Lies and fibs in SR

ksyoung · Post by **ksyoung** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:16 pm

Has anyone else noticed that an individual's occupation gets embellished in SRs? I have an ancestor (Alexander Young), who was a "porter" when he married in 1834, a "labourer" when his son was born in 1838, and a "gravedigger" or "burying ground labourer" in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. But when his son George married in 1861, Alexander's occupation is "recorder in cemetery". Alexander's wife died and when he remarried in 1868 he was a "gardener" (certainly possible). Alexander died in 1870 and suddenly he is a "sexton" and his father also listed as "sexton". Hmmm...

Another individual, Louis Connan, is listed in census and in his marriage cert as a coal or iron miner (in Ayrshire), with his birthplace as France (interesting). Louis died in 1879 and his death cert says he was an iron miner. When his son married in 1899, Louis's occupation has become "midshipman in French navy". Why wouldn't his son just say that Louis was a miner?

And finally, were the marriage certificates written out as a rough copy and then copied into the SR book, or were they really just written in the SR bound volume? I have noticed that the "signatures" look like they are in exactly the same hand as the rest of the SR entry. Also, I have found a couple where the names of the bride's parents just don't make sense. All the other records I can find fit together (census, SR death, witness or informant names on other SR records), but the marriage entry doesn't. I wondered if the person filling out the SR entry made an error. Would the bride have any reason to lie about her parent's names?

Thanks

Post by **emanday** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:33 pm

I have a daughter who got her long dead father's first name right on her first MC but wrong on her second MC, but one of her witnesses each time was her sister, so I know it was the right person. She also managed to lose a few years age for that second marriage.

I also have a rellie, illegitimate, who consistently named his grandparents as his parents and even his widow repeated that on his DC.

I've lost count of the "creative" ages given on MC's and censuses.

I've had to put it down to a combination of misinformation, bad memory, and "wee white lies". Without some of the other clues, I might not have accepted that the record was really one of "my folk".

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:36 pm

There is a well known phenomenon called "death certificate promotion"!

Let's put it this way, - there's lots of train drivers, but an awfy big lack of firemen

David

Post by **emanday** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:49 pm

Oh, yes! And the steam ship stoker who, according to my family myth, was a tea clipper captain

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:57 pm

emanday wrote:Oh, yes! And the steam ship stoker who, according to my family myth, was a tea clipper captain

You've got it

Closely analagous to the gentleman shown in various positions in a tram car company, up to and including "proprietor", who wisnae oonything mair than a tramway labourer

David

Post by **emanday** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:22 pm

DavidWW wrote:
emanday wrote:Oh, yes! And the steam ship stoker who, according to my family myth, was a tea clipper captain
You've got it

Closely analagous to the gentleman shown in various positions in a tram car company, up to and including "proprietor", who wisnae oonything mair than a tramway labourer

David

Should also mention that the so called "tea clipper captain" was my Great Grandfather who ran away to sea, having abandoned his wife and weans

We'll never know if he ever intended coming back as he got washed overboard and lost

Till the day she died, my Grandmother truly believed the "Captain" story. It's only now, knowing who her mother's second husband was, that I understand where the oriental artifacts in her home actually were provided by.

It was only through the help I got on here on TS that the the truth revealed itself.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:35 pm

Hi Kay

And finally, were the marriage certificates written out as a rough copy and then copied into the SR book, or were they really just written in the SR bound volume? I have noticed that the "signatures" look like they are in exactly the same hand as the rest of the SR entry.

The entry in the SR book is not the original, it is a copy, written out at the same time as the original - so, as you have noticed, the signatures for marriages are not the signatures of the bride and groom, but a written represenation of their signatures.

However, the signature of the death informant on a death entry will tend, I think in all I have seen, to be an original signature.

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **emanday** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:50 pm

Also, most SRI birth entries of mine, seem to be either signatures of original informants, or witnessed "marks" where the informant was illiterate.

And. although none of my direct DC's or BC's display this, I have seen examples where an informant "marked" in the early years but actually signed in later years, indicating that they had learned, at least, to sign their own names. In both these examples it seemed apparent that their spouses, who HAD signed their MC's, may have taught their illiterate partners at least that much.

sheilajim · Post by **sheilajim** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:47 pm

Hi All

I have one GGGrandfather who is listed on his 1849 Marriage Cert as a Farmer. On the 1851 Census he has become a Shoemaker. The next census lists him as a schoolteacher, on the 1881 census he has become a School Master. On his Death Cert one of his daughters lists him as an Engineer's Clerk.

His age is stable throughout.

It is quite confusing. I am wondering if he farmed and did a little shoe making on the side while teaching children and clerking for some engineer.

Regards

Sheila

ksyoung · Post by **ksyoung** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:03 am

Thanks to all for your help. I'm glad to see that there are a others who have run across "death certificate promotions". I like the concept.

I wonder if the presence of witnesses for the MCs, particularly if the witnesses weren't close family members, would prod people into cleaning up the facts a little. And what the registrar doesn't know can't hurt him!

The MC that I have been puzzling over is one of a woman who was raised by her maternal grandparents (1851 and 1861 census), although her surname was not the same as her grandparents and I assume was her father's. Perhaps the names on her MC are the paternal grandparents, or just an error by the registrar. Would the registrar have known the folk in the parish well enough to know if she lied and flat out made up ficticious parents?

Regards,
Katherine