Genealogy Chat

Hi all, I'm hoping somebody out there might be able to give me a few ideas as to why this is..... I have a copy of what looks to be a request for a copy of the birth certificate of my ggrandfather James CROWLEY under the factory and workshop act 1901. On that request (dated September 1908) the name of the child is James CROWLEY, father John CROWLEY (although that bit is crossed through) and mothers name Mary Ann CROWLEY plus the address and date child was born. So far, so good... The copy of the certificate was obviously issued as I have had access to that copy but the name of the father just has a line through it as does the occupation of the father. The mother is listed as being Mary Ann CROWLEY formerly (looks like) HORROCKS. My puzzle/question is this - if Mary Ann was married to the childs father (or claiming to be married to him when registering the birth) why would the fathers details be left blank? Anybody got any thoughts on this? Netty

Just an assumption here. Mary goes to register baby and give fathers name. If they were not married, she would have to have the fathers permission to put his name on the certificate. Registrar realises they are not married so crosses out fathers details.

Hi Carol the fathers name is only crossed out on what looks to be an application for a copy of James CROWLEYs birth certificate NOT on the actual birth certificate. On the copy of the birth certificate itself there's no fathers name or occupation - merely a line through that part which I imagine means no fathers name/details given. Just seems very odd as the mother gives her name as CROWLEY formerly Horrocks so is presumably married to the father. This is a line that I've only just started to investigate. 1st stop will have to be a search for their marriage I think! Netty

Anette I don't think you can presume that James parents were married before his 1894 birth or his father would probably be named. His mother may have been recorded as 'formerly' to give the impression of marriage and appear respectible.- they may have later married, of course.

Another possibility is that James was an illegitimate baby born after Mary had been married - she really was Crowley, formerly Horrocks but Mr Crowley wasn't the father, or perhaps she was a widow? Judith

Hi thanks for your thoughts on this Gwyneth and Judith. Very much appreciated. I've had a look on FreeBMD for a ref to a marriage between John CROWLEY and Mary Ann and so far havent found one. I know it's not fully transcribed yet so I think I'm probably going to have to set some time aside to go to my local archives and search St Caths indexes myself! I'm sure I have found James CROWLEY on the 1901 census when he would have been aged 6 and listed as a step son. Mother in law is named DORICKS - that's too simiar to HORROCKS to ignore. Mary Ann is married to Frederick DREW by this time. I've got a ref for her marriage to DREW - registered December 1897 and she used the name CROWLEY when she married. I imagine getting the certificate might clarify wether she was a widow/spinster/whatever! Ohhh the joys of this absorbing hobby! Netty