Genealogy Chat

John ANDREWE alias HEMBRY & Thomasin EVANS married 06-Aug 1630 Did John Andrewe go by two names? And if yes, why would he do so? Thanks

It's possable that his mum was widowed young and when she remarried that John adopted his stepfather's name. So in many ways he would have been known by both names. Also children were often fostered out to learn a trade at a young age, so it is not impossable that he would have assumed his masters name as a child.

An alias is another name. It might mean that he was illegitimate, but chose to use his father's name instead of his mother's. (or vice versa) Or it might mean he was baptised in one name but used another. Since the alias is written in the records, I doubt that it would be that he was trying to hide. Maybe he chose the other surname for family reasons. You'd need to find his baptism first and see which name he was given at birth. nell

The only thing that comes to mind is that he was a foreigner who changed his name when he came to england???? Someone else might have a better reason. Suzanne

I have an ancestor whose mother never married the father, her burial gives one name then alias .

Arh some ideas there..thank you all

There is something right in the back of my mind and I can't remember.........Ggggggrrrrrrrrrrr!! Something to do with tenancy of land.....if your ancestor had the right to tenancy of a piece of land (grazing rights, farming rights or living on it???) ....then, in order to benefit by inheritance of this right, you and your descendants needed to maintain the same surname.....but if you were a woman then obviously your chldren would have your husbands name......so the alias would be used purely to maintain the surname under which you had your tenancy rights. It might be your mum's maiden name, or the name of a distant ancestor, depending how long this right to the tenancy had been around for............. Olde Crone would probably know more and give you the right words!! You certainly didn't have to be a rich person for this......in fact the dead opposite! Merry

I think one of the words associated with my last post is ''copyhold'' which means: ''A medieval form of land tenure in England; a copyhold was a parcel of land granted to a peasant by the lord of the manor in return for agricultural services'' That's what I was thinking of........so the peasant's descendants needed to maintain the original surname, in order to maintain the rights to the copyhold (does the word mean the landowner had the original document explaining the rights and the peasant had a ''copy to hold''???)...........They could sub-let the land if they wished (I think) Merry *retires, exhausted.....*

Thanks for your comprehensive answer...my family post 1630 were farm labourers and general farm hands so this might be strong possibility. Thanks again

Quite often an alias indicates that the person was illegitimate, at least in the eyes of the Church. So, for instance, if this man's parents had been married in say, a Catholic Church, the C of E wouldnt recognise this as being a valid marriage, and it was a pointed bit oif spite. But I think in this case, Merry has the right answer. Although you didnt actually HAVE to have the same surname for a copyhold tenancy to be valid, it certainly made things much easier, and possibly people would refer to him by the Tenant's name - after all, what did it matter what his 'real' name was, people needed to know who they were talking about, and if the tenants of Bloggs Farm were always called Bloggs and you suddenly started talking about Farmer Smith, no - one would know who he was or where he lived. Phew, that was long-winded. I hope its clear! Olde Crone

LOL!! Thanks for that Olde Crone........was just driving back home and was thinking I might PM you to ask you to check my answer - but you beat me to it! Merry (41¼)

Well thank you again....for such knowledge and a willingness to share!!