* A complicated story - How to enter up

[AlanFlint]

First of all let me say that I am doing this for a friend, who is a descendent of the parties concerned. However, it's a bit of a complex situation and I would like to have some guidance as to how the details should be entered, whether on Ancestry, where I have been building the Tree or on my own personal software, i.e. Family Historian.

Where we started, was with an entry for Louis BENOIT, my friend's great-grandfather. He was born in 1881 in the Marylebone District of London. There is a FreeBMD entry to confirm this, dated in the December Qtr of 1881. This, however, is where it gets complicated.

The birth was registered as Louis CODLING. To explain why I am asking for guidance it is necessary to set out the circumstances.

The 1881 Census has an entry for Marylebone which records:

Louis Benoit - Head - aged 59 - Lodging House Keeper - Born France

Isabella Benoit - Wife - aged 63 - Born: Scotland

Louis Benoit - Son - aged 16 - Born: St Marylebone (a birth registered in 1865)

Lizzie Codling - Servant - aged 19 - Born: Suffolk

My theory is, that the Louis CODLING who was born in 1881, was the result of a relationship between Louis BENOIT Jnr and the servant girl, Lizzie CODLING.

If it had stayed like that, then entering the detail would have been easier, but it gets further complicated. By the 1901 Census, 19-year-old Louis is going under the name of Harry NUTKINS and is living in the household with widow Charlotte NUTKINS, her daughter Amelia and another 14-year-old girl called Kate NUTKINS. Louis and Kate are recorded as Charlotte's grandson and granddaughter, which clearly they are not.

Louis then marries in December 1901, and in the Marriage Register, his name is recorded as Louis BENOIT, and his first three children were all surnamed BENOIT, subsequent children are surnamed NUTKINS, including my friend's grandfather.

Fast forward to 1909 and a note is appended to the same 1901 Marriage Register, which reads as follows:

"In entry no. 288, col. 2 for "Louis Benoit" read "Louis Benoit" otherwise "Codling" or "Nutkins". Corrected 3rd February 1909 by me Richard Jones in the presence of H. Nutkins and Maude Catherine Nutkins the parties married."

Anecdotal evidence has been passed down through the family that Louis was adopted by Charlotte NUTKINS, but whether any formal adoption took place I do not know. Or, more likely, it was that out of the kindness of her heart, that Charlotte took Louis into the family, and he 'became' a NUTKINS, as is evidenced by the comment added to the Marriage Register in 1909.

So, how should all this be entered? The father of Louis BENOIT (bn. 1881) is, I would contend, Louis BENOIT (bn. 1865) - and clearly, his mother was Lizzie CODLING. Charlotte NUTKINS was not his natural mother, but to all intents and purposes, she was his adoptive mother and is indicated as such in what information the family have shared with me. Since the 1909 declaration, all the children born have been surnamed NUTKINS.

When all this is completed, I want to be in the position to print a family tree using Family Historian, so if anyone can advise how all this should be entered up I would be really very grateful.

Yours hopefully,

Alan

[tatewise]

Yes, that is somewhat complex but the circumstances of the two name changes are quite common.

The usual convention is to record his Primary Name as his Birth Certificate name of Louis CODLING.
That agrees with the GRO Index entry found in FreeBMD and Search the GRO Online Index.
Interestingly, in the GRO Online Index the mother's Maiden name is not given!

You can record the father as Louis BENOIT Jnr (1865) although not beyond bounds of possibility that it could be Louis BENOIT Snr (1822) or some other person unknown.

You can add a 2nd (adoptive) parent as Charlotte NUTKINS (and maybe her husband), and add Louis as one of their Children.

You then need to record the Name changes.
See how_to:handle_people_with_multiple_names|> How to Handle People With Multiple Names.

For each new Alternate Name field add a Citation to Source document(s) such as Census, Marriage Certificate, etc.
Also, either use the Adoption Event or a Custom Fact to record when and where the named changed, with similar Citations.
That is all definitely feasible in FH and I think will work in Ancestry too.

There will also be Census Events for each decade from 1891 to 1911 and probably 1939 Register .

You will probably need to add Note entries in various places to explain what you believe is going on.

In FH Diagrams by default the Primary Name is shown with Alternate Names listed as a.k.a. ....
Similarly, all those names and facts appear by default or can be added to FH Reports.

[tatewise]

I presume you have traced the NUTKINS family from 1881 Census through 1891 Census to 1901 Census.

1881 Census St Marylebone
Charlotte NUTKINS (1841) m. George A Jnr (1840) & children George J (1863), Frederick, Rosina, William, Ernest, Amelia.

