Author Topic: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child  (Read 1050 times)

Offline josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,358
  • Sooty why won't you come in?
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #9 on: Friday 15 November 19 16:11 GMT (UK) »
Not relevant but looks like William Charles Pearson was at Eton School/College in 1851 aged 16.
HO107; Piece: 1718; Folio: 490; Page: 31
& in 1871 is late captain in the army. I cannot find an army record. He may be the W Pearson aged 24 born Lincolnshire