Budge and Aubrey Ladies Outfitters at 89 Drake Street, Rochdale in 1925

[heywood]

In the birth cert of my MiL, May Schofield is declared as 'of no occupation', so it is unlikely she was working at the shop at 89 Drake Street, although not impossible.

Does this shop actually have accommodation above or behind it ?  I am not local.

I am still trying to understand what type of family would send/be able to send their daughter to Birmingham from Rochdale to have a baby.  She quite clearly stayed down their at least 12 days (birth was 10 October and letter of transfer was dated 22 October) which means the people in Birmingham were either friends or the stay was paid for - not an inconsiderable expense covering travel, a two week stay plus any medical care.

Hello,
I have posted some relevant info on your other thread http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730509.0

Heywood

[ThrelfallYorky]

Most of the shops on Drake Street at the time would have had accommodation above the retail premises, as some had a third story as well, if you see photos of them. A lot have changed, but I see no reason why a family could not live "above the shop" in reasonable comfort. Many did.
Some of my family caused me some confusion at one time, as there seemed to be a trend for them to go back to their Mum for the birth of the first child especially, which meant until I realised that, I was a bit perplexed why the child was born in a different county to where the family lived.
In one case it wasn't made easier by Mum having re-married - so the surname of Mum was different from the maiden name of daughter. Always think round the problem - it often seems so obvious when you've actually solved it!
I'm sure you'll solve it. Good luck.

[heywood]

Just a note to say that the electoral registers for the relevant time are missing 


Heywood

[rosie99]

Typical     

Thanks Heywood 

Rosie

[planehome]

Thanks for checking on that, Heywood.

Obviously that would have made things too simple .... Ha !

[heywood]

I read a bit more about Mrs Crozier's case. It looks as though the mother was handing over the money to the adoptive mother and the Croziers may not be as I was judging them!
However, the bit re the  absence from that  Rotherham address may be a hint that there could be the odd lie.

I was thinking, as has been suggested that May was an employee, lodging above the shop but sadly no evidence.