also a Sheffield Indexer so well qualified in research) has found the baptismal records of 3 other children and this is where the mother is shown as Anne Gooldy and father John Richardson!
N awaits certificates for a different child (a very large family of Richardsons and a most popular name in Yorkshire and Sheffield in particular). Meanwhile she too has found a marriage for a John Richardson and Hannah Goulden in 1848 and we all agree there appears to be no marriage RECORD for John Richardson & Hannah (Ann) Goldsborough - hence sending for certificates where the name does appear.
SUMMARY.
There is now fairly substantial evidence -some additional to the above - to show that our John Richardson married a Hannah (who apparently liked to be styled Ann) Goldsborough who for whatever reason was also shown as Goulden. Although two different John and Hannahs' cannot be ruled out -and research continues- I and the other two ladies, believe we just have two different renderings of a surname but have no idea how this can be. If anyone can offer a rational reason for this -and we can rule out Gooldy as a likely corruption of Goulden - I would like to hear.
I have actually been working on this enigma with two other lady researchers (M & N), one via Ancestry and the other Roots Chat, between us we are working on different children of John Richardson and Hannah (often shown as Ann in Censuses) Goldsborough. Both living in Sheffield with Hannah or Ann born Greasbrough (Rotherham). We are talking the early to mid 1800's.
My own contribution of sending for a birth certificate for their daughter Matilda - shows her mother to be Hannah Goldsborough and (a Marriage Certificate) confirms her father as John Richardson (Steel Melter)
M has communicated that she has a Marriage Certificate for John Richardson (Blacksmith) married to Hannah Goulden and his father John Richardson (Hatter). Now the two John occupations tally as John the husband is shown in Censuses as a Furnaceman and his father as Hatter (in all cases). So that leave Hannah as Goulden not Goldsborough and a father George Goulden, shoemaker.
YET: M records her baptism record show her father to be George Goldsborough, shoemaker.
YET AGAIN: M has a record for another daughter (Harriet) whose mother is Ann Goulden.
M (who is also a Sheffield Indexer so well qualified in research) has found the baptismal records of 3 other children and this is where the mother is shown as Anne Gooldy and father John Richardson!
N awaits certificates for a different child (a very large family of Richardsons and a most popular name in Yorkshire and Sheffield in particular). Meanwhile she too has found a marriage for a John Richardson and Hannah Goulden in 1848 and we all agree there appears to be no marriage RECORD for John Richardson & Hannah (Ann) Goldsborough - hence sending for certificates where the name does appear.
SUMMARY.
There is now fairly substantial evidence -some additional to the above - to show that our John Richardson married a Hannah (who apparently liked to be styled Ann) Goldsborough who for whatever reason was also shown as Goulden. Although two different John and Hannahs' cannot be ruled out -and research continues- I and the other two ladies, believe we just have two different renderings of a surname but have no idea how this can be. If anyone can offer a rational reason for this -and we can rule out Gooldy as a likely corruption of Goulden - I would like to hear.
Last edited: