Genealogy Chat

see below

Hi I mentioned a few weeks ago about my gg gran being born illegitimate and registered under her mums maiden name in Warninglid in West Sussex then her mum Mary Ann Walder moving to London and marrying Thomas Roberts six months afterwards. Well I was reading a book about illegitimacy and sometimes one of the parents changed their name and I am beginning to suspect that with Thomas Roberts. Mary Ann Walder was living at home with her family in 1861 census. I cannot find Thomas on the 1851 or 1861 censuses. When he married Mary Ann Walder, he was a widowed servant and his father was also Thomas Roberts, deceased, a servant. In 1871 he was aged 38, born in Wrotham in Kent, in 1881 he was aged 60, born in New Cross in Kent, 15 miles away from Wrotham. I know not everyone knew their exact birthplace but these differences are quite large. I have checked 1851 and 1861 censuses under both ages and cannot find a suitable match. Could he of been using an alias or changed his name to avoid bad debts or bigamy? Could it of been something to do with the identity of His wife's illegitimate daughter? Did he simply invent a fathers name and use his name and current occupation for his father? Any ideas please? Ben

Are the Thomas' in 1871 and 1881 living with his wife so that you know for sure they are one and the same. Have you checked the actual mage to check the age given? Suzanne

Hi Suzanne Yes, the wife and childrens names, ages and birthplaces all tally in both censuses, just not Thomas Roberts though. I have thoroughly checked the actual images and it defo says 38 in 1871 and 60 in 1881. Ben

LOL...How about this then........ 1861: Sussex Ann Roberts abt 1852 Woolwich, Kent, England Daughter Brighton Sussex Esther Roberts abt 1818 Ireland Wife Brighton Sussex Thomas Roberts abt 1814 Kent, England Head Brighton Sussex This Thomas is a 'Servant' & Chelsea Pensioner? Maybe they met in Sussex, Esther died and they went off to meet in London? If it is him he does play about with his age and thats for sure!!!!!! Mind you my sisters just the same...lol Suzanne Update: and there is no sign of Esther or a Thomas born around that year in Kent in the 1871 census.

Aged 38 in 1871 to aged 60 in 1881 is a big jump. That's 12 years too much. Are you sure it's the same person?

Death entry: Name: Esther Roberts Year: 1863 Quarter: Dec District: Brighton Vol: 2b Page: 127 Daughter possibly back in London area in 1871? Ann Roberts abt 1852 Woolwich, Kent, England Servant St Mary Magdalen Bermondsey London Suzanne

If you are sure the rest of the household match up, I would suggest either a) some problem with one of the enumerators recording the information correctly/being given the right info to start with or b) two different Thomas Roberts. It's maybe a bit wierd that a woman would marry two different men with the same name, but on the other hand Thomas and Roberts are not exactly exotic names. nell

The thing is, can you trace another Thomas Roberts with the alternative age and birthplace, on other censuses? nell

A famous preacher, William Hutington, changed his name because of being persued by debtors and because he had an illigitimate son. William Hunt, as he was born, claimed that he didn't change his name but added to it. He was not allowed to marry he love of his life, forbidden by her father. Eventually the son, John Fever died, I think in the Workhouse at Throwley, Kent. William sometimes visited him at Throwley. William died in 1813 See 'A Sinner Becomes a Saint' http://grace-for-today.*com/558.htm david

Hi Suzanne and all Thanks for finding that Thomas Roberts for me and the possible info. Just, Brighton was a few miles away from Warninglid, but will lok into it more. Thanks again. I can assure you that the Thomas Roberts in 1871 and 1881 is the same person. All other families info tallies as I said. I have the birth certs of Thomas other children. I have looked into it thoroughly. It is a 1 in a million chance Mary Ann Walder married 2 different Thomas Roberts. I reckon there was probably an enumerators mistake in one of the censuses. I reckon it was the 1871 that is wrong. Perhaps it meant 48. It is DEFINATELY the same person though. Ben