Looking for some ideas as to why people would purposely give variations on a name when registering births? Or were names, like ages, not as important as they are now? My great great grandparents had children born from the mid 1850s to the mid 1870s at a range of places on the Victorian goldfields. His name is Henry Hyams - but this was not a name he used when registering a child until 1871. In each case the name was very purposefully signed by either Henry or his wife Emily when the birth was registered and the signatures do not suggest they could not write or spell their names. Henry was not registered for the 1856 electoral roll so I assume he had no Miner's Right. When I discovered he was a convict late last year I thought perhaps he'd absconded but he served his whole sentence in Tasmania, including punishment time at Port Arthur, but had finished his sentence in 1851. In 1855 it was Hyands and his occupation was gold miner, as it was in 1857 when his occupation was gold digger. In 1859 it was Hynds, occupation miner. In 1860 it was back to Hyands, occupation miner. In 1863 and 1865 it was Hynds, occupation miner. In 1868 it was Hyms, occupation miner. Two unregistered children of Emily (possibly not Henry's) gave the surname Hymes when they married in 1869. In 1871 and 1873 he was Hyams, occupation farmer. (Inglewood) When he married Emily in 1880 he was Hyam, occupation miner and when he died in 1883 he was Hyams, occupation miner. Any ideas would be gratefully received. Christine

Christine, With the signatures are they always the same? I would be guessing that they have not actually filled out the forms but verbally given the name and the registrar has put his slant on the name. Or maybe they were not all that fussed on the spelling of their name and near enough was good enough! A bit frustrating but at least you have a trail, many people get precious about the spelling then wonder why they cannot find people. Carmel -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christine Warren Sent: Sunday, 29 June, 2008 1:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: possible reasons for giving different surnames Looking for some ideas as to why people would purposely give variations on a name when registering births? Or were names, like ages, not as important as they are now? My great great grandparents had children born from the mid 1850s to the mid 1870s at a range of places on the Victorian goldfields. His name is Henry Hyams - but this was not a name he used when registering a child until 1871. In each case the name was very purposefully signed by either Henry or his wife Emily when the birth was registered and the signatures do not suggest they could not write or spell their names. Henry was not registered for the 1856 electoral roll so I assume he had no Miner's Right. When I discovered he was a convict late last year I thought perhaps he'd absconded but he served his whole sentence in Tasmania, including punishment time at Port Arthur, but had finished his sentence in 1851. In 1855 it was Hyands and his occupation was gold miner, as it was in 1857 when his occupation was gold digger. In 1859 it was Hynds, occupation miner. In 1860 it was back to Hyands, occupation miner. In 1863 and 1865 it was Hynds, occupation miner. In 1868 it was Hyms, occupation miner. Two unregistered children of Emily (possibly not Henry's) gave the surname Hymes when they married in 1869. In 1871 and 1873 he was Hyams, occupation farmer. (Inglewood) When he married Emily in 1880 he was Hyam, occupation miner and when he died in 1883 he was Hyams, occupation miner. Any ideas would be gratefully received. Christine ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The style of handwriting of the signatures for both Henry and Emily is consistent throughout - even down to Emily's first marriage in 1852 in Sydney to James Gulliford. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carmel M Reynen" <[email protected]> To: "'Christine Warren'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:53 PM Subject: RE: possible reasons for giving different surnames > Christine, > With the signatures are they always the same? I would be guessing that > they > have not actually filled out the forms but verbally given the name and the > registrar has put his slant on the name. Or maybe they were not all that > fussed on the spelling of their name and near enough was good enough! > A bit frustrating but at least you have a trail, many people get precious > about the spelling then wonder why they cannot find people. > Carmel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christine > Warren > Sent: Sunday, 29 June, 2008 1:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: possible reasons for giving different surnames > > Looking for some ideas as to why people would purposely give variations on > a > name when registering births? Or were names, like ages, not as important > as > they are now? > > My great great grandparents had children born from the mid 1850s to the > mid > 1870s at a range of places on the Victorian goldfields. > His name is Henry Hyams - but this was not a name he used when registering > a > child until 1871. In each case the name was very purposefully signed by > either Henry or his wife Emily when the birth was registered and the > signatures do not suggest they could not write or spell their names. > Henry was not registered for the 1856 electoral roll so I assume he had no > Miner's Right. When I discovered he was a convict late last year I > thought > perhaps he'd absconded but he served his whole sentence in Tasmania, > including punishment time at Port Arthur, but had finished his sentence in > 1851. > > In 1855 it was Hyands and his occupation was gold miner, as it was in 1857 > when his occupation was gold digger. > In 1859 it was Hynds, occupation miner. > In 1860 it was back to Hyands, occupation miner. > In 1863 and 1865 it was Hynds, occupation miner. > In 1868 it was Hyms, occupation miner. > Two unregistered children of Emily (possibly not Henry's) gave the surname > Hymes when they married in 1869. > In 1871 and 1873 he was Hyams, occupation farmer. (Inglewood) > > When he married Emily in 1880 he was Hyam, occupation miner and when he > died > in 1883 he was Hyams, occupation miner. > > Any ideas would be gratefully received. > Christine > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1524 - Release Date: 28/06/2008 7:42 PM