Hampshire - Suffolk - Rutland - Herefordshire Tree

RL 20/6/07: Graham and I had an exchange 1/4 Feb 2007 concerning the marriage and family of Walter L who we had as b 1867/8 Stockbridge [presumably from the 1871 and 1881 entries]. As a result of our explorations {more details below**} we believe the following birth entry is in fact our man: John Thomas L, Stockbridge RD 1Q 1868, 2c 86. He's entered as 'Walter Thomas' in the GRO record of his 1889 marriage [see also 1891 and 1901 census extracts - although he's just 'Walter' in both].

** Walter's stated place of birth in the 1891 and 1901 census extracts (with his wife and [in 1901] daughter), which Graham located, was Micheldever (like his brother George); whereas in the 1871 (Romsey) and 1881 (Annel Lane, Micheldever) entries (with his parents and his [widowed and remarried] mother respectively), he's recorded as born Stockbridge. Apart from this everything else we have is consistent with the 1Q 1868 John Thomas birth registration being our Walter (Thomas). Given the familiar difficulties around 'actual' birthplaces where we have GRO and census (especially 'varying' census) data but no PR record, I decided to re-check BMDIndex for Walter and his siblings. In addition, doubting from local knowledge that Micheldever and Stockbridge would be in the same RD, I turned to Genuki. Stockbridge, somewhat to my surprise, turns out to have been 'its own' RD until 1932; Micheldever, as one would expect, was in Winchester RD all the while. Perhaps the family moved when Walter was a babe-in-arms, in which case as far as he would have been concerned Micheldever was where he'd 'always' lived as a boy ...... Regarding the 'variation' in his names, perhaps the parents changed their minds about what to call him after registering the child. It doesn't seem to have been simply his own later preference to be 'Walter', since he was entered as 'Walter' both in the 1871 (aged 3) and the 1881 (aged 13) - so neither was it probably just his mother's idea.