The mystery of the changed surname, occupation & birthplace?

[Bob Spiers]

If I told you I had found a Great Grandfather in the 1901 Census sporting a different surname, a different birthplace and different occupation, you would say chances are it is a different person to the one being sought. I would agree, but the facts that support him (and his wife) being one and the same are fairly compelling as I relate.

My Great x 2 grandparents were George Taylor born 1831 in Albrighton, Shropshire, married to Harriet Coley born 1835 in Birmingham in 1854. George was a Shoemaker, as was his father before him.

In 1881 they are correctly shown as George & Harriet Taylor and George is indeed a Boot & Shoemaker. George is shown born Albrighton Shropshire. A fairly large family but the youngest Florence Taylor aged 1 will relate later.

In 1891 the same, George Taylor born Albrighton, Shropshire and Harriet Taylor born Birmingham is shown with George a Shoe maker. Florence now 12 and a Scholar is with them.

I could not find George and Harriet in 1901 and of the family members I did find none accounted for George & Harriet; so I presumed both had died despite finding no death records for either between 1891 & 1901.

When it came to Florence I knew she had married John James Harris in 1897 and had a son George Harris in 1899. It was in finding John & Florence Harris, with a son George that I came across the anomaly of them living with a George & Harriet Hughes.

There is no doubt at all that the original shows the name Hughes, where George Hughes is shown as a ‘Gunmaker General’ and I admit that is what it appears to be although what a Gunmaker General might be escapes me. This George is shown born Birmingham as is his wife. So without relationships one would just assume John & Florence are lodging with a Hughes family.

However: John is shown as son in law – Florence as daughter – and young George as Grandson to the Head of course one George Hughes. Perfectly acceptable relationships for George & Harriet Taylor but not Hughes.

I found a death for Harriet Taylor in 1904 and George Taylor in 1910 so neither appear in the 1911 Census. I cannot find John or Florence either in 1911 despite knowing John died 1918 and Florence remarried Harold Clarke in 1919.

So circumstantial evidence would seem to show that for reasons unknown, George & Harriet Taylor (whose birth years give or take are those for George & Harriet Hughes) somehow got recorded as Hughes. The occupation looks like Gunmaker general (even with an oblique cross line through it) and born Birmingham cannot be denied. Addresses give nothing away as all Residences across the Censuses relate to the district of Bordesley, either Aston, Warwickshire, or Aston Birmingham.

As far as I am concerned George & Harriet Hughes are one and the same as George & Harriet Taylor but cannot explain the contradictions of occupation and birth except as ‘one of those Census things'.

If anyone can throw light on the anomalies described I will be pleased to consider all explanations. For now however John & Florence Harris, with young George, were living with Florence’s parents in 1901.

 

[Katie Bee]

Could George Taylor have died or gone off somewhere and Harriet married George Hughes?
This happened to me where the wife died and the widower got married with in 6 months to a neighbour with the same forename as his departed wife. It caused a bit of confusion for a while.
There is a marriage Dec 1896 Aston 6d 861 between a Harriett Taylor and either George Frederick Hughes or James Barber.

 

[Bryman]

There is no doubt at all that the original shows the name Hughes, where George Hughes is shown as a ‘Gunmaker General’ and I admit that is what it appears to be although what a Gunmaker General might be escapes me.

The original hand written document shows the occupation of George as "Gunmaker general" rather than the "Gunmaker General" given in the transcription. I would take that to mean a general gunmaker rather than some specific trade speciality.

As for the change of surname, I am at as much of a loss as you. Initially, I thought that there might have been a previous family with the name of Hughes which was mistakenly continued but that does not appear to be the case. I did notice that the properties had not been enumerated in strict sequence with 10 Park Place occurring between numbers 1 and 2. There are more out of sequence entries on the next sheet so perhaps there was a problem of finding residents available at home? However, that still does not explain the change from Taylor to Hughes.

 

[Heather]

Could George Taylor have died or gone off somewhere and Harriet married George Hughes? There is a marriage Dec 1896 Aston 6d 861 between a Harriett Taylor and either George Frederick Hughes or James Barber.

Bob , as Katie Bee has found a marriage for Harriet Taylor to George Hughes, which suggests that George Taylor has died, although there are no deaths for the correct age, for that name in Aston there is one for Hinckley 7a 48 Mar qtr 1894 age 62, not knowing the area I'm not sure if this is near Aston. Looking in 1901 census for Harriet Hughes and George, they are at reference RG13 piece2858, folio 141, page7. With them are Harriet's daughter Florence Harris born 1879, with husband John and son George. There is a marriage for Florence Taylor to John James Harris in Aston Dec qtr 1897. Back to 1891 looking for George Frederick Hughes (Gunmaker general) he is with wife Elizabeth in Aston at reference RG12 piece 2414, folio 104, page 26 and is described as a gunmaker and machinist. They also have a daughter Florence born 1874. Elizabeth died in Aston June qtr 1891 age 52. I hope this helps.

 

[Heather]

Bob, just had another look at 1891 census which has George born in 1833 not 1831 and have now found a death for a George Taylor in Aston in 1891 June qtr 6d 239 aged 57 years.

 

[Bob Spiers]

There is a marriage Dec 1896 Aston 6d 861 between a Harriett Taylor and either George Frederick Hughes or James Barber.

Thanks you Katie Bee, as soon as I read that the light dawned that that was almost certainly the answer and supported by Heather (see next) and help by Bryman, one of the reasons that makes this Forum so special.

Bob , as Katie Bee has found a marriage for Harriet Taylor to George Hughes, which suggests that George Taylor has died, although there are no deaths for the correct age, for that name in Aston there is one for Hinckley 7a 48 Mar qtr 1894 age 62, not knowing the area I'm not sure if this is near Aston. Looking in 1901 census for Harriet Hughes and George, they are at reference RG13 piece2858, folio 141, page7. With them are Harriet's daughter Florence Harris born 1879, with husband John and son George. There is a marriage for Florence Taylor to John James Harris in Aston Dec qtr 1897. Back to 1891 looking for George Frederick Hughes (Gunmaker general) he is with wife Elizabeth in Aston at reference RG12 piece 2414, folio 104, page 26 and is described as a gunmaker and machinist. They also have a daughter Florence born 1874. Elizabeth died in Aston June qtr 1891 age 52. I hope this helps.

Heather thank you for so much helpful information, some of which I have of course, and will be checking on the rest. Hinckley from memory is in Leicestershire not a mega distance, but enough to make it unlikely, but rule nothing out. The information about George Frederick Hughes with wife Elizabeth and occupation a Gunmaker general is however game set and match I do believe. Will go now and check this out also.

Bob, just had another look at 1891 census which has George born in 1833 not 1831 and have now found a death for a George Taylor in Aston in 1891 June qtr 6d 239 aged 57 years.

The icing on the cake it seems and so it certainly looks as though poor George Taylor (my Gtx2 maternal Grandfather) who I thought had survived to 1910 with Harriet, died shortly after the 1891 Census was taken. Quite a significant fact considering we are talking of a direct line ancestor. I have a fair bit of work to do to follow up on all this.

Thank you everyone it seems with your combined help I have a solution to my puzzle and just shows one should not take anything for granted.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Yes can now confirm George Hughes did indeed marry my widowed Gt x 2 Grandmother Harriet Taylor after his first wife Elizabeth (Powis) died. So all is well on that front. However another offshoot query seems to have arisen; we now have two Florence’s’ vying for the marriage of one John James Harris and having a son George. The trio you will recall lodging in 1901 with George Hughes & Harriet.

This all stems from the fact that George Hughes and first wife Elizabeth had a daughter Florence Hughes born c1874. As did George Taylor & Harriet, Florence Taylor born 1880. So which one was married to John Harris?

