* Recording a Certificate with incorrect information

[elainemaul]

Hi,
I am a newbie to using Family Historian and Ancestral Sources, although I've been researching both my own and my husband's family for some time. I used to use another program which didn't have any real mechanism for recording sources but I've been inputting all my data into Family Historian as a fresh exercise and want to do it correctly!

However, I have an awkward marriage certificate and I'm not sure how best to input the data!

My husband's great grandfather was Charles VINALL and he married Jane MacDONALD on 25 December 1881. He lists his father as Thomas VINALL. However, on the 1871 Census, Charles is listed as being the grandson of Thomas VINALL. On this same census, Thomas's wife is given as Jane [this is relevant as you will see further!].

I eventually managed to find Charles' birth where he is shown as the son of Emma VINALL with no father. I've also found Wapping Workhouse entries that show him as illegitimate, plus an earlier illegitimate daughter that Emma had.

The plot then thickens because Emma VINALL is actually the daughter of Richard VINALL and Jane VINALL, plus Thomas VINALL is married to Mary VINALL in the 1841 census. Both Richard VINALL and Mary VINALL die and Thomas and Jane set up home together as 'man and wife', although they never actually married! Obviously not allowed to, but they do both genuinely have the same VINALL surname so they're not being untruthful on that one!!

Hence, the 'Thomas VINALL' on Charles' marriage certificate is actually his great uncle! Despite what the marriage certificate and the 1871 census say!

I've already put in the various people into FH to show the correct relationship but when I try to input the marriage for Charles, it obviously won't let me select Thomas as the 'father' as I've told FH otherwise!

What would be the 'correct' way of inputting the information as given on this marriage certificate? Thank you

Elaine

[brianlummis]

Elaine - am I right in assuming that you are using Ancestral Sources to enter the Father's details? If so I would leave the father's name blank under the Parent's tab and under the Further Info tab entering the purported father under Association and edit the association as "Father as named on the Certificate" and then link the Great Uncle. If you feel that you need to clarify you could include a relevant note.

Brian

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG Elaine.

Yes, that is an interesting scenario.
I presume the 1851 and 1861 and 1881 Census records all bear out the family as you describe?
If you have not obtained them, I suggest you do so to double-check your hypothesis.
You will have a similar problem when entering the 1871 Census where Charles is grandson of Thomas.
But AS is more tolerant in the Census grid in allowing any relationship to be entered.

There is a workaround for the AS problem with the Marriage details.
The Parents tab will show the correct Father & Mother for both spouses.
Remove the tick against the Ind. Father which as the tooltip and Help says, means he is NOT referred to in the Certificate.
Then in the Auto Text below, manually fill in Thomas VINALL as the "Father's Name and Surname:".
This kind of editing to the Auto Text is quite common in order to make it a true transcript of the Certificate, etc.
In the Note below you will probably need to explain the anomaly.
Presumably, Charles does not know who his birth father is, so Thomas is a surrogate grandfather/father where official documents require someone to fulfil that role, even though he is actually a great-uncle and a sort of step-grandfather.

You could also use Brian's suggestion if you wanted to formally link Thomas to the Marriage Event as say a Witness.

BTW: As a newcomer, please spend some time studying how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers, especially as you say you want to get your data entry correct. Using AS is a good start, the Family Historian Sample Project gives good examples, and the Book: "Getting the Most From Family Historian" has many tutorials.

[elainemaul]

Hi,
Thank you both for your suggestions. I will have a little play! I have also been promised the book you suggested as a birthday present in a couple of weeks time so will have a good look at that plus the Key Features, thank you.

The details on the various census entries does support this odd situation, although I did umm and arr about it for ages before deciding this was what must have happened. Mind you ...... I could be wrong! I want to buy a couple of additional birth and death certificates to see if that helps firm things up; everytime I look at this, I wonder and think some more about whether it is right!

The only thing that I am guessing and haven't really proved is that Richard and Thomas Vinall are brothers; I guess they could be cousins?

However, I can't find Richard and Jane Vinall on the 1851 census and Richard dies in 1858, so he doesn't appear on any other census. I have tried just about every wildcard search I can think of to find them on the 1851 census but with no luck If I could find them on the 1851 census, it would certainly help.

