adoption 1919-1920

[majm]

Wow,  well sorted Annie,

So there's actually nothing to indicate that Jack McARTHUR was a) an Australian or b) a soldier in any army.

So we are left with looking for a Jack McARTHUR who, in July 1919 was employed as a Commercial Clerk, by the Private Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St, South Kensington.... So does that mean he was a Commercial Clerk for the Builders    .... so does this then mean that "Private" is used on that birth cert to mean 'confidential' or 'secret' ...

JM

[jonw65]

Sorry but Private Australian Headquarters as an address makes no sense to me
What could be private about it?
Commercial Clerk in brackets would be a peacetime occupation, given perhaps because it was now peacetime again? Or, yes, because although he was a private, he was being used by the army as a clerk. But not a commercial one.

[majm]

The heading of the particular column ... (its column 6)

6
Occupation of father


So, on reading it again .... I note that a) It does not ask for any address at all and b) it does not ask for the name of the employer.   

Also, I should mention that the public tree at Ancestry has mis-read the date of birth on the cert,  and they have it as 13th June 1919.  It is clearly Thirtieth June 1919 on the image of the cert I have sighted.

JM


ADD at five past nine a.m. NSW daylight savings time.

So I think my post continues to be relevant :

Wow,  well sorted Annie,

So there's actually nothing to indicate that Jack McARTHUR was a) an Australian or b) a soldier in any army.

So we are left with looking for a Jack McARTHUR who, in July 1919 was employed as a Commercial Clerk, by the Private Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St, South Kensington.... So does that mean he was a Commercial Clerk for the Builders    .... so does this then mean that "Private" is used on that birth cert to mean 'confidential' or 'secret' ...

JM

[Rosinish]

So there's actually nothing to indicate that Jack McARTHUR was a) an Australian or b) a soldier in any army.

Having read Jon's reply it would seem his occ. was 'Private' as well as Commercial Clerk but nothing to suggest he was Australian or not

So we are left with looking for a Jack McARTHUR who, in July 1919 was employed as a Commercial Clerk, by the Private Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St, South Kensington.... So does that mean he was a Commercial Clerk for the Builders    .... so does this then mean that "Private" is used on that birth cert to mean 'confidential' or 'secret' ...

The use of the address of 15 Montpelier St. (Builders) is a mystery, not the Australian HQ which is Horseferry Road.

I've spent hrs going through records & I can't find anything on either Alice or Jack.

Commercial Clerk in brackets would be a peacetime occupation, given perhaps because it was now peacetime again? Or, yes, because although he was a private, he was being used by the army as a clerk. But not a commercial one.

If in fact it was 'peacetime' which it would seem to be in 1919 it makes it more suspect as to why he's absent from all paperwork involved relating to Violet.

It actually seemed rather odd to see so much detail about him on the BC in his absence although I haven't seen too many English certs.
I found it odd the address of 15 Montpelier Street needed to be written twice considering they were supposedly married?

Annie

[curioushistory]

Wow,  well sorted Annie,

So there's actually nothing to indicate that Jack McARTHUR was a) an Australian or b) a soldier in any army.

So we are left with looking for a Jack McARTHUR who, in July 1919 was employed as a Commercial Clerk, by the Private Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St, South Kensington....
I have found nothing saying there is an Australian headquarters on Montpelier street.


So does that mean he was a Commercial Clerk for the Builders    .... so does this then mean that "Private" is used on that birth cert to mean 'confidential' or 'secret' ...

JM

[Rosinish]

curoiushistory,

You have quoted a previous post above but have not given a reply, was it an error?

Annie

[majm]

Found curious' reply. 

..... follows my words with ....'I have found nothing saying there is an Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St...'       .. .I reiterate ... the registrar has recorded the info in col 6,  and it is confusing but it is not giving the father as a military person with a rank of Private or a former AIF Pte. (Pte being the usual abbreviation for Private) nor is it referring to the Australian Imperial Force Headquarters at Horseferry Road.

One of the 12 public trees at Ancestry has a photo of Jim and Jack Mcarthur in their AIF uniforms... Jim with three stripes, Jack with two.     so neither as Private and likely photo taken in Britain prior to Jim returning to Australia, so  1917.


JM.

Wow,  well sorted Annie,

So there's actually nothing to indicate that Jack McARTHUR was a) an Australian or b) a soldier in any army.

So we are left with looking for a Jack McARTHUR who, in July 1919 was employed as a Commercial Clerk, by the Private Australian Headquarters located at 15 Montpelier St, South Kensington....
I have found nothing saying there is an Australian headquarters on Montpelier street.


So does that mean he was a Commercial Clerk for the Builders    .... so does this then mean that "Private" is used on that birth cert to mean 'confidential' or 'secret' ...

JM

[curioushistory]

I always thought it was strange. The way it is worded... Jack is a commercial clerk of 15 Montpelier street.
But unless there are multiple units above the builders, it makes no sense, to me that she is using the same address.

[JuliaVernon]

I've just finished transcribing a parish baptism register for 1800-1812, and quite a few of the illegitimate children have second names that could be surnames. Of course mother's maiden name or other family names are quite often recorded in this way, but in one case there are twins and their names are recorded as John Izod and Elizabeth Izod. I've had to record them as though it is a second Christian name, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this is the name of the father. Certainly worth investigating!