I have a third cousin contact with an Ancestry tree who has always been adamant that Florence Harris was Florence Taylor (George Taylor & Harriet’s daughter born 1880) and cites the closeness of the date to the 1879 shown in the Census; and I agree although I have a little cloud of doubt with the relationships shown in the Census.

I have now found a Tree showing descendancy from George Hughes & Elizabeth which has daughter Florence Hughes marrying John Harris and they have a son George. I have messaged the Tree owner asking how he/she equates the date variations (1874 to 1879) but at the back of my mind (and I would not be surprised to hear back the same) feel sure they will cling to the relationship element where Florence is shown as the daughter of the ‘Head’.

Mind you I have found that contradiction before on many occasions -especially with a second marriage -where the Head records his wife’s new daughter – as his daughter. It’s a family thing and understandable.

I know the third cousin does relates closer than I to John & Florence Harris and has insider knowledge which may prove the matter one way or another. I will bide my time meanwhile.

 

[Bob Spiers]

After the above 'work in progress' and just to round things off it was fairly easy to confirm it was indeed Florence Taylor that married John James Harris on 11 December 1897 (6d/593). For the sake of completeness Florence Hughes married Arthur Thomas Grounds in 1893 (6d/357). I shall advise the Ancestry Tree owner with the wrongly assigned marriage but I doubt my third cousin needs reminding she was right.

 

[Liberty]

(Some) people do tend to assume that what appears in the census is literally correct. I have a case in my tree where a relative married his cousin's widow and described the stepson as 'son' in the next census. I have seen at least one public tree on Ancestry where this relationship has been accepted as the simple truth - although the 'father' was only 13 years older than the 'son.'
I suppose it serves to remind us that not all family trees are worked out with complete rigour.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have seen at least one public tree on Ancestry where this relationship has been accepted as the simple truth

How very true Liberty and very much like people who say it must be true, I read it in a newspaper.

 

[Margery]

it must be true, I read it in a newspaper.

Oh, that sounds like my late mother in law, if it was in print then it was "gospel"! She could never be persuaded otherwise.

 

[AdrienneQ]

Its like believing in stats and graphs, if you produce them then you know how they can USED. With a graph just a change in the amount of white space above the data can change how it is perceived.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Oh, that sounds like my late mother in law, if it was in print then it was "gospel"! She could never be persuaded otherwise.

My father, despite his obvious bias to the left in his political views, always taught me that half of what I read in a newspaper (he was mainly referring to Headline news) would be padding, and only a quarter of what was left stood any chance of being true. He would go on to qualify this by saying it may be true there is no smoke without fire, but only a newspaper can take a garden bonfire and turn it into a raging inferno. It's the way they create headlines and get you to buy their paper.

This view of Newspapers (and media in general) was, and is, pessimistic but it does help me view NEWS items with a healthy degree of scepticism. To get to the truth just let the dust settle and wait for an analysis of what actually happened.

 

[Bob Spiers]

.......With a graph just a change in the amount of white space above the data can change how it is perceived.

I have my own interpretation of what you mean Adrienne but would appreciate just a little more information to see if I am on the same wavelength?

 

[emjay]

This view of Newspapers (and media in general) was, and is, pessimistic but it does help me view NEWS items with a healthy degree of scepticism. To get to the truth just let the dust settle and wait for an analysis of what actually happened.

The headlines on, for example, the Yahoo or Aol homepage are mainly untrue or completely out of context. Depending upon the subject, I can be tempted to have a quick look but invariably am disappointed and annoyed with myself for being sucked in And yes Bob, keep my mouth shut and wait for the dust to settle

 

[AdrienneQ]

I have my own interpretation of what you mean Adrienne but would appreciate just a little more information to see if I am on the same wavelength?

If you change the vertical axis to to higher number on a bar chart than that required then the bars seem smaller and the differential between them reduces. This gives a perception of less difference, it all depends on the data.

 

[patzy]

I used to be a professional liar (statistician).
I would be given a set of figures and asked by one person to present them as if they were good, and by another as if they were bad.
I obliged.