{"id":866,"date":"2021-07-10T19:16:23","date_gmt":"2021-07-10T18:16:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/?p=866"},"modified":"2021-07-10T19:16:25","modified_gmt":"2021-07-10T18:16:25","slug":"names-names-names","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/?p=866","title":{"rendered":"Names, Names, Names!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Better late than never – this was meant to be the June topic for one-name study blogs. Just a few random thoughts on the helpfulness or otherwise of names in family history research.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honest John<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the last count, I had 765 CLOSE and variants births in England and Wales which included the name John \u2013 208 of which were simply registered as John CLOSE. Clearly with names like that, one needs some context in order to correctly identify each individual.\u00a0 An additional given name greatly reduces the possibilities, particularly if the name is an unusual one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I first came across Honest John CLOSE in the 1881 census, I wondered if \u2018Honest\u2019 was some kind of nickname, but further research discovered his 1803 St Martin-in-the-Fields baptism and various other records confirming that it was indeed his name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Honest John CLOSE – 1881 Census <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Signature of Honest John CLOSE – witness to daughter Frances’ marriage 14 May 1867<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Interchangeable given names<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m sure I\u2019m not the only researcher who has been frustrated by people whose given names don\u2019t always appear in the same order, or who sometimes leave out one or more of their given names. I have been recently reviewing some Gloucestershire CLOSEs, and came across Edward George CLOSE, born and baptised in 1845.\u00a0 He appeared as simply Edward in 1851 & 1861, Edward George when he married in 1865, then Edward G in 1871, 1881 and 1891, but his death and burial records in 1894 have him as George Edward CLOSE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mix and match<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some time ago I came across another Gloucestershire family whose names are far from consistent. The root cause of the confusion was that a William CLOSE (1797-1870) from Minchinhampton, left his wife of 13 years Hannah MANSFIELD in about 1832, with whom he had fathered seven children, and set up home with a Thirza FRANKLIN (1816-1892) and produced 11 more children between 1833 and 1852. Surnames were variable from census to census: William CLOSE retained the same name until his death in 1870; Thirza FRANKLIN retained her maiden name at least until 1871 (enumerated as FRANKLING in 1851) but in 1881 and 1891 she is described as Thirza (or Theriza!) CLOSE, widow – although there is no evidence to suggest she ever married William CLOSE. However, her GRO death record reverts to FRANKLIN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Thirza FRANKLIN aka CLOSE and family in 1881<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The children are listed as FRANKLIN in 1851 and 1861 (all with a middle initial C), but as CLOSE in 1841, 1871 and 1881. Their birth and christening records seem to consistently use the FRANKLIN surname, sometimes with ‘Close’ as a middle name. Although some of them married under their birth surname of FRANKLIN, others were married as CLOSE, and consistently the male children used the surname CLOSE for their own children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One child of William and Thirza’s relationship who puzzled me for a while was George Amos, born 1836. The 1857 record of his marriage to Elizabeth Jane POWELL describes him as George Amos Close FRANKLIN (father William CLOSE). The four children of this marriage were all registered as CLOSE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
George Amos Close FRANKLIN marriage 30 Dec 1857, Brimscombe, GLS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The marriage record describes him as a widower, so where was the record of a previous marriage? Eventually he was tracked down in the GRO listing, having shuffled his various names: he used the name Amos Franklin George CLOSE when he married Mary Ann COOKE in 1856 Q2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who was Alick?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1881 census image of Thirza and family shown above includes a son Alick CLOSE, 21, born Bath, Somerset. The family appear to have remained consistently in and around Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire, and no corresponding birth or christening record could be found for a son Alick born in Bath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An examination of earlier census records suggests that in addition to the 12 children born to William and Thirza, they also cared for a number of foster children: three in 1861, two of whom were still with them in 1871. One of those foster children was named Alick:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Alick Sander FURLEY (b Bath, SOM) – 1861 census<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Alick SAUNDERS (b Bath, SOM) – 1871 census<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Although the age doesn’t exactly increase by 10 (as is the case in many other census records!), it would appear that Alick Sander FURLEY, boarder, in 1861, Alick SAUNDERS, boarder, in 1871 and Alick CLOSE, son, in 1881 are one and the same person, the first two possibly being misunderstandings of ‘Alexander’ by the enumerator. Eventually a birth record was tracked down: 1859 Q2 Bath 5c 728 – Alexander Farley LIDDIATTE – mother REEVES. There was, of course, no formal adoption at that time, although evidently Alexander CLOSE regarded William CLOSE, boat builder, with whom he grew up, as his father according to his 1884 marriage record. A little further research revealed that there was a nearby LIDDIATT family in Bisley – and that Alexander could have ben a grandchild of Thirza’s sister Mary who married a John LIDDIATT in 1835.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suppose the conclusion to this must be that if an individual appears in some records but is missing from other expected records, it’s time to start rearranging the names, or search with just a first name or surname plus location and approximate date. Happy hunting, one-namers!<\/p>\n

<\/div>

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Better late than never – this was meant to be the June topic for one-name study blogs. Just a few…<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-post"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=866"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/866\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":876,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/866\/revisions\/876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/close.one-name.blog\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}