On the 1841 census (the ref is HO 107 702 F25 P11) you can see Emma listed in Richard and Jane's household with Thomas and Mary next door and Thomas and Mary don't have a daughter called Emma.

Mary Vinall dies in 1854 but she's on the 1851 census as Thomas's wife (Ref is HO107 1556 F664 Pg7). I can't find a marriage entry for Thomas Vinall marrying anyone called Jane between 1854 and 1861.

On the 1861 census, the household has both an Eliza and Elizabeth as daughters (ref RG9 288 F66 Pg30 and RG9 288 F66 Pg31). It seems a bit odd to call two children such similar names? I think I've found their birth references so these are two certificates I want to get to try to help.

Thank you for your advice once again (and your welcome to the forum ).

Best wishes
Elaine

[tatewise]

I don't think the Jane Vinall married to Thomas Vinall in 1861 is the same Jane Vinall married to Richard Vinall in 1841.

The 1841 Jane was born in 1811 approx.

The 1861 Jane was born in 1837, which is after the birth of Emma in 1834 daughter of the 1841 Jane born in 1811.

[ CORRECTION:
Having looked at 1861 Census image, together with the 1871 Census, the 1861 Jane was not Age 24 but 54 thus born in 1807.
Also both 1861 & 1871 Jane were born in Rainham, Kent that is only 2 miles from Chatham, Kent where 1841 Jane was born.]

[gwilym'smum]

Elaine, just a thought, having Elizabeth and Eliza in the same family is not unusual, I have several instances. Also instances such as Mary Elizabeth and Ann Elizabeth. They probably had ancestors with both names or they just liked them!
Ann

[elainemaul]

Your kind suggestions have now got me wondering again!! It is always useful to have input from someone else.

I have the baptism records for both Eliza and Elizabeth Vinall. In fact, I've trawled through the GRO birth registers searching for any Vinalls born from 1837 (for completeness!) through to 1852 in the Poplar area. I've also searched through the baptisms at All Saints, Poplar for Vinalls and they either have Richard and Jane or Thomas and Mary as the parents. I haven't found baptisms for all the children though; either a register not on findmypast or they weren't baptised....... of the 6 children for Richard and Jane, I can't find 3 baptisms and of the 6 children of Thomas and Mary, I can't find a baptism for one of them.

Elizabeth is Richard and Jane's child and Eliza is Thomas and Mary's.

I have also searched (today!) generally round the year's these two were born in all areas and there aren't any other Elizas or Elizabeths that might confuse the issue....... taking up the point Ann very validly made [thank you Ann ]

The birth dates for the children in the various censuses ties up with these baptisms/GRO entries.

You are correct that Jane's age varies but not by much:
1841 - She's 30, with Richard and not from Tower Hamlets
1851 - Can't find her!
1861 - She's 54, with Thomas and from Rainham, Kent
1871 - She's 62, with Thomas and from Rainham, Kent
1881 - Not there and Thomas listed as a widower

Several of the baptism records also have the date of birth written on them, so I've cross compared the GRO Refs with the baptisms and from that, Jane's maiden name is POPE and Mary's maiden name is WOOD.

I haven't yet proved this by buying any certificates, but I now realise I shall have to do that for completeness! (Trying to avoid buying certificates if I didn't need to!!). Obviously that isn't going to prove whether Thomas and Jane moved into together, however!

I think her death entry is in 1876, in Stepney, although that gives her age as 71 which differs from the censuses ....... another certificate to get to see if that sheds any light on things!

In having another search on ancestry today, I have found a workhouse admission for Jane Vinall in 1856, the year her husband died. I was actually trying (yet again!!) to see if I could find Richard and Jane on the 1851 census and I suddenly wondered if they were in the Workhouse with just initials. I made my search very wide and hence found this one! It's hard to know if it's relevant? It's on the Wapping Workhouse: Admission and Discharge Register 1856 - The ref is - Reference Number: STBG/L/131/17
Description - Title : Wapping Workhouse: Admission and Discharge Register, 1856
Very faintly under her name, I 'think' it might say Mary, not really sure .... but not a 'proper' entry so odd. However, finding it very hard to read the admission reason (might be fever?). The discharge register is just 'at own desire' and Mary isn't mentioned. I can't find any admissions for Richard Vinall though.