1885 George John NUTKINS m. Catherine MANNING

1891 Census St Marylebone
Charlotte NUTKINS (1841) widow & father George (1816) & sons Frederick, William, Ernest & Louis B CODLINGS (1882) at Victoria Place (note transcription error of COLLINGS but clearly CODLINGS in image)
George NUTKINS (1863) m. Kate (Catherine) (1864) & children George, Eliza, Kate (1887), Frederick at Salisbury Street

1901 Census Paddington
Charlotte NUTKINS (1841) widow & d. Amelia & g.s. Harry (Louis) (1882) & g.d. Kate (1887) at 22, Hyde Park Square Mews
Catherine NUTKINS (1866) widow & children George, Elizabeth, Edward, Charles, Edith at 35, Cirencester Street

1901 Louis BENOIT m. Maude Catherine ROY corrected in 1909 by H(arry) NUTKINS & Maude Catherine NUTKINS

He was certainly known variously as Louis/Harry CODLINGS/BENOIT/NUTKINS.

[AlanFlint]

Mike,

I am immensely grateful for your kind assistance. You are such an invaluable help. The users of FH are privileged to have your continued and knowledgeable contributions on the Forum.

In the course of my research over the last few days, I have indeed reviewed the Census years you mention, but I have to confess that I had not found out about the CODLING connection when I looked at the Census for 1891. Now that you have pointed it out, it makes increasing sense. The fact that Louis CODLING, aka BENOIT, aka NUTKINS was in Charlotte's household much earlier than I had expected is clarification as to why he became regarded as family! I had picked him up there on the 1901 Census when he was 19, but by then he must have been like a grandson to Charlotte, hence the fact he was declared as such on the 1901 Census entry.

Thanks again for your comments in your first reply, and I must admit to having had the thought about the possibility of Louis BENOIT snr, born 1822, being the father of Louis CODLING, born 1881, but had, I suppose, hoped that was not the case, and instead attributed fatherhood to his 16-year-old son, the younger Louis. Having looked at it again, I do now believe that you are correct and that Louis snr, born 1822, was indeed the father of Louis CODLING born 1881, following a relationship wth his 19-year-old servant Lizzie CODLING, when Louis snr would have been aged 59, 40 years older than Lizzie.

Why am I now so sure? Well, on the Marriage Register entry in 1901, Louis CODLING/BENOIT/NUTKINS describes his father, Louis BENOIT, as 'Deceased'. Louis snr died in Qtr 1 of 1901, the marriage took place in Qtr 4. The Louis BENOIT born 1865, who I had earlier thought to be the father did not die until 1933, so it couldn't have been him! It must have been Louis snr!

Lizzie CODLING, understandably, appears to have left the BENOIT household, but the baby, Louis CODLING, born 1881, is next to be found on the 1891 Census, with Charlotte NUTKINS, as you pointed out.

Isabella, the wife of Louis snr, appears to have stayed with him, and they were still together on the 1891 Census, living in the Parish of Wallington, Surrey.

It has been compelling stuff over the last few days, trying to unravel a long-standing family mystery, but at the same time I have found it quite satisfying to have made such progress, and your contribution played a valuable part. Thank you again!

Alan

[tatewise]

Glad to have helped, Alan.
I absolutely relish unravelling such family history mysteries using only the snapshots of history found in the records.
We have slightly similar family name changes on both my maternal side and my wife's paternal side.
The latter case is still not entirely resolved and I hope the 1921 Census may help.
What did help were early 20th C. institutional maternity ward records retrieved from NHS archives.

[AdrianBruce]

Couple of points - adoption is informal in England & Wales until the 1920s. Though having said that, I'm sure that some earlier adoptions would be signed, sealed and delivered through lawyers and you could call those formal. Nothing to stop you describing earlier informal adoptions as adoptions, the term was clearly in use.

Re the father...

... Well, on the Marriage Register entry in 1901, Louis CODLING/BENOIT/NUTKINS describes his father, Louis BENOIT, as 'Deceased'. Louis snr died in Qtr 1 of 1901, the marriage took place in Qtr 4. The Louis BENOIT born 1865, who I had earlier thought to be the father did not die until 1933, so it couldn't have been him! It must have been Louis snr!
...

Claiming your father was deceased, even if he isn't, is a good way of stopping further queries that might discover your illegitimacy, so I'd not place 100% reliance on that. However, such distinctive names are already a hostage to fortune so young Louis C/B/N might be being perfectly honest. It might be sensible to add a note somewhere - they can be added as text boxes to diagrams before printing.

Just as an incidental, I wonder if Louis BENOIT b1865 may be the same Louis Alex'r BENOIT who joined the London Brighton & South Coast Railway in 1887 at London Bridge as a interpreter? The interpreter was b abt 1866 -see Ancestry.com, UK, Railway Employment Records, 1833-1956 citing TNA Class: RAIL414; Piece: 776.

As a final note - I think the conjunction of BENOIT and NUTKINS (I'm thinking Squirrel N, of course) a perfectly delightful illustration of how mixed up we really are...

[tatewise]

Almost certainly is same Louis Benoit whose Birth Index is
Q1 1865 BENOIT Louis Alexander St Marylebone 1a 450
and no other similar names between 1861 and 1869.