Thomas Loveday married Elizabeth Davie s in Cardiff 1890 ( COMPLETE)

[triathlon]

Thank you.

I think I am first going to have to contact Barnados as living family have mentioned that.  Then try and trace using male line relatives LIVING on Davies side .  Working on Tranters at the moment.  I am a real novice at this and spent many hundreds of hours but trying to avoid adoptions, re-marriages etc.  All I am really trying to find out is what happened to Thomas Loveday 1867, and is there a reason why his wife had another 5 children with a Lawrence galvin.  Did he die leave or

[osprey]

It could be that Bertha was adopted or fostered, but official records of adoption don't start until 1927. Perhaps getting the 1924 marriage certificate might help.

[triathlon]

Thank you.  Just applied for info to Barnados.  I'm trying to contact the informant of this Bertha Loveday marriage first to see where info has come from, otherwise I could be buying the wrong cert.  I've got quite a few already.  I'm also trying HARD to work through all the other male children to trace descendants.

[triathlon]

Thank you for this lead. I THINK I've cleared up ONE mystery !!

On the 1911 census Bertha HAYNES is shown aged 10 ( 1900/1901) born CARDIFF with parents ELIZA and Alfred who married in 1898.
There is no birth recorded for Bertha HAYNES !!  However ELIZA haynes was born 1874, same as Eliza Davies, also both were born Bridgewater. Therefore I think Eliza Haynes is  nee Davies and Elizabeth Lovedays Sister.  Looks like she has adopted Bertha , Elizabeths child as BERTHA is not shown on 1901 census for the Haynes marriage, not is her birth recorded as Haynes anywhere else.  This would make sense as the Davies family seem to be taking on the care of the Loveday children.

Triathlon,

Decided to try and track the Bertha Haynes that married Henry Blackburn  - marriage registered DEC Qtr, 1924 Nantwich 8a 664.

Checked the 1911 Census for a Bertha Haynes in the Nantwich area and found one in Crewe born 1901 Cardiff.

I have checked FreeBMD for the period between 1895 and 1905 (lots of leeway!!) and couldn't find the birth of a Bertha Haynes registered Cardiff, or indeed Glamorgan, during that period.

Has your source established that Bertha "Haynes" b. Cardiff 1901 (1911 Census, Nantwich) and Bertha Loveday b. Cardiff 1900 (1901 Census, Cardiff) might be one and the same?

By 1911 the family appears broken up with Rose and Thomas Frances in Merthyr Tydfil with relatives and no trace Elizabeth and Bertha? Was Bertha adopted? Already been mention of Thomas and Dr Barnardos.

Possible red herring but food for thought

1911 Census ref = RG14PN21768  RG78PN1297   RD449 SD1 ED16 SN176

regards

[triathlon]

I see that the only recorded birth for a Thomas Loveday in 1867 is a Thomas Henry Loveday.

 I contacted the registry office who stated that the only details on the birth cert were mother's - Martha. She had him in the workhouse !! Obviously I cannot be sure this is him as I have nothing to verify it and he has only used 1867 date of birth on 2 documents and Stratton as birthplace. I cannot see that he has ever used L as a middle name.

There are numerous Martha Lovedays ( born 40s -50 in Highworth that could be his mother and of course John his father could be anyone.

my thought was that Martha Loveday, mother of Thomas, married before the following census which is why they couldn't be found in 1871. I found a marriage for Martha, who like Thomas, was from Stratton to John Smith with whom she had a son, also John. Her husband died and she moved in with William Holland and in 1881 both her sons are with her, although Thomas is enumerated as Smith. Perhaps Martha didn't tell her new man that the boys had different fathers? Perhaps they didn't?

As Martha wasn't married at the time of Thomas' birth, the only way that the father's name could be on the cert was if he registered the birth. Perhaps John Smith was his father or Thomas thought he was, or he used his first name to fill the embarrassing blank space on the marriage cert.

Stratton bmds were registered in Highworth until 1899 when the registration district became Swindon
http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/highworth.html

 

[triathlon]

I do hope this makes sense.  In 1871 census I found a John Loveday b. 1845 married to a MARTHA b 1847.  I have found a marriage for John Loveday b. 1845 married in 1869.
On the 1871 they have children shown on the census, but not Thomas 1867 ?  He was obviously born 2 years before the marriage if I am correct!!

I might be adding 2+ 2 and getting 6 but dont know. 
Very confusing and I am just a newbie! but getting older!!

my thought was that Martha Loveday, mother of Thomas, married before the following census which is why they couldn't be found in 1871. I found a marriage for Martha, who like Thomas, was from Stratton to John Smith with whom she had a son, also John. Her husband died and she moved in with William Holland and in 1881 both her sons are with her, although Thomas is enumerated as Smith. Perhaps Martha didn't tell her new man that the boys had different fathers? Perhaps they didn't?

As Martha wasn't married at the time of Thomas' birth, the only way that the father's name could be on the cert was if he registered the birth. Perhaps John Smith was his father or Thomas thought he was, or he used his first name to fill the embarrassing blank space on the marriage cert.

Stratton bmds were registered in Highworth until 1899 when the registration district became Swindon
http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/highworth.html

 

[osprey]

the only John Loveday & Martha marriage at that time is
John Loveday june qtr 1866 Highworth vol 5a pg 15 with Martha Titcombe on the same page
So they would have been married at the time of Thomas' birth and the birth cert you have has Thomas born to an unmarried Martha.
1871 census has Emma Titcomb, Martha's sister, visiting them. They also have a 4 year old son called Alfred, so not much time to allow for the birth of a Thomas anyway.

If Thomas had been born to this couple before their marriage, he should have been registered as Titcombe.

The 1869 marriage has no Martha with the same GRO ref, there's a Mary Harriet or a Jessie.

[triathlon]

Yes, I think that my thoughts are towards Martha the mother of Thomas being the Loveday, and not being married when he was born. Workhouse.  I have nothing to evidence this accept the year of birth matches and the place. What I cant understand is that John LOveday is shown as father on the marriage cert.  I cannot confirm that Martha is the mother of Thomas so really I seem not to be getting anywhere trying to trace his parents. Or am I missing something?

the only John Loveday & Martha marriage at that time is
John Loveday june qtr 1866 Highworth vol 5a pg 15 with Martha Titcombe on the same page
So they would have been married at the time of Thomas' birth and the birth cert you have has Thomas born to an unmarried Martha.
1871 census has Emma Titcomb, Martha's sister, visiting them. They also have a 4 year old son called Alfred, so not much time to allow for the birth of a Thomas anyway.

If Thomas had been born to this couple before their marriage, he should have been registered as Titcombe.

The 1869 marriage has no Martha with the same GRO ref, there's a Mary Harriet or a Jessie.

[osprey]

there is a father called John on the marriage certificate rather that there being a blank space for father's name. It was quite common for people to invent a name, use a grandfather's name, use a stepfather's name, rather than admit their illegitimacy.

What workhouse records survive are at the Witlshire & Swindon Archives - they have births from 1866. 

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/leisureandculture/museumhistoryheritage.htm