Nevertheless, thank you for your input. It's really helpful to have fresh eyes look at things

I'm not sure how successfully I'll ever really get to the bottom of what went on!
Best wishes
Elaine

[elainemaul]

As a postscript, after Charles Vinall's birth in 1858, I have no idea what happened to Emma Vinall ..... or at least in searching, I've never been totally happy that anything I've found is her!

If she could only have conveniently married, her marriage certificate would be interesting!!

If anyone has any ideas on breaking down that brickwall, it would be fantastic!

The 1841 census for Poplar, Tower Hamlets suggests she was born around 1834 and in the same area but I haven't found a baptism for her ..... something else which would prove her parents.

By the way .... just realised my count of children in my last post for the two couples are only for those born after 1837 and it didn't include this Emma. Emma is not with Thomas and Mary in 1851 - although as a 17 year old, she could be a living in servant elsewhere ...... or with Richard and Mary.

Best wishes
Elaine

[tatewise]

Elaine, I could not resist the temptation to investigate your Vinall family relationships, and have made some interesting discoveries.

I have found birth/baptism records for Richard and Thomas that show they both have parents Richard & Ann.
So it would seem they are brothers as you suspected.

I can explain the two daughters Eliza and Elizabeth.
The 1846 Q2 birth record for Eliza via the GRO Search says mother's maiden name is Pope.
The 1847 birth/baptism records for Eliza show her parents as Richard & Jane.
So in 1861 Census she is shown as daughter of Thomas living with Jane though strictly is his step-daughter or niece.

The 1847/50 birth/baptism records for Elizabeth show her parents as Thomas & Mary and GRO mother is Wood.
So in 1861 Census she is correctly show as daughter of Thomas.

The same is true for the two Mary Ann daughters.
The 1840 birth/baptism records for Mary Ann born in Dover shows her parents as Thomas & Mary.
So in 1841 & 51 Census she is correctly shown as their daughter.
In 1860 she marries Joseph Chandler and appears in 1861 Census with him.

The 1848 Q3 birth record for Mary Ann via the GRO Search says mother's maiden name is Pope.
So she is the daughter of Richard Vinall & Jane Pope.
It would be unlikely that she is Thomas & Mary's daughter as they already have a daughter Mary Ann.
So in 1861 Census she is shown as daughter of Thomas living with Jane though strictly is his step-daughter or niece.

However, I can't find any 1851 Census details for Richard & Jane nor their children William, Emma, Eliza & Mary Ann, nor any birth/baptism records for the three younger children. But have found an entry for Charles with wife Mary Ann.

Given the 'misuse' of daughter instead of step-daughter it is not surprising that Louisa and Charles are shown as granddaughter & grandson when strictly the daughter & son of Emma the daughter of Jane living with Thomas.

I have attached VINALL.txt as a summary of my findings, much of which you already know, but with the extra clues of records mentioned above. If you have any difficulty tracking them down, then let me know.

P.S. I can find the 1855/56 birth/baptism records for Louisa daughter of Emma but the only entry I can find for Charles is 1858 Q4 Charles William in Stepney.

On Ancestry there is an entry for Emma Vinale for Workhouse Admission, and another for Emma Vennell born about 1833 resident in Middlesex for the 1851 Census, but I do not have an Ancestry subscription to look any further, and neither are revealed by a FindMyPast search.

[victor]

My father's marriage certificate for his first marriage listed his father as Thomas instead of George
I ignored that detail and put George as the father's name and added a note about the incorrect name.
His first wife's father's name was Thomas. That may be where the register may have misunderstood the names.
My mother is his second wife

Victor

[elainemaul]

Hi,
Thank you for your help and for looking into VINALLs for me
Sorry for the delay in replying; I decided to send off for what I believe are the death certificates for Richard VINALL and Mary VINALL and wanted to wait before replying so that I could incorporate information gleaned from their death certificates. I've also been re-checking the various things I've checked before ie did the original Jane VINALL married to Richard VINALL die and Thomas has just had some other Jane move in with him and assume his surname? I can't find any death that fits. Might she have become ill and be in an institution somewhere? So I've re-looked at later censuses and can't find anyone who fits.

