I have a marriage in Chester 1760-5-7 of "Richard Amery of Caughall of
the Parish of Backford" (to Mary Brown of this Parish).

I've found a baptism (1731-10-19 in Backford) of "Richard Son of Tho:
Ambrey of Caughall".

Do we think it's the same person? Both names are clearly written, so
different, but both mention Caughall (which is a small area about 3
miles north of the centre of Chester - it's more or less where the zoo
is).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 03/11/2023 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I have a marriage in Chester 1760-5-7 of "Richard Amery of Caughall of
> the Parish of Backford" (to Mary Brown of this Parish).
>
> I've found a baptism (1731-10-19 in Backford) of "Richard Son of Tho:
> Ambrey of Caughall".
>
> Do we think it's the same person? Both names are clearly written, so
> different, but both mention Caughall (which is a small area about 3
> miles north of the centre of Chester - it's more or less where the zoo is).

The question is, who wrote the name? Was it the person named, or a
parish clerk who wrote down what they thought they heard? A lot of my
ancestors made their mark* on marriage certificates, so obviously, in
their cases it was the latter, which could lead to variations.

* usually X, but one, named Mary, had been taught enough to use M

I wouldn't rule them out as being the same person, but most of my
ancestors of that period married younger, unless they were widowers.

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 18:47:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>I have a marriage in Chester 1760-5-7 of "Richard Amery of Caughall of
>the Parish of Backford" (to Mary Brown of this Parish).
>
>I've found a baptism (1731-10-19 in Backford) of "Richard Son of Tho:
>Ambrey of Caughall".
>
>Do we think it's the same person? Both names are clearly written, so
>different, but both mention Caughall (which is a small area about 3
>miles north of the centre of Chester - it's more or less where the zoo
>is).
>
They might be clearly written in the register but that is not
inevitably where it was first recorded which could often be an odd
scrap of paper or on a couple of braincells. Add a barely literate
(maybe also much in need of spectacles) parish clerk and you have
plenty of scope for the name altering between baptism and writing it
in the register.
If you can't find any other mentions of the "wrong" version then that
probably increases the chance of it being erroneous.

On 03/11/2023 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I have a marriage in Chester 1760-5-7 of "Richard Amery of Caughall of
> the Parish of Backford" (to Mary Brown of this Parish).
>
> I've found a baptism (1731-10-19 in Backford) of "Richard Son of Tho:
> Ambrey of Caughall".
>
> Do we think it's the same person? Both names are clearly written, so
> different, but both mention Caughall (which is a small area about 3
> miles north of the centre of Chester - it's more or less where the zoo is).
They are variants https://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=ambrey
The records I found from a quick search were all transcripts with no
original images.
A lack of Cheshire and nearby county marriages of Richard Ambrey 1760 ± 10

In message <ui3qo0$2v3nq$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 3 Nov 2023 23:03:44,
john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
>On 03/11/2023 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I have a marriage in Chester 1760-5-7 of "Richard Amery of Caughall
>>of the Parish of Backford" (to Mary Brown of this Parish).
>> I've found a baptism (1731-10-19 in Backford) of "Richard Son of
>>Tho: Ambrey of Caughall".
>> Do we think it's the same person? Both names are clearly written, so
>>different, but both mention Caughall (which is a small area about 3
>>miles north of the centre of Chester - it's more or less where the zoo
>>is).
>
>They are variants https://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=ambrey

Thanks for that: I didn't know of that resource.
>
>The records I found from a quick search were all transcripts with no
>original images.

The couple I have are (I think) original images, but at least one of
them is written by the clerk not those involved (baptism records I don't
think I've ever seen signed by the parents).
>
>A lack of Cheshire and nearby county marriages of Richard Ambrey 1760 ± 10

If it wasn't for the difference, I'd have definitely gone for it - there
was no-one else nearby (in time terms), and both mentioning Caughall
seemed a clincher.

Thanks to all who have replied.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You play the market?" "No, the ukelele. And I sing too"
- Tony Curtis/Marilyn Monroe in SLIH

On 03/11/2023 19:38, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
> The question is, who wrote the name? Was it the person named, or a
> parish clerk who wrote down what they thought they heard? A lot of my
> ancestors made their mark* on marriage certificates, so obviously, in
> their cases it was the latter, which could lead to variations.

