elusive marriage & dodgy IGI records

[Mary from Italy]

If so, Francis senior is not a blood relative & this Henry Gaylor is!

As your grandfather's father was named on his birth cert as Francis Smith, he was presumably the real father, not Henry Gaylor.

However, it seems very odd that Henrietta was still calling herself Gaylor in 1891 if she was registering the children's births as Smith.

[Jeanette In Yorkshire]

Hi
I may be following the wrong Henry Gaylor here but this chap was born c1853 in Camden Town & his occupation was french polisher. This is consistent in 1881 1891 & 1901
1881 Living Shoreditch Henry Galor age 29 wife Elizabeth age 24 laundress born Bethnal Green.
RG11 390/108/10
1891 Living Shoreditch Henry J Gaylor age 39 wife Elizabeth age 35, children Henry age 9, Maud age 7, Mary age 5 & Edith age 3
RG12 243/186/22
1901 Living Shoreditch Henry J Gaylor age 48 married not with wife & family, relationship to head not given.
RG13 268/99/16

Moggie

I saw those too Moggie and wondered. I can't find a marriage for a Henry Gaylor/Gayler to an Elizabeth in the right time frame. Soooooooo was Henry 'playing away from home' so to speak and Henrietta found out???? If Henry was still alive in 1901 it could explain why we can't find a marriage for Francis and Henrietta

EDIT: I was also unable to find the Gaylor children in 1901

[Mary from Italy]

As your grandfather's father was named on his birth cert as Francis Smith, he was presumably the real father, not Henry Gaylor.

However, it seems very odd that Henrietta was still calling herself Gaylor in 1891 if she was registering the children's births as Smith.

However, Jeanette found this birth:

Births Jun 1889
Gaylor Henrietta Elizabeth Shoreditch 1c 120

so I still can't make sense of it.

Karen, can you scan Francis' birth cert and post the part showing the parents' names?

[karensainsbury]

Have just scanned something for first time in my life!
(With help from 14 year old son of course.)
What an exciting day I'm having!
Just hope this works & you can read it....

[Mary from Italy]

It's a bit too small to read, even when you click on it. Could you upload it through photobucket, which will make it bigger?

Before uploading, crop it a bit so that the whole cert doesn't appear, otherwise it's a breach of copyright. Cut off the date or something.

Instructions here:
Reference Information and How to Guides - Family Tree Forum

[Helen Smith Too]

To me, it looks like Henry and Henrietta married in 1872, and for whatever reason, the marriage broke down.
Henry settled with Elizabeth and Henrietta with Francis. Neither pair could marry, as H&H weren't divorced.

Henrietta's 4 children are Francis's, not Henry's.

I know everone's been looking, but I think finding Henrietta in 1881 - if possible - will be a big piece of the puzzle.

[Mary from Italy]

Another thought - when were the censuses taken in 1901 & 1891?

Census Search - Family Tree Forum

Also, if I do order a certificate for Henrietta's marriage to Mr Gaylor, would it best to get a marriage certificate from the GRO or from the local office ie is either more likely to be a photocopy rather than another transcription?

Normally I would say the local office, but I understand most London RO's won't issue certs for family history purposes.

[maudarby]

[QUOTE=
I know everone's been looking, but I think finding Henrietta in 1881 - if possible - will be a big piece of the puzzle.[/QUOTE]

And finding Francis Smith in 1891.
Moggie

[Mary from Italy]

EDIT - Tried to find the images to check, but can no longer find the handwritten ones on Ancestry???

I checked the image, but it's typewritten, unfortunately.

You can find them here:

England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1837-1983 - Ancestry.co.uk

[Olde Crone Holden]

Thanks Mary, that's what I was looking at. Forgot that the later indexes are typewritten!

However, there's no doubt in my mind that Hacke and Flacke are the same word!

OC

[karensainsbury]

sorry it's taken so long-here goes -as you can hopefully see it looks like 2 separate letters but you can see how similar the f and l are to an h.

[Helen Smith Too]

So, that certificate was issued in 1950, presumably for pension purposes or something like?

[Olde Crone Holden]

Karen

I see the cert is a 1950 copy of the original entry, from the GRO.

That leaves room for an error in copying, between the local RO and the GRO.

The surname may very well really be Flaacke, but has been misinterpreted on the census returns. I am still convinced it's the same woman, and the muddle is whether her name is Hacke or Flacke.

OC

[karensainsbury]

Helen, yes it was to do with his pension.

According to Mum, Grandad was convinced he was born a couple of years later & on a completely different date, when he always celebrated his birthday, and couldn't understand why he got his pension 2 years early!

Do I win some sort of prize for the most confusing family? And I haven't even got on to the previous family which he seemingly abandoned without a by-your-leave when he met Nanny!

[Olde Crone Holden]

Karen

Maybe he was - maybe the first one died and she didn't bother registering the next one, having already got a perfectly good cert!

OC

[Mary from Italy]

as you can hopefully see it looks like 2 separate letters but you can see how similar the f and l are to an h.

It definitely says Flaacke - the F is identical to the F of Francis, and the Fl is quite different from the H of Henrietta, but as OC says, it could well be a misinterpretation of the original register.

The surname may very well really be Flaacke, but has been misinterpreted on the census returns. I am still convinced it's the same woman, and the muddle is whether her name is Hacke or Flacke.

I think Haacke is much more likely - there are loads of them on FreeBMD, and no Flaacke's at all.

[karensainsbury]

OC that's a thought - we did wonder whether there was an older Francis who died but as we couldn't find a death reg for him or another birth reg for Grandad we dismissed that idea - maybe she didn't bother with either..

[Helen Smith Too]

By the 1880 I don't think you could get away with not registering births and deaths, to the same extend as earlier.
Certainly they couldn't have not registered a death by that time (could they?)
I thought some sort of certificate was required for burial by then.

[Uncle John]

A bit of useless information - Cowper Street is just east of the big roundabout at Old Street.

[karensainsbury]

I'm just trying to put what we've got so far together to see whether it makes sense:

c1853 Henrietta born.

1861 Henrietta Haacke in Shoreditch aged 8 with parents.

1871 HH box maker 18 still in hackney with parents.

1872 Henrietta Ann Hucke marries Henry Gaylor in Bethnal Green Dec qtr.

Somewhere between Henrietta splits up with Henry & meets Francis Smith senior.

!881 Henry now living with new wife Elizabeth.

c1881 William Smith born.
c1883 Francis Smith born Holborn.
c1887 Alfred Smith born.
1889 Henrietta Elizabeth born Shoreditch but registered under the name of Gaylor!?

1891 Henrietta 38 in Shoreditch, no mention of francis senior, gives her name & that of children as Galor?!

1901 Henrietta 48 Bethnal Green with Francis senior-all given names Smith.

Thought - perhaps Francis senior had no compunction in pretending they were married & giving name of wife as Smith, but she felt guilty doing this in 1891 census but also embarrassed to admit children had different surname to her? Still doesn't explain registering Elizabeth as a Gaylor tho.