We tend to assume that because a record is official it must be accurate, but records are only as reliable as the people supplying the information, and there are many reasons why our ancestors lied when filling in forms or supplying details to officials. If you’ve hit a block in your family history research, or have uncovered contradictory information, knowing the common reasons why people lied or made mistakes can help you to unpick the truth.

Names
Errors in both first names and surnames can be detected in the official records. People do not necessarily keep the name they were registered with shortly after birth. Bear in mind also that after 1875, the onus for registering a birth was on the child’s parents or the householder where the birth occurred. If the parents were unable to register the birth themselves, the householder might make a mistake about what the child was to be named.

Some became known by a nickname or variant of their name, for example, a girl named Eleanor might be known as Nan, Ellie or Nell, and a boy named John might be known as Jack. As the child grew, sometimes it became apparent that they did not suit their first given name, and used their second given name instead. For example, a boy named William Ernest might be always referred to as Ernest. Sometimes people chose a different name for themselves: a deed poll was not necessary to change your name; simply being habitually known by the new name sufficed. Depending on when the change occurred, you might find the same ancestor known by different first names on different census records, and the name on their birth certificate differing from that on their marriage certificate.

Convention, shame or embarrassment influenced which surname someone adopted. It was common practice (though not universal) for a woman to adopt her husband’s surname, but she might revert to her maiden name on remarriage to hide the fact of the first marriage, particularly to hide the social stigma of divorce. Widows might also revert to their maiden names and describe themselves as spinsters on the marriage certificate in order to distance themselves from their previous marriage, particularly if they were married young or the relationship was an unhappy one. Unmarried women often took their partners’ surnames when registering the birth of their child, to make the child appear legitimate.

Blended families can appear under a range of surnames on official documents, sometimes using the father’s surname, sometimes the stepfather’s, and sometimes swapping between the two. The wife in a blended family might variously use her maiden name, her first married name, her second married name, or a hyphenated version of two of them. It’s also not unknown for a second husband to adopt his wife’s first husband’s surname. If you face this confusion in your own research, keep a list of all the different potential surnames and, if possible, track the family using a member with an unusual first name or combination of given names.

It’s easy to see how the wrong information appeared on official documents. Until 1911, the census was compiled by enumerators who interviewed the head of each household. If they were not available, the enumerator asked the neighbours for the information. The enumerator may have been supplied with habitual names and names that gave more respectability to the household rather than listing individuals’ ‘official’ names. For similar reasons, errors also occurred on death records, for example when the death was registered by a younger relative or a friend who only knew the deceased by a certain name, unaware that it was an adopted name, nickname, or stepfather’s name.

Addresses
On marriage certificates, the couple sometimes stated they were living at the same address at the time of their marriage, suggesting that they were cohabiting. However, given social disapproval of sex before marriage it’s more likely that the couple lived in different parishes, meaning they had to pay for two sets of banns to be read. Many couples simply gave the same address to avoid paying twice. If you suspect this happened in your family, check street directories for the year of the marriage to find out where your ancestors really lived.

Census returns are riddled with errors over where people were living: many householders listed who usually lived in the house, rather than who was actually there on census night. This resulted in people who happened to be away from home on census night being recorded twice, or not being recorded at all. Some were deliberately omitted from the census, fearing the purpose of it was to enforce taxes, and (particularly in 1911) many suffragettes refused to be counted until they were granted the vote.

Age
An ancestor’s age is one area likely to be riddled with lies and confusion. Social pressure and embarrassment motivated many people to lie about their ages on official documents, but it’s also important to remember that some people simply did not know when they were born and could only guess their age when asked.

People had many reasons for lying about their age on marriage certificates. The bride and groom might lie to cover a large disparity in their ages, or to hide the fact the bride was older than the groom. In the Victorian era, passion in middle-aged women was regarded as vulgar, so a woman marrying late in life might well deduct a few years from her age to avoid social disapproval. From 1753, anyone aged under 21 who wished to marry required parental consent to do so. If this was refused and the couple were reluctant to wait until they were of age, they would simply lie and say they were 21.

On census returns, a woman might add years to her age to hide the fact she bore a child when she was very young, or she might take years off her age through embarrassment or vanity at being asked her age by the enumerator. My female ancestors considered it shameful for a woman to reveal her age, and all of them routinely subtracted a decade from their ages on every official document. Once you’ve spotted a pattern like this, it is easier to track down your relatives by widening the years of your search.

Not all incorrect ages were lies; some were genuine mistakes. People rounded ages up or down, and became confused when it came to recording the ages of children under one year, putting down their age in months so that a nine-month-old baby appears as a nine-year-old on the census.

Status
When it came to status – spinster, bachelor, widow – there were several reasons why our ancestors lied. Bigamous marriages could be concealed by giving a status of widow or widower on the marriage certificate. Divorce carried a huge social stigma and the church refused to sanction the remarriage of divorcees: divorcees who wished to remarry therefore often described themselves as spinsters, bachelors or widows. Divorce was expensive and unavailable to most people: those who wished to remarry were therefore prevented from doing so, and instead cohabited. Cohabitation was frowned upon, and so cohabiting couples often took the man’s surname and described themselves as husband and wife on census returns and on the birth certificates of their children. An unmarried mother might describe herself as a widow on census returns to conceal the fact she had an illegitimate child.

Occupation
It’s important to remember that our ancestors often did several jobs simultaneously – having what today we might call a ‘portfolio career’. For example, a woman might work in a factory, take in washing and do mending. Having several jobs gave greater financial security at a time when, for many people, losing your job meant destitution or the workhouse. On official documents, however, they were asked to state only one occupation, so that on one census they appear to be a clerk, on another a milliner, and on a marriage certificate they’re a shop assistant. There were some occupations that went hand in hand, for example publicans were also often coopers (people who made barrels): storing the beer and selling the beer were complementary occupations. If your ancestors list varied jobs, try consulting street and trade directories to track their occupations year by year – many of these, and other occupational records, are available online at sites such as TheGenealogist.co.uk.

It’s a myth that in the past people did the same job for their whole life – they changed occupation, sometimes doing vastly different jobs. An ancestor of mine has a different occupation on his marriage certificate, the baptism records for his children and each census, being variously recorded as an engineer, a boiler-maker, an iron-roofer, a smith, a publican, and finally ending up owning a draper’s shop. It’s easy to see a connection between smith and iron roofer, and perhaps from smith to boiler-maker and engineer, but I’m still baffled by the draper’s shop. If you have an ancestor who seems to have drastically changed occupation, consider the wider effects of history. For example, an agricultural labourer might well have been affected by enclosure and forced to seek work in town.

Our ancestors sought to conceal occupations that were shameful or dishonest – lodging-house keeper rather than brothel owner, and jeweller rather than receiver of stolen goods, for example. They were also not above overstating their occupations to make themselves seem more important. One of my ancestors was a bookkeeper but routinely gave her occupation as accountant; another, who was a piano teacher, described himself on the census as ‘director of music’.

If you hit a stumbling block in trying to reconcile contradictory information on official documents, remember there could be very good reasons why your ancestors were flexible with the truth: societal norms, embarrassment, vanity or covering up a crime all exerted pressure on our ancestors and led them to tell fibs, lies and downright whoppers.