With the mother's maiden name now available for births another anomaly has come to light.
Edward Quick, son of Paul and Mary Quick, nee Pearce, married Elizabeth Emala Mann in 1855 in Cornwall. They had Mary Ann Pearce Quick in 1857, Devon, and Edward and William Williams Quick in St Ives before emigrating down to Australia - Victoria. A fourth child, Elizabeth Emala was born there in 1863.
The three children born here in Cornwall/Devon have the mother's maiden name as BONAMY. The child born in Victoria has the mothers maiden name as MANN.
Is there something missing here.. where does BONAMY come from? I wonder if the mother's name may have been Elizabeth Emala Mann BONAMY?
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 3, 2017 5:11:34 GMT -5
BONAMY is actually her surname with MANN being the maiden name of her mother.
According to information I received some years ago Elizabeth Emily Mann Bonamy was born at Ashburton, Devon 22nd July 1836 and baptized at Ashburton 7th August 1836. I presume my source back then had seen the parish register but I cannot confirm that.
FamilySearch shows that Elizabeth Mann daughter of James and Ann Bonamy was baptized at Ashburton, Devon 7th August 1836.
Her parents were James Bonamy and Ann Mann who married at Ashburton 11th October 1835 but I have no further information at this stage on James or Ann.
Thank you for that CT, as before we are very grateful.
Familysearch agrees with your dates etc, but there is a nagging feeling that something unusual is at play here... perhaps the marriage certificate has been completed incorrectly? - perhaps there is an hidden issue of paternity.. and if that is not the case then why did she use BONAMY for the three UK children but MANN at her wedding and MANN for her fourth child in Victoria. Still some work to do it would seem.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 6, 2017 4:46:48 GMT -5
It could be as simple as the clerk and what he heard or understood. Previous attempts at finding something more 'sinister' proved fruitless but it never hurts to check again in case something has been missed.
One possible solution would depend on the informant being the mother Elizabeth Mann (nee Bonnamy) Quick. I have seen countless examples of where the clerk is asking the questions to complete the form and when he barks out the question "mother's maiden name?" the informant, without thinking replies with their own mother's maiden name. Similarly with the question about "father's name?", it can result in unexpected answers. While this is typically most common on death certificates, I have on a couple of occasions seen it on a birth or marriage.
I have seen occasions where for a death the informant was one of the children, and without thinking they have given both their own parents as the parents of their deceased mother or father - making the deceased and his/her spouse the parents of the deceased.
While I haven't seen the actual death certificate, I am certain that a recent one I came across in Victoria, Australia had the husband as the informant for his deceased wife. For I have seen the marriage certificate and know who they named as their parents at the time. On the death registration for the wife, the husband has correctly named his father-in-law as his wife's father. But in a classic example of the clerical interrogation error described above, the widowed husband has named his own mother as his mother-in-law, rather than his wife's mother.
In the case of the births of the children of Elizabeth Mann (nee Bonnamy) Quick, if she was the informant she may have fallen into the same trap on some occasions.
And while in this case it sounds like there is no real reason to attempt to hide anything, I have also seen quite a few occasions where the parties involved in an event (or providing the information at any rate), deliberately went out of their way to mislead (bigamy being a good reason to be loose with the truth).