Genealogy Chat

From my grandfather William Charles MARTIN's birth certificate (Lambeth, 5th Jan 1905) I know his father was William MARTIN and his mother was Emily Sarah (nee COOPER). From the marriage certificate (Lambeth 1903) of Emily Sarah & my gt gndfather I know my gt gt gndfather was Charles MARTIN, a coal porter, working on the Thames. So far, so good. I have found a Charles MARTIN, coal porter, in the 1901 census, (b abt 1846, lambeth) living with his 4 boys, including William, at 36 Goding St, Lambeth. I'm certain that this is our family because the aforementioned 1903 marriage certificate shows one of the witnesses as George TROWSE, who also lived in Goding St, according to the 1901 census, and was probably a family friend. However I'm stuck trying to find the correct birth certificates for the 4 boys and their father, Charles. I have found birth listings for Charles' boys, all born Lambeth (which is correct according to the census), but the birth certificates I've received shows the father as Frederick Charles MARTIN. In the 1891 census, I again found Charles MARTIN (not Frederick Charles MARTIN), dock labourer, b abt 1849, Hackney (note the discrepancies with the 1901 census) living in Lambeth, at 37 Duke St (now Duchy st), Lambeth. Again plausible. In 1891 this Charles MARTIN lived with his wife, Emma, with the 4 boys with the same names as in the 1901 census. We were also surprised to have found 4 older girls in the family in 1891, who must have left home by the 1901 census. I have sent off for some birth certificates for some of Charles' kids, which show Emma MARTIN (nee RICHARDSON) as the mother but Frederick Charles MARTIN as the father. How can I confirm which is correct? I've searched censuses to see if I could find a Frederick Charles Martin with a son William (b abt 1885) but with no luck. I'm really stumped on this now and would be delighted to learn how I can proceed with a higher degree of certainty. My family tree, Martin-Peterson, is availble to view on Genes Reunited. Thanks in advance for any pearls of wisdom! William Charles Martin (4)

It's possible that he was Frederick Charles Martin and called himself Charles. I'm in a similar muddy situation with my gr grandfather so I know how frustrating it is. He and his father were both called George (George John and George Henry) but his father seems to have been known as Henry - I find it difficult to just accept this and verify which is the correct family on censuses - particularly as there are at least 3 of similar name/age. The only way I can make any sense of it is to pull out details of the other 2 George's and try and track their families through censuses as that way I might arrive at my George by elimination. Long job though - so good luck Jill

It's not unusual for names to be missed on the census - people often put the name they were known by. Maybe William never knew his father was called Frederick. I have found this marriage Charles Carter 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Greater London, London, Surrey Harriett Edgar 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Greater London, London, Surrey >>>>Charles Frederick Martin 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Greater London, London, Surrey >>>>Emily Richardson 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Was he Frederick Charles or Charles Frederick? And Emma or Emily? If you are sure that the 1901 family is correct then one in 1891 with the same names and ages for children is likely to be correct. Can you find a family that fits better?

Thanks for your thoughts, Jill! You wrote: 'It's possible that he was Frederick Charles Martin and called himself Charles.' It is possible, though I'm not certain why he would appear as Frederick Charles Martin on his children's birth certificates but signed himself as Charles Martin on his son, William's marriage cert. I could understand that he might prefer to use Charles as his name but usually people give their official full name on official docs. However, nothing would surprise me with my family! I'll keep searching, once I've double-checked all the existing official documents, which my mother amassed before she died. Maybe she ordered the wrong marriage certificate in the first place...

Hi you said: 'but signed himself as Charles Martin on his son, William's marriage cert' he didnt sign himself as Charles Martin, William would have given his fathers name as Charles Martin to the parish clerk/registrar

And who reported the births - him, or his wife? His wife may have given his full name on the birth certs, whereas if he registered the births, he may just have said Charles. My late father had three forenames and I am registered as the daughter of Edward. By the time he died, he was using his middle name of Graham and my brother registered the death in that name. If everything else fits, then I wouldn't worry too much about one missing forename! Or one additional one either - my grandfather added another forename when he was an adult, as a sort of middle class thing. OC

Thanks everyone for your help with this - much appreciated! Andrea, you wrote: 'I have found this marriage >>>>Charles Frederick Martin 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Greater London, London, Surrey >>>>Emily Richardson 1871 Jul-Aug-Sep Lambeth Was he Frederick Charles or Charles Frederick? And Emma or Emily?' Well, the birth certificate I've just received for their daughter Catherine (who appears on the 1891 census as 'Katy') gives Name & Surname of Father as 'Frederick Charles Martin' and the mother as 'Emma Martin, formerly Richardson'. The box which is headed 'Signature, description & residence of informant' reads: 'F C Martin, Father, 31 Charles Street, Oakley Street, Lambeth'. On the full copy of Kate's birth cert I got from the GRO, all the writing is in the same hand (presumably copied from the original). But presumably the box labelled 'signature' would have contained Charles' actual signature. Wouldn't it be great to see the original signatures to check! The interesting thing is that I can't find a Frederick Charles Martin with a son, William in the 1891 or 1901 census, living in Lambeth. But Charles Martin - yes - which I believe is how he was known within the family. It all looks very convincing, but I'm still uneasy about the name discrepancy between the birth certs & the census, though accept that this could be quite genuine, as you have suggested. However, what about the age difference of Charles in the 1901 census (age 55, living at 36 Goding St, Lambeth) and the 1891 (age 43, living at 37 Duke Street, lambeth)? I feel I just need something more to be certain but am not sure what I need or how to get it!

William To be able to compare signatures, you need originals of both events, which means photocopies from the LOCAL RO. Unfortunately, I think Lambeth no longer issues certs for family history purposes (correct me if I am wrong, someone!) As for what is written on census entries - in some ways, census information is the least reliable, for many reasons. The main reason is - the census was taken by the government of the day for statistical purposes, not in order to record accurate information about individual people. As long as it was roughly correct, e.g. a man, a woman and some children, the enumerator would certainly not have wasted any time on the finer points of ages, or name spellings, or relationships.It wasnt important. And who answered the door to the enumerator? If it was a child, they may not have known how old their parents were, or where they were born, and when asked for their mother's name, said Emma, because that is what their father always called their mother. I am a champion nitpicker myself, so I know what you are getting at, but I have to say in this instance I would accept this as being the correct family. OC