Lomas Genealogy

When John Lummas married in 1823, the surname was changed for all future generations to Lomas.
John Lummas (Lomas) was issued with a bastardy order for the birth of twins boys to Elizabeth Malam, whom he then married. One of the boys, Richard, born 10 April 1823, is a direct ancestor.

Here is a summary of some of his history. John Lomas was born "Lummas" in Hellidon, Northants, and baptised 13 January 1799. On his marriage certificate it says he was from Catesby, which is a few miles form Hellidon. In 1817, he got a job in Everdon, Northants, about 8 miles east of Helidon. From there he went to work in Grandborough, Warwicks, some 12 miles NW of Everdon, and about 8 miles from Daventry. (Interesting that he worked in Grandborough, because in 1823 he moved there to live, and a number of generations of Lomas's were born there). After Grandborough, he went to work in Withybrook, Warwickshire, some 16 miles north of Grandborough. At some unknown time he went to Nuneaton, 8 miles north, and there in 1822 he "had his way" with a girl called Elizabeth Malham, from Market Rasen, Lincolnshire.
Twin sons were born in Nuneaton on 10 April 1823, Richard and John. Elizabeth then issued a bastardy order on 16 June 1823 on John Lummas, and in the bastardy order the name is written as "Lomas". John did the right thing and married her 23 days later! In the marriage certificate the name was spelt "Lomas", and from that day onwards Lomas has always been the surname. Just to complete the story, John and Elizabeth moved to Grandborough, Warwickshire, and baptised Richard and John on 25 December 1824 in Grandborough. Then they set about seriously having fun and Elizabeth produced another 11 children. I am descended from the twin Richard, born in 1823.
At his death on 25 April 1868, Elizabeth Lomas (wife) was present, and put her "mark" on the death certificate, which reports John's age as 76 years, which would mean he was born in 1792.
His true date of birth is a matter for some conjecture. The 1861 census gave his age as 66 (so born 1795), The 1851 census gave his age as 52 (so born 1799, which agrees with the baprtism certificate). The 1841 census gives his age as 40 (so born between 1797-1801, being as they always rounded down to lower 5 years).
My conclusion is that he was effectively born around the year of his baptism (1799), although he could of course have been born in 1792 (to make him 76 at death) but only baptised in 1799. In any case, all the other data seems correct and so I am sure it is "him" and not someone else.