I've found the marriages for various of the children from the two pairs of couples and they all tie up, apart from the Eliza born 19/03/1846 that I'm sure is Richard's daughter; her marriage certificate says her father is Thomas and I'm sure that is wrong. As an update ....... the two sets of couples are good at using the same names! They both had an Elizabeth, both had a Mary Ann, one had Susanna Elizabeth and the other Susannah Harvey [sounds like another surname from somewhere or other?]. I do have one or two of the children to pin down, although it's for completeness really; it doesn't prove or disprove the original idea of Thomas setting up home with Ricahrd's wife Jane.

I have received the death certificate for Richard but not for Mary as yet! I was hoping that the informant would be their spouses. Unfortunately, for RIchard, it is an official from Limehouse Workhouse although the address for his death is not the Workhouse, from what I can see (5 Park Street, Limehouse). He died from fever on 3rd April 1856. The occupation is given as Shipwright though and not Smith, although I really think it is the right one; there aren't any other deaths that it could be.

Interestingly, on Ancestry, Jane is admitted to the Workhouse on 23rd April 1856 and I 'think' the reason is also fever (bit difficult to read). Perhaps she was too ill to deal with her husband's death?

I have found a number of baptisms for the couple that I believe are Richard and Thomas' parents ie RIchard and Ann in the non-conformist Bethel (Wesleyan) Chapel in Rochester with the details saying that they're from Chatham. They are:

Thomas VINALL bap 6 Mar 1815 (Ie the Thomas from the above!)
James Smeed VINALL bap 10 Aug 1817
Jabez William VINALL bap 3 Sep 1820 (what a name!!)
Samuel VINALL bap 2 Feb 1823
Sarah Ann VINALL bap 8 May 1825
WIlliam Luckhurst bap 2 Nov 1828

No Richard though
Also, a marriage between Richard VINALL and Ann SMEED at St Mary's, Dover on 18 Apr 1808 ....... with one child having the maiden name as a forname, is it too much of a leap to claim it as their marriage? I wonder if 'Luckhurst' is a surname from somewhere or other as well?

If they married in 1808 in Dover and all the other children from 1815 onwards are baptised whilst in Chatham, I'm a bit sceptical that the baptism in Portsea is the right Richard? However, that is also a ship building area, so it could be!

My next thing is the go through the baptisms for the Bethel chapel, page by page, to see if Richard's there somewhere; VINALL is very easily mis-transcribed!

I really need to find Richard's baptism and also Emma's would be of prime importance; getting Emma's would at least prove that the Charles who is my husband's great-grandfather is descended from Richard rather than from Thomas!

All good fun though

[tatewise]

For Births after 1837 use the free fhugdownloads:contents:service_uk_gro_online_index_search|> Service ~ UK GRO Online Index Search which gives the mother's maiden surname.
e.g.
In the case of 1846 Q2 Poplar ELIZA VINALL it gives POPE.
In the case of 1848 Q3 Poplar MARY ANN VINALL it gives POPE.
So they are definitely daughters of RICHARD and JANE.
Which is why they are shown as daughters of THOMAS and JANE in 1861 Census.

Is the death for RICHARD VINALL you have ordered this one with the correct Age :-
1856 Q2 Died Stepney, London Age 46
For Deaths after 1837 use the free fhugdownloads:contents:service_uk_gro_online_index_search|> Service ~ UK GRO Online Index Search which gives the Age at death and helps confirm/reject possibilities.

Double-check that 5 Park Street is not an address of convenience for Wapping Workhouse.
I have ancestors whose records give just a street address instead of a workhouse institution to avoid the stigma.

The 1809 12 Mar Bapt. Portsea, Hants for RICHARD and 1815 6 Mar Bapt. Rochester, Kent for THOMAS do both give RICHARD and ANN as the parents. If they married in 1808, it would be extremely odd for no children to ensue until 1815.