RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: kevinf2349 on Tuesday 28 November 17 19:27 GMT (UK)
-
Hello everyone,
I have a bit of a conundrum going on and I am seeking some advice/suggestions as to how to proceed. I use Legacy to record my family history and have a family that shows 11 children in the 1911 census records. It states that 7 are still living and 4 poor mites have died. So far so good, however, I know that this was the father's second marriage and that at least 2 children were born by his first wife. After she passed away he married again and had lots more children.
I know that strictly speaking the 1911 census is supposed to record children born to the existing relationship but I suspect that the person filling out the census recorded both marriage's children. I know that the person who filled out the form was the son of the head of household and I assume that he filled it out because I suspect the father and mother were both illiterate. It is entirely possible that he believed that the children were from his own (2nd wife of the head) mother but I can't prove it.
If the 11 were a combined total, then I have found them all, if not then I am two people short and not many gaps in the timeline in which they could possibly be born.
So here are my questions:
1) Is it safe to assume that stillborn babies would still have a BC and a DC?
2) Is it normal for people to combine this type of family information for the census?
3) Do you think it is safe to assume that the information recorded in the census is indeed of the combined family?
Any thoughts or comments would be most welcome.
Have a blessed day.
Kevin
-
1) Is it safe to assume that stillborn babies would still have a BC and a DC?
I think the answer to that may be no, as from Wiki "Until 1926, there were no registrations at all of still born children."
-
Have you checked the mother maiden name for all of the children shown in the 1911census against the GRO index so you can confirm which child had which mother? Sometimes a gap in years indicates where a missing child may have been born. Sadly my great grandparents list two children had died on their 1911census return. I have found no trace of these children to date.
Regards panda
-
Kevin,
Still born children should not have been counted amongst the 'born alive' number.
You will be able to check the children born to each marriage by using the index at the General Register Office. Input the surname and then the mother's maiden name.
It's a bit laborious as you can only check in plus or minus 2 year batches AND input whether male or female.
So -- input a date 2 years from the date of the father's first marriage - and go through to when his wife died using that wife's maiden name. Do it for males and then for females.
Repeat the exercise for the second wife - ie starting by using a date 2 years after THAT mariage - then plus or minus 2 years up to the 1911 census (you can check if any were born AFTER that as well.
It will be helpful if you know the Registration District -- and you will just have to hope that no other couple had the same combination of surnames!!
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp
You will need to register but it is free and use the 'Search the GRO Indexes' link on the site.
-
Still born children should not have been counted amongst the 'born alive' number.
I know that they shouldn't have been, as it does ask for children born alive, but I expect quite a few people recorded them, in the same way that people today say that they have had 3 children, even though one was born dead. So really you can't rule it out completely.
-
It does actually ask for the number of children 'born alive' and a still born child is not born alive -- however I do take your point that still borns MIGHT have been included, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing.
-
Hi.
Thank you all for your responses.
Panda40 : I have checked the GRO index and that is how I found the 11 that I have ;)
I have confirmed 11 children but I know as a fact that two of them were born to a previous marriage. My suspicion is that as the children were young when their mother passed away that the father either actually never told them that his current wife wasn't their mother or they just assumed she was. Both children from the first marriage died prior to the 1911 census. One in infancy the other aged 22. On the one who died aged 22 his DC states that the informant was his 'mother' who is actually not his birth mother (she died when he was just 2 years old).
Isn't ancestry fun? ;D
Thanks again to you all. I am going to continue the research but I believe I have found the entire brood of kiddies.
Best regards
Kevin
Numbers 6:24-26
-
Hello everyone,
I have a bit of a conundrum going on and I am seeking some advice/suggestions as to how to proceed. I use Legacy to record my family history and have a family that shows 11 children in the 1911 census records. It states that 7 are still living and 4 poor mites have died. So far so good, however, I know that this was the father's second marriage and that at least 2 children were born by his first wife. After she passed away he married again and had lots more children.
I know that strictly speaking the 1911 census is supposed to record children born to the existing relationship but I suspect that the person filling out the census recorded both marriage's children. I know that the person who filled out the form was the son of the head of household and I assume that he filled it out because I suspect the father and mother were both illiterate. It is entirely possible that he believed that the children were from his own (2nd wife of the head) mother but I can't prove it.
If the 11 were a combined total, then I have found them all, if not then I am two people short and not many gaps in the timeline in which they could possibly be born.
So here are my questions:
1) Is it safe to assume that stillborn babies would still have a BC and a DC?
2) Is it normal for people to combine this type of family information for the census?
3) Do you think it is safe to assume that the information recorded in the census is indeed of the combined family?
Any thoughts or comments would be most welcome.
Have a blessed day.
Kevin
Sorry Kevin but you have been given inaccurate information.
You are correct the number of children should be the number of children that particular married women has had in her current marriage. It should not include any children her husband has had in a previous marriage, though sometimes this is shown and scored out.
Stillborn babies do not have a Birth Certificate or a death certificate though after 1927 will be registered in the Stillbirth Register.
Stillborns were also registered in the burial register from 1539 but as with all laws concerning Parish Registers the clergy only followed them when it suited them, but all burials of stillborn babies should be entered in burial registers from 1874.
A few people would combine the children of earlier marriages it would really depend on whether they comprhended the instructions, in a similar manner a few may have included stillbirths, some even include children next to a man's entry.
It is not safe to assume anything on any census, most census (except the 1911) are transcripts but even the 1911 census contains errors, some deliberate, some accidental awlays confirm census information with information from other sources.
Cheers
Guy