Author Topic: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)  (Read 1268 times)

Offline CaroleW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 71,247
  • Barney 1993-2004
    • View Profile
Re: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)
« Reply #9 on: Friday 09 September 16 23:56 BST (UK) »
Cheers - will do
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Carlin (Ireland & Liverpool) Doughty & Wright (Liverpool) Dick & Park (Scotland & Liverpool)

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)
« Reply #10 on: Friday 09 September 16 23:57 BST (UK) »
I'm a bit confused - if she was raised in a foundling home, was it under her birth name, why would they do that if her mother was around? How do you know that child is the correct one? Even though the mother said she had one child who died, it could have been a still birth that wouldn't show up on the normal BMD registers.

As Jebber said, Croydon definitely isn't Essex - wrong side of the Thames.

Have a lovely holiday Carole.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline andarah1

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)
« Reply #11 on: Saturday 10 September 16 00:36 BST (UK) »
Sorry! I had to take my son to work. Yes, it's in Surrey. They also lived in Essex, and I had them mixed up.

She was born to unmarried parents. Father's name was Eccles and mother was Collins, so she was registered as `female Eccles' and also as `female Collins'. Her death was registered as `female Collins'. The parents married 2 years later. She was raised in a foundling home, never knowing her family. Her family wasn't poor and all the other children stayed with the parents. There were 6 children altogether and the 1911 census says the mother had 6 children, with 5 still living and 1 dead (all 6 were alive).

We have the birth certificate and the death certificate. The birth certificate, issued in the 1940s lists her name (she must have been able to prove she was that baby). The death certificate shows the same death date as was her birthdate in Aug 1900. She was born 9 months, 11 days after her sister (she must have been premature).


I made another post about this individual a couple years ago, but we were trying to figure something else out. It was a HUGE help. Since I am really just trying to figure out how this mistake could have happened (what process was used), I didn't think it was related. Sorry if that's wrong!

Offline Jool

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,533
  • James Dodson, beautifully restored by mozza29
    • View Profile
Re: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)
« Reply #12 on: Saturday 10 September 16 01:30 BST (UK) »
Here's a link to the previous post, what a fascinating story!

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=737979.0
Robbins - Wolverhampton.
Spooner - Monmouthshire & Wolverhampton.
Warner & Loundes - Dudley/West Bromwich.
Dod(g)son - Heysham/Liverpool/Wolverhampton


Offline andarah1

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: death registration for a baby who didn't die (1900)
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 10 September 16 01:42 BST (UK) »
Isn't it? I agree! This twist has made it even more fascinating!