Genealogy Chat

Is this the first marriage foor Ruth and Thomas? Could the older George be the child of a previous marriage. I have a family with more than one surviving child with the same name. Could Ruth be a wetnurse and George P transcribed wrongly?
As for Sarah J, could she have been put with the wrong family? Perhaps she belongs to the family above on the image.

Caz,

Are Florence Thomas and Sarah Hawkins the same person? In 1901 Florence is 10 and Elizabeth married Arthur Lewis as Elizabeth Thomas.

Rose

I think I will order the birth cert of the little boy you found Rose and see who his parents are just in case he is the missing baby. I'm off to bed now to rest my poor frozen brain lol. Thanks again for your help.

Caz x

I think it's probably an error on the census. It has been 2 years since Ruth last had a baby so he could he hers.

Rose

Thanks Rose, I will make a note of those and do some more digging. For the parents to have changed the first names but kept the same surname it would point to another member of the Bates family intending to raise the baby wouldn't it? Or perhaps Thomas and Ruth changed the name as they already had a son named George. I will have to order the birth cert and see who it says the parents are.

Thanks again to everyone who helped. Now it's down to waiting for the gro.

Caz x

There's this birth and death which could fit with the 7 day old Bates:

Births Jun 1891
Bates Joseph Edward Middlesbro' 9d 615

Deaths Jun 1891
Bates Joseph Edward 0 Middlesbro' 9d 539

Rose

Thanks everyone for your input. I will certainly check out Thomas and Ruths' siblings for clues as to whose baby George was as you suggested Chica. Glitter it hadn't even occurred to me that the Bates family had two sons named George. I have ruled out the death of the elder George, he died at the ripe old age of 101 in 1985 so it does seem strange that they would call another son George doesn't it?

Further snooping uncovered an elder daughter for the Hawkins family who was working away from home as a servant on the 1991 census so it is possible little Sarah was actually hers but being brought up by her mother perhaps. The eldest daughter of the Bates family married William Hawkins in 1896 and was actually my g-grandmother. If little George P was actually hers it was a very very well kept secret and she didn't raise him herself. I shall have to keep digging.

Thanks again for your help,
Caz x

A bit strange that the Bates family have two boys called George in 1891

Some good thoughts been given here. Sometimes babies were unofficially "given away" to another family member if the mother could not look after child or she had many children or if her circumstances were difficult (e,g, unmarried couldn´t support child etc.), or even given to a childless sister etc. Then the child may be brought up with the "new" family´s surname. This happened in my family where the child was brought up by a childless aunt. It was just by chance I stumbled on the fact. So it is possible that the child you are looking for is on the next census but with a different surname. Look at the census of the mother´s siblings and other close rellies to see if there is a child of same birth date.

Thanks Rachael, I hadn't even considered that.

Caz

Hi Gwyn,

the first one is George P Bates, his age on the 1891 census is given as 7 days, mother Ruth, father Thomas Bates.

The second one is Sarah J Hawkins, her age on the 1891 census is given as 1 week, mother Elizabeth Hawkins a widow.

Any help is much appreciated.

Caz

Could you tell us the names to look at please?

Could they be with a relative or in hospital?

Gwyn

Thanks Irene and Glitter Baby, I have already tried that with no luck. These are two different families but within the same registration district, I wonder if there is something missing. Have you any idea how I could find out please?

Caz

Have you tried putting in just the surname and the year as I have found that the children are often called different names to the one they were registered as.
Look at one of the siblings and look for their birth registration then use the same volume number and just the surname. Irene

Have you looked at births registered as just Female or Male with that surname

Hi,

I have recently come across a child who appears to be days old according to the 1891 census but does not appear on the 1901 census. I can find no birth or death registration on either freebmd or on ancestry. Was it usual not to register the child if it died within days of birth or would normal registration rules apply. This has happened twice but with different families but both births would have been 1891. Any thoughts would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
Caz