Whatever happened to baby Thomas Conroy - born 1883?

[River Tyne Lass]

Thanks for these new replies.

I won't be able to discount the Curry or Cully options probably until up to a few weeks because of work and family commitments.  I would have been able to go to the Archives today but this is shut on Mondays.  I am definitely going to chase this up though and as soon as work hours permit I will get there and post up my findings on here whether he can be found or not.

Yes, freebmd is a great site Viktoria and I do use this all the time.  I have already discounted the South Shields and Bradford baby Thomas as both of these babies died in the March quarter and Thomas who was my Grandfather's brother was not born until 7 May 1883.  The Dewsbury baby is age 9 in 1885 when he died but Thomas would have only been two then. 

I think the first thing I must do as soon as I get a chance is to go back to the St Joseph death registers and try to rule out a mistake with the name.  Thomas's Mother Bridget is in the 1892 death register - she died on 4 June 1892 and was buried on the 7th.  So this would suggest that the family were in Birtley up until that time at least.

Also, just to add - because Thomas was baptized when he was 13 days old I presume he would not have been buried as a stillborn even if he did die as a very young baby. 

Thanks so much everyone for trying to help me with this - I really do appreciate this.

[River Tyne Lass]

I am at the library now - just clutching at straws.  I can see on Ancestry that there seems to have been a 'Simon Conroy' who departed from Liverpool on the Lord Clive for Pennsylvannia - arrival 19 April 1887.  His birth date is given as 1851.  My Great Grandfather's birth certificate shows he was born on 4 June 1851.  Simon's brother James emigrated and settled in Pennsylvania - and had a very gruesome mining death but not until the early 1900s.

However, this may not be my ancestor Simon.  This person appears to be travelling on  his own anyway.  I suppose the family would not have been able to manage without his coalminers wages if he did suddenly decide to head off to see his brother.  No sign of Thomas with that Simon either.  I think I might just have to be patient until I can get to the archives.

[River Tyne Lass]

I got a small window of opportunity to get back to the Tyne and Wear Archives this morning to look again at the St Joseph, RC Church death registers at Birtley.

I now think I have found him - but I believe he has been recorded under the wrong name on this register and on death registration.

In the death registers there is a Thomas Gilroy age 4 months buried on 5 September 1883 (no death date provided) and he is registered under that surname it seems on Volume 10a Page 268.  This is the only possible match I can find.

Thomas's Grandfather (James Conroy) was mentioned at a court trial in 1856 as also being known by the surname alias of 'Gilroy'.  Also I believe that this James brother Joseph also married a Mary Ann Allen at St Albans, Earsdon under the name of Gilroy.

So thinking about all this I do believe that baby Thomas may well have been registered under the name of Gilroy whether by accident or design.  

[josey]

Good find RTL. Persistence pays off plus lateral thinking !!

[River Tyne Lass]

Thanks Josie, it is a mystery why it seems they have used the Gilroy surname again.  I think I may never know whether this was due to an accidental error or deliberate.