I remember when I started on family history, someone suggested that many
people were illiterate or even if the could read and / or write, they
might not be very proficient. Also they had respect for 'their betters'
so if a clerk or other official wrote down their name different to what
they expected then they would not argue.

Someone also pointed out that a wife might be literate but her husband
'signed' with a cross in the register then she might not want to
embarrass by writing her name fully so also entered a cross.

One set of great great grandparents married in Quebec. He was from
Yorkshire and she was Irish so presumably had accents. The (presumably)
French speaking official completely mangled all the names. Could be
just be him misunderstanding the accents or just the usual Frog
bloody-mindedness. :-)

On 2023-11-04 08:39:07 +0000, JMB99 said:

> On 03/11/2023 19:38, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>> The question is, who wrote the name? Was it the person named, or a
>> parish clerk who wrote down what they thought they heard? A lot of my
>> ancestors made their mark* on marriage certificates, so obviously, in
>> their cases it was the latter, which could lead to variations.
>
>
>
> I remember when I started on family history, someone suggested that
> many people were illiterate or even if the could read and / or write,
> they might not be very proficient. Also they had respect for 'their
> betters' so if a clerk or other official wrote down their name
> different to what they expected then they would not argue.
>
> Someone also pointed out that a wife might be literate but her husband
> 'signed' with a cross in the register then she might not want to
> embarrass by writing her name fully so also entered a cross.
>
> One set of great great grandparents married in Quebec. He was from
> Yorkshire and she was Irish so presumably had accents. The
> (presumably) French speaking official completely mangled all the names.
> Could be just be him misunderstanding the accents or just the usual
> Frog bloody-mindedness. :-)

(I may have said this already, in which case ignore it, but I _think_
it was in a different news group.)

My father was born in Nova Scotia in 1908. I needed a birth certificate
for a French administrative purpose, and that proved remarkably
difficult to get. They offered a photocopy of the entry in the
register, which was fine for my purpose. His second given name was
totally mangled, his mother's name was written with her second given
name (the one she actually used, at least when I knew her) omitted, his
father's occupation was given as steel worker (he was actually an
accountant for a coalmining company), the two elements of the surname
were the wrong way round, with the hyphen omitted, the birth place of
his father had a trivial (and frequent) error, Newton Abbott rather
than Newton Abbot. This was in Sydney, in the far east of Nova Scotia,
and I don't think French influence can be blamed -- maybe Gaelic in
Cape Breton Island.

--
Athel cb

JMB99 wrote:
> On 03/11/2023 19:38, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>> The question is, who wrote the name? Was it the person named, or a
>> parish clerk who wrote down what they thought they heard? A lot of my
>> ancestors made their mark* on marriage certificates, so obviously, in
>> their cases it was the latter, which could lead to variations.
>
>
>
> I remember when I started on family history, someone suggested that many
> people were illiterate or even if the could read and / or write, they
> might not be very proficient.  Also they had respect for 'their betters'
> so if a clerk or other official wrote down their name different to what
> they expected then they would not argue.
>
> Someone also pointed out that a wife might be literate but her husband
> 'signed' with a cross in the register then she might not want to
> embarrass by writing her name fully so also entered a cross.
>
> One set of great great grandparents married in Quebec.  He was from
> Yorkshire and she was Irish so presumably had accents.  The (presumably)
> French speaking official completely mangled all the names.  Could be
> just be him misunderstanding the accents or just the usual Frog
> bloody-mindedness.  :-)
>

Two of my ggrandfather's brothers emigrated from Yorkshire to Australia
in the 1840s. A clash between Yorkshire and Oz accents is obvious in
their disembarkation records. One had place of birth recorded as
"Ombrey" and the second,arriving a month later, as "Ogley". The latter
is just a Yorkshire dropped 'H' for "Hogley". The first is the local
pronunciation for the parish name of "Almondbury".

Given that Almondbury parish church is at one end of a large ancient
parish and Hogley at the other it would have been a bit misleading even
if read correctly. I came across a post about this as a brick wall
years ago. Unfortunately whoever posted it gave a non-functional email
address so I couldn't help out.