Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
How on earth did he get away with this
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 15:36 |
My 2xgreatgrandad Samual Procter born out of wedlock to Ann Allcock. She then went on to marry William Procter on all the censuses he is Samual Procter, his death cert says Procter his first wife death cert says Mary Ann Procter, all his children are name Procter. Both his marridges he's Allcock is it me or is there something not quite legal about this.Gill |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Judith | Report | 15 Sep 2005 15:50 |
There is nothing legally to stop any of us calling ourselves whatever we want, as long as its not in order to defraud. I guess as your Samuel was brought up by Wiilliam Procter he would have been know by that surname and so registered his children in that name and was himself registered at death in the name he was known by. The use of his original name on the marriage entry was probably down to the vicar knowing he was not actually a Procter and so insisting on the birth name. (It seems people were often happy to lie to the registrar but happy so to lie to a vicar.) |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 15:55 |
Hi Judith, yes it seems that way, but very confusing for us people trying to find them, very inconsiderate i call it lol Gill |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 15 Sep 2005 15:57 |
Hi Gill, was Samuel the son of William, born out of wedlock and then he married his mother? That sounds not right--what I mean is ---Samuel son of William and Ann but unmarried, they later went on to get married. I suppose if that were the case he could legitimately use both names. Gloria x |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:03 |
I thought of that, infact iam hoping that is the case, but have no way of finding out. Samual was b 13/3/1821 and William and Ann married 29/12/1822 so there is a good 20 months between the two events. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:09 |
Yes Chris, that is it, but i thought a child had to have fathers name if known. the parents were married it just seems odd. Would like to ask all what would you do with this ,carry on with the Procter research, try and find out about mothers family or leave it and say end of line. Gill |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:20 |
Just been on family search family group record, and there is a Samuel Allcock with father Samuel Allcock and mother Ann, born 16 dec 1821, Turnditch Derby. Gloria x |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:29 |
I found that one Gloria, but a lady on here came up with one born in Longton to an Ann Allcock. and Longton, Fenton area is were they lived. Although the marridge i have found for William and Ann is in Fulford Staffs a few miles away. Going to see if i can find a marridge in Longton to make sure iv got the right one. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Merry | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:30 |
Have you seen the original baptism entry for Samuel? If not, it might name the reputed father..... Have you checked out whether there was a bastardy order against William Procter? Merry |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:42 |
Hi Merry, went up to the family history centre on Tuesday to look at the parrish records, but they were so bad i couldn't read them. So will have to wait till i can go up to Hanley archives and hope there records are in better condition. Don't know what to think at the moment.I think the basterdy records are only at Stafford. so don't no when i can get there |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
BrianW | Report | 15 Sep 2005 16:56 |
I've got the same problem with widow Mary Giles who had two or three children, married John Sherwood and had a few more. Some of the pre-marriage children come up as Giles or Sherwood, seemingly at random in census and marriage records! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 17:40 |
Hi Brian, it's so frustrating not to be able to tie up the lose ends.Gill |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
BrianW | Report | 15 Sep 2005 17:46 |
I've tied most of them up, but only by a few trips down to Canterbury Cathedral archives. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
GillfromStaffs | Report | 15 Sep 2005 18:05 |
Well iv just booked into Stafford archives on tuesday they have the bastardy order records for all Staffordshire.So as yet don't know how iam going to get there, but get there i will. Determind to sort this out. Thanks for all your replys. Gill |
|||
Researching: |