Hi Dave et al,
There is also a death record on this site for a Deborah Mitchell (Widow) no age given but on GRO Index the age is 68 which places her birth at 1815.
Death: May(?}1883 Burial: May 24th 1883 City Rd.Cem.
HAPPY HUNTING:sleuth_or_spy:
Sorry for the silence I have been on holiday. This information is great and I will look into it. All fits as Mary Elizabeth had a sister Ann Eliza born 1863 died 1864 so makes sense its the name of her first child.
The next Asstrop I need to find out more about is Mary Elizabeth's grandfather, John Asstrop, occupation shoe maker on son John's birth certificate 1831 (Mary Elizabeth's father). He died before 1834 which was when his widow Mary (nee Kenyon) remarried a Daniel Norman. Apart from John Asstrop and Mary Kenyon married on here I can't find the birth or death of John.
Many thanks again!I am not sure I would have found this myself.
Hi, just found the marriage of Charlotte to an Edward Proctor on here with the following notes
Notes: Bride's surname & signature first written as Mitchell. Surname amended to Hitching by minister - Initials HFG in margin dated 9/2/19.
Mainly the family go by the name Mitchell but it seems they maybe should be Hitching/Hitchen
This record is certainly strange.
PROCTOR, Edward (Bachelor, age 24, Cab Driver, residing at 9ct 9 Duke St).
Married Charlotte HITCHING, on October 10, 1898, by Henry F Greenwood (Banns) at
St John, Park. Father's name is Edward Proctor,deceased (Scissor Grinder).
Married in the presence of Fred Nelson Wood (mark),Emily Wood (mark).
Notes: Bride's surname & signature first written as Mitchell. Surname amended to Hitching by minister - Initials HFG in margin dated 9/2/19.
Page No: 151 Reg No: 302
I have checked the original and the macginal notes are dated 9/2/1900 not 9/2/19. That makes at least a bit more sense. So the alteration was made 15 months after the ceremony, not 21 years.
Why? is anyone's guess
Denise please amend.
Thanks Dave yes very odd at first I thought maybe someone had misheard the name but it seems not to be the case. There was another sister Clara and her marriage is on here as Clara Hitchen. Would there be any logical reason why someone would have looked at Charlotte's marriage months later and amended the name?
As I said, anyone can guess the reason.
All of Charlotte Proctors children were birth registered with mmn Mitchell. That implies that Charlotte did not ask for the change.
Helen, having slept on this I think that either Char.otte or her husband use have requested this change. It could not ha e been done by a yone els
I can only assume that Charlotte believed that if the surname was incorrect, ie not Hitch* , then the macerated would be null and void. Presumably the vicar agreed which is why he put in the amendment.
Maybe the I pending marriage of sister Clara using the name Hitchen highlighted the problem to Charlotte
Dave
Thanks Dave that makes sense. You found the baptisms of three of the children I have struggled to find any births for any of the children of Mary Elizabeth on GRO. So can't see if they were born as Mitchell or Hitch* If Charlotte or William had requested the change it would mean there were aware that their surname was incorrect.
Helen, The birth of Mary Elizabeth's illegitimate child Ann Eliza HASTROP is on GRO Index in Q4 1871. There is no birth reg for any of her other children
DAVE