Genealogy Chat

Can someone offer some advise please.

I have found Herbert Frank Stoneham born 1874 in Redhill or Reigate, Surrey on the 1881 census on Ancestry. He is listed with his mother, Mary A Stoneham, and brother Chas. E Stoneham, George Joslin (mother’s nephew) and Alice Parker (Servant).

However, on the 1891 census there is a Herbert Frank Stoneham born in Shorne, Kent in 1871 with mother Mary A Newson and sister Elizabeth M Newson.

There is an amendment on the census saying that Mary and Elizabeth should be Stoneham when, to me, it is quite clear that it says Newson on the original and Herbert clearly says Stoneham.

Can anyone offer any clues as to what is going on here?

Have you found a marriage between a Mary Ann Stoneham and a Mr. Newson? If not then perhaps she just lived with Mr. Newson and took his name and whoever has made the amendment just wanted other researchers to be able to find her under either surname.

Kath. x

Someone obviously believes this to be Herbert Frank Stoneham who has taken on his step-father's name - if they are correct they amendment is fine, just serves to help out other researchers:

1891 England Census

Name: Herbert Newson
[Herbert Stoneham]
Age: 20
Estimated birth year: abt 1871
Relation: Son
Parent's Name: Mary A
Gender: Male
Where born: Shorne, Kent, England

Civil parish: Gravesend
Ecclesiastical parish: St George
Town: Gravesend
County/Island: Kent
Country: England

Registration district: Gravesend
Sub-registration district: Gravesend

Mary A Newson 55
Herbert Newson 20
Elizabeth M Newson 9

V

This is the birth record for the daughter who is 9 on the 1891 census:-

Name: Elizabeth Mary Newson
Year of Registration: 1882
Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar
District: Gravesend (1837-1941)
County: Kent
Volume: 2a
Page: 507

Kath. x

In case you don't have this:

1901 England Census

Name: Herbert Stonem
Age: 27
Estimated birth year: abt 1874
Gender: Male
Where born: Red Hill, Surrey, England

Civil parish: Whitechapel
Ecclesiastical parish: St Jude
County/Island: London


Registration district: Whitechapel
Sub-registration district: Goodmans Fields
ED, institution, or vessel: Victoria Home

Also need to say that even if an obvious error is corrected Ancestry do not remove the original entry. This seems strange in a way, but I suppose if you found it before with incorrect name you would be a bit peeved if it disappeared!
jan

Thanks for the quick replies.

Herbert was born Stoneham, Mary Ann Newson was married to Walter S Stoneham (Herbert's father). I can't see why Herbert's name has been changed and also his place of birth. I have also found Mary Ann back as Stoneham on the 1901 census.

Could you be getting two families mixed up? On the 1891 census Walter S. Stoneham is living with his wife Mary A. Stoneham in Colchester.

The other family are in Gravesend, Kent (also in 1891)

Strangely there is a lodger with Walter and Mary Ann called John Newton (I wonder if this could be Newson)???

Kath. x

Could this be your Herbert in the 1891 census:-

Name: Herbert T Stoneham (the T could be an F on the image)
Age: 20
Estimated birth year: abt 1871
Relation: Nephew
Gender: Male
Where born: Hilton, Kent, England
Civil parish: Rye
Ecclesiastical parish: Rye
Town: Rye
County/Island: Sussex
Country: England
Street Address:

Occupation:

Condition as to marriage:

Education:

Employment status:

View image
Registration district: Rye
Sub-registration district: Rye
ED, institution, or vessel: 1
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Caroline S Williams 51
Sarah I Williams 48
Herbert T Stoneham 20

Source Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 756; Folio 5; Page 3; GSU roll: 6095866.

What was "your" Herbert's occupation.

Kath. x

Hi Kathleen

I don't think Herbert T Stoneham is the correct one. As he was only 10 years old on the 1881 census so I don't know what his occupation was. In 1901 as Brummiejan has found, he was in a workhouse/institution.

This is confusing me a bit more because the person who put the amendment on Ancestry is closely linked to my tree but I think she may have gone on the wrong track with this one. I think the Shorne entry is not 'my' Herbert but another family as you said, Kathleen.

So, should I put an amendment to the amendment? Or leave it?

Occupation 1901 (if it's yours!) is draper's porter or sorter I think.

Thanks to everyone for all the help.

It appears there were two Herbert Stoneham's - one born in Redhill (my Herbert) and one born in Shorne both born to Mary A (one Stoneham, the other Newson). So shall I just leave the amendment?

I would just leave the amendment and let any other researchers figure out which is which. At least that way anyone researching either name will see this entry.

Kath. x

OK thanks everyone.

Hi Beverley,

There is probably no point correcting the Shorne entry again. It looks as if this was the order of events on the transcriptions:

1) Enumerator wrote
MA Newson
H Stoneham
EM Newson

2) Ancestry transcribed as:
MA Newson
H Newsom
EM Newson

3) Member put a note on Herbert's entry to point out the error on 29 Oct 2009

When I look at the 1891 census, I can only see the women's surnames as Newson?

Thanks Ivy. I think I see it all now.

I appreciate all the help.