Marriage Certificate Query

[Tim]

For the marriage of William Tomlinson and Kate Rickers there is a note in the margin.
I can't decipher the line after "In the Entry No 72", any thoughts?

Also, does it mean they changed their name, or they corrected their names even though they both signed it in 1889? They appear in the 1911 census as Moore, and in the 1921 census as Tomlinson.

Albert the son, appears as Tomlinson in 1939

What do you think?

 

[G6JPG (John)]

For the marriage of William Tomlinson and Kate Rickers there is a note in the margin.
I can't decipher the line after "In the Entry No 72", any thoughts?

I'm afraid when I click that link, Ancestry asks me for money.

Sounds an interesting query though! One common reason for name changes is that the earlier one sounds Germanic, but I can't see that being the reason in the case of Moore. Have you traced the ancestry and is there any Moore in theirs? If I understand you correctly, you're saying they seemed to switch from Tomlinson to Moore, then back?!? (Or is that what you're asking for confirmation of?)

 

[Tim]

Here's the marriage at FMP but not as easy to read.

 

[G6JPG (John)]

Ah, sorry, I can't make it out either! Looks like "Feb 2007", which I'm sure it isn't! The second "word" could perhaps be "2ary" (secondary), do you think? The 2 looks fairly clear, and may refer to the fact that Tomlinson appears twice (both underlined).

Oh, hang on: I think I've got it. Assuming the column with the preprinted number (the 72) doesn't count, then I think it says "Cols 2 and 7" (i. e. columns).

Still can't figure out what's going on, though: it's changing Tomlinson to Tomlinson otherwise Moore, and the correction is dated 1929 - a long time after the marriage! Though you say they were using Moore in 1911. How about 1901, and 1891?

 

[Susan48]

I managed to decipher the note by enlarging it on Ancestry. Here's what it reads:
In the entry No 72 fols 2 and 7 for "Tomlinson" read "Tomlinson otherwise Moore". Corrected on the 28th [?] Oct 1929 by me John ... vicar in the presence of William Moore, Kate Moore [signatures], the parties married.
Presumably fols refers to folios? But which ones?

 

[Stuart]

I managed to decipher the note by enlarging it on Ancestry. Here's what it reads:
In the entry No 72 fols 2 and 7 for "Tomlinson" read "Tomlinson otherwise Moore". Corrected on the 28th [?] Oct 1929 by me John ... vicar in the presence of William Moore, Kate Moore [signatures], the parties married.
Presumably fols refers to folios? But which ones?

That must be Columns 2 and 7 - which are where his surname occurs (underlined as well).

 

[Stuart]

If someone changes their surname I would say it's usually due to a stepfather, a couple who can't marry, or some other "mum's new man". But I've seen a few of these cases where someone has a choice of surnames and does not pick one and stick with it. The effects can carry over to a further generation, if they are children when the family name is changed. But note - just because names change in official records, it does not mean they did is everyday life unless records of that (e.g. school records) say so.

Here, it looks as if William's father Richard changed his name from Moore to Tomlinson some time around 1874-1881. William must have thought - when he married - that this was the right name to use; maybe is just felt more "official". And after that he filled in forms (like the census) sometimes as Moore and sometime as Tomlinson. I have come across similar cases, and the reason for that choice can be impossible to guess.

By 1929 he and Kate found (or felt) they should have their marriage refer to both surnames. I can't imagine why that would have been so important. And you would expect them to want a certificate in both names to take away; how would they have got that done?

 

[Heather]

A search on Lancashire Online Parish Clerks :---
Marriage: 26 Oct 1889 St Mary, Preston, Lancashire
William Tomlinson otherwise Moore - 20, Brick Layer, Bachelor, 5 Henrietta Street
Kate Rickers - 20, Spinster, 29 Henrietta Street
Groom's Father: Richard Tomlinson, Brick Layer
Bride's Father: George Albert Edward Rickers, Collier
Witnesses: John Cartmell; Clara Cartmell
Married by Banns by James Joseph West
Notes: In this entry for 'Tomlinson' read 'Tomlinson otherwise Moore' Corrected in the 23
Oct 1929 by me - Vicar in the presence of William Moore & Kate Moore - the parties
married
Register: Marriages 1888 - 1897, Page 36, Entry 72
Source: Original register held at Lancashire Archive

 

[Tim]

It's a strange one. Yes, it makes sense that it reads "Cols 2 and 7" - I can see it now!

So far I can't see any reason why Richard would want to use Moore.

Here, it looks as if William's father Richard changed his name from Moore to Tomlinson some time around 1874-1881.

Where is the the source for this Stuart? What did you find?

It's also interesting that I can't find Richard (Tomlinson or Moore) and his family in 1881.

 

[Stuart]

It's also interesting that I can't find Richard (Tomlinson or Moore) and his family in 1881.

Strange - that's not one I had trouble finding on Ancestry or here on FMP. He's now with Elizabeth Cartmell, and they may have married or may not. It's hard to tell, especially if she had married and been widowed in the 1870s. She has two sons - from a first marriage? No, she was single (a teenager) at the time. John Cartmell went on to marry Clara Griffiths, and they are the witnesses at William and Kate's marriage. So that all ties together.

In 1881 Richard says he was born in Kirkham. One of the obvious problems with trying to follow one person as they change their surname is that you end up relying on their place and implied date of birth being right. I suspect Richard may have had alternative versions of his. But if there was another William of the same age whose records can be confused with his ... it all gets very trying.

Note also that it's tempting to think Cartmell is a rare name that will be easy to track. But there are loads of them in Lytham! Even the last employer given for Richard in 1921 is a Cartmell. Probably not related, but who knows?

 

[G6JPG (John)]

Kirkham isn't that far from Lytham - less than 2½ hours' walk on https://maps.app.goo.gl/aEKQdoHhCXsQdxPs9 (I often use that - with "walk" selected - to see if two places are reasonable).

 

[Tim]

Thanks Stuart. Yes I'd seen that census but discounted it. I can't find a record of a marriage for Richard (Tomlinson/Moore) and Elizabeth (Cartmell/Hodgkinson).
Also, for every record I have (baptisms for children, censuses etc) for Richard he is a Railway Guard, apart from 1881 where he is now a bricklayers labourer.

It's not easy when they potentially lie about their marriage status, keep changing where they were born, year of birth and occupation.

There is a death that might fit then for Elizabeth Cooper, his (1st) wife in Dec 1878.

All of this is making me wonder if the William who married Kate is not the son of Richard.

 

[ChalfontR]

All it tells you is that in 1929 the couple wanted the record to show that his surname at the time of the marriage should have been recorded as "Tomlinson otherwise Moore", meaning he was known by, or used, both surnames. The question perhaps might be what happened in 1929 to make change that so important - did his father, or another relative, die and he wanted to make sure there was no doubt about his relationship to them ?

 

[Stuart]

Richard Tomlinson did indeed die in 1928. And the link with his other name of Moore and his son William is confirmed by this (Lytham Times; 16 March 1928; p5c5):


As to why that particular record mattered so much to William and Kate, I have no idea. It surely wasn't for the money - Richard was an unemployed labourer in 1921 an employed one before that. Perhaps something behind his being a well-known local character is involved?

 

[Tim]

Nice find Stuart. I'm no longer convinced that this Richard and William are my Richard and William

 

[Stuart]

Nice find Stuart. I'm no longer convinced that this Richard and William are my Richard and William

I'm not sure what you mean by "this" I thought that your known start person was one of William and Kate's family (perhaps Albert). So they must all be right, and so must the Richard in that news report, given the dual naming. The origin family for William is certainly an open question until enough evidence has built up, if that's what you mean.

 

[Tim]

No, my starting point is Richard who has a son William. I was reviewing William and Kates marriage to see if this was my William's marriage.