‘…scant details’, ‘Red herring(s)’ and ‘rumours…not confirmed’ are fair words to describe what we have so far, along with research to rule many Sarahs out, rather than rule just one of them in.
As for the hospital record, squeezed dry like a tiny sponge, it shows: Sarah Douglas; age 25; address [no.] Finsbury Avenue, Walker; husband’s name Bernard (husbands’ surnames were not recorded presumably on the assumption it was the same as the mother’s); and father’s occupation traveller (could be commercial or gypsy). There is no further personal information other than DOB of baby.
The husband
A commercial traveller would be a handy occupation to explain why your (potentially fictitious) husband doesn’t visit you in hospital (she was there for 21 days with no medical complications recorded).
For the option of a gypsy traveller, Romany/traveller researchers advise that couples were more likely to be married than not, and that they would not have given up their child (even if it was illegitimate - they are very strong on this point). The situation may be different if the father was a gypsy and Sarah was a ‘gorger’. They also suggest that Bernard is not a common English/Scottish traveller name and more likely to be Irish.
With specific reference to the Hoppings theory (i.e. the ‘husband’ working there), the Showmen’s Guild has been unable to help although the National Fairground and Circus Archive at Sheffield University has yet to be investigated.
As an aside, the hospital record has mothers without husbands (one girl is just 16, another comes from Elswick Lodge home for unmarried mothers) and the hospital itself was opened for the relief of poor women. It may mean there was less of an imperative for Sarah to fabricate a husband although it doesn’t mean she didn’t.
The address
The local council can’t provide tenant details for Finsbury Avenue although electoral roll data from FindMyPast have been compiled from autumn 1920 (when the house was first occupied) through to 1931. There is no Sarah/Sadie Douglas(s) listed in these years although women under 30 couldn’t vote until 1928. This may mean her age on the hospital record is correct or that she didn’t register/wasn’t eligible to vote.
We’ve been lucky enough to speak with someone who’s had family ties with the house since the 1920s and have worked on their family tree. Whilst the name Douglas(s) does feature, there’s no obvious match with Sarah. Douglas(s) is quite common in many Newcastle families of the time given the proximity to Scotland. It’s a line of inquiry that continues but is complex for various reasons.
For 1926 specifically, the occupants’ roots have been traced back to 1800 but no links found to Sarah. The wife was a cleaner for the NE Railway and member of the Union in 1919 along with two other female cleaners (they stand out amongst the male drivers and guards). A putative theory is that she worked with Sarah and offered her a room, possibly after the latter became pregnant. One of the unconfirmed rumours is that Sarah worked in a bar, perhaps one of the pub-hotels in the area. Maybe Bernard the commercial traveller was a guest who never came back.
The 1921 census
It’s a long wait to see if Sarah materialises in the 1921 census, hence posting on RootsChat to ask if someone has her in their tree. brigidmac suggested looking for an affiliation order against the father and we’re doing this now. In the meantime, we have 21 Scottish Sarahs born 1896 to 1903 to revisit (11 with death records) and probably should widen the net outside of the UK, e.g. into Ireland where DOUGLAS is also a common name.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions, is of some interest to members and might spark a few further ideas.
Thanks for your support.
Flemming
