I am a very new transcriber, but this looks like a good use for the #THEORY facility. I think you must be right to TWYS, but you could follow each with a #THEORY line saying something like "repetition of surname as second forename in original document is wrong". I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me will comment. Regards to all Barrie Tite ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: Unusual Middle Names > Hello, > > I'd better start by saying that I am transcribing these cases EXACTLY as shown on the scans, but I am rather curious about them and would like to hear from others :-) > > I'm transcribing Births, Dec 1844, and noticed that there have been quite a few with an unusual, or even unlikely, middle name. > > It's quite common for children to be christened with mother's maiden name, but these are repetitions of their current surname, so out of idle curiosity (taking a break from transcribing) I checked back to see if they were from particular (sub)Districts. My theory being that the original record is as presented on a copy Birth Certificate (but we transcribe only relevant extracts copied from them) and the Registrar might have entered the child's full name in the name column. However, every one was different. > > The females are:- > Sarah Ferrar FERRAR, Stamford > Phillis Chapple CHAPPLE, Leighton Buzd > Alice Chandler CHANDLER, Chelsea > Eliza Chamberlin CHAMBERLIN, Norwich > Jane _avoy Bond BOND, Wellington > > The males are:- > Arthur Chawner CHAWNER, Uttoxeter > John Boscough BOSCOUGH, Preston > George Booth BOOTH, Manchester > Thomas Bolton BOLTON, Chorlton > > I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known anyone with such a name. > > > Cheers, > Colin Cruddace > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >

My first reaction is - you cannot assume it's 'wrong'. I am sure we are all aware of the use of unusual Christian names - right upto the present day with children being christened with all the names of their father's favourite sports team members! I am not sure if there is any other more logical explanation in this case. Regards Mervyn Wright. -----Original Message----- From: Barrie Tite [mailto:barrie.tite@ntlworld.com] Sent: 18 January 2004 22:29 To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Unusual Middle Names I am a very new transcriber, but this looks like a good use for the #THEORY facility. I think you must be right to TWYS, but you could follow each with a #THEORY line saying something like "repetition of surname as second forename in original document is wrong". I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me will comment. Regards to all Barrie Tite ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: Unusual Middle Names > Hello, > > I'd better start by saying that I am transcribing these cases EXACTLY as shown on the scans, but I am rather curious about them and would like to hear from others :-) > > I'm transcribing Births, Dec 1844, and noticed that there have been quite a few with an unusual, or even unlikely, middle name. > > It's quite common for children to be christened with mother's maiden name, but these are repetitions of their current surname, so out of idle curiosity (taking a break from transcribing) I checked back to see if they were from particular (sub)Districts. My theory being that the original record is as presented on a copy Birth Certificate (but we transcribe only relevant extracts copied from them) and the Registrar might have entered the child's full name in the name column. However, every one was different. > > The females are:- > Sarah Ferrar FERRAR, Stamford > Phillis Chapple CHAPPLE, Leighton Buzd > Alice Chandler CHANDLER, Chelsea > Eliza Chamberlin CHAMBERLIN, Norwich > Jane _avoy Bond BOND, Wellington > > The males are:- > Arthur Chawner CHAWNER, Uttoxeter > John Boscough BOSCOUGH, Preston > George Booth BOOTH, Manchester > Thomas Bolton BOLTON, Chorlton > > I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known anyone with such a name. > > > Cheers, > Colin Cruddace > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.562 / Virus Database: 354 - Release Date: 16/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.562 / Virus Database: 354 - Release Date: 16/01/2004

Thanks Barrie, I'm equally new but I don't see that a #THEORY line would benefit anyone, especially when I don't know that it IS wrong. The examples I gave are from the official records I am transcribing, and anyone finding them could make up their own minds if they are right or not. I was just curious to know if the Registrars got things wrong now and again! What you said, though, raises the next question - "What happens when a #THEORY is used?" Who sees them, and under what circumstances? Any answers please? Regards Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barrie Tite" <barrie.tite@ntlworld.com> To: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com>; <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: Re: Unusual Middle Names > I am a very new transcriber, but this looks like a good use for the #THEORY > facility. I think you must be right to TWYS, but you could follow each with > a #THEORY line saying something like "repetition of surname as second > forename in original document is wrong". > > I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me will comment. > > Regards to all > > Barrie Tite > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Colin Cruddace" <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:27 PM > Subject: Unusual Middle Names > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd better start by saying that I am transcribing these cases EXACTLY as > shown on the scans, but I am rather curious about them and would like to > hear from others :-) > > > > I'm transcribing Births, Dec 1844, and noticed that there have been quite > a few with an unusual, or even unlikely, middle name. > > > > It's quite common for children to be christened with mother's maiden name, > but these are repetitions of their current surname, so out of idle curiosity > (taking a break from transcribing) I checked back to see if they were from > particular (sub)Districts. My theory being that the original record is as > presented on a copy Birth Certificate (but we transcribe only relevant > extracts copied from them) and the Registrar might have entered the child's > full name in the name column. However, every one was different. > > > > The females are:- > > Sarah Ferrar FERRAR, Stamford > > Phillis Chapple CHAPPLE, Leighton Buzd > > Alice Chandler CHANDLER, Chelsea > > Eliza Chamberlin CHAMBERLIN, Norwich > > Jane _avoy Bond BOND, Wellington > > > > The males are:- > > Arthur Chawner CHAWNER, Uttoxeter > > John Boscough BOSCOUGH, Preston > > George Booth BOOTH, Manchester > > Thomas Bolton BOLTON, Chorlton > > > > I suppose a case could be made for daughters carrying the family name on > after marriage, but what about sons? These sound very improbable and I > wonder if anyone else has come across similar entries, or has actually known > anyone with such a name. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Colin Cruddace > > > > > > ============================== > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > >

In message <001c01c3de22$35983e10$02150052@sn010739020381>, Colin Cruddace <c.cruddace@ntlworld.com> writes >The examples I gave are from the official records I am transcribing, >and anyone finding them could make up their own minds if they are right >or not. Absolutely right. That's why, when we transcribe, we write what was written originally. It is up to the end user of the transcription to figure it out, by checking the original document, not for us to provide an edited version of the document. >I was just curious to know if the Registrars got things wrong now and >again! Having transcribed over a million entries from parish baptism registers, I can confirm that the same sort of thing is recorded in those too. (E.g. John Smith SMITH). Sometimes for no apparent reason... but it does happen. Regards Rod -- Rod Neep Archive CD Books : http://www.archivecdbooks.org British-Genealogy: http://www.british-genealogy.com