Rothwell - Child deaths are these correct? Any help appreciated

[heatherjulie]

1865 John Rothwell registered Halliwell mmn Booth
1867 Hannah Rothwell registered Halliwell mmn Booth
1868 Martha Rothwell registered Halliwell mmn Booth

I will look and see if they are together in 1871

Heather

added: I think they are the children of James and Mary who are in Halliwell in 1871

[romawi]

There is a James Rothwell christened 26th Nov 1860 at Heywood parents are Richard and Alice

ooo!! that sounds like it might fit.

[romawi]

Thank you all so much for your continued help with this. I live in New Zealand so have been off line for the night but back now
Yes the marriage for Richard and Alice is correct - her maiden name Booth. She grew up in Heywood and they both continued living there for a number of years until the move to Paisley in Scotland around 1881. I didn't think that they had a child out of wedlock so much as had one whilst married between 1860 and Alberts birth and then sudden death in 1865/6. That just seemed unusual.
James looks like a real possibility, on Ancestry I can see he was born Oct qtr so would have missed the 1861 census in April. Just need a death for him now before 1871 as he's not on there at all.
Will keep looking. John/Hannah/Martha births look like they belong together - will look and see if I can find more info.

[garstonite]

a bit confused
quote
There is a James Rothwell christened 26th Nov 1860 at Heywood parents are Richard and Alice

quote
James looks like a real possibility, on Ancestry I can see he was born Oct qtr so would have missed the 1861 census in April.

But  he WOULD be in the 1861 census....he would be aged 6 months old ...if he was christened 26th nov 1860

[heatherjulie]

Have you looked on this site
www.lancashirebmd.org.uk

There is a death for James Rothwell in Heywood 1861 aged 0

[garstonite]

one in mar qtr 1861
one in sep qtr 1861 ...who would have been on the census

so it has to be
Mar qtr 1861   Rothwell James   Bury    8c  290

Heywood is under Bury  Register

[romawi]

heatherjulie - you are of course correct!! Obviously I hadn't woken up properly yet. I think this one has strong possibilities and as you say if he died first Q 1861 he would have missed the census.
Cheers and apologies for the confusion Off to get a strong coffee now!!

[romawi]

Still.....baby born same year as marriage....they must have been keen - or maybe baby had already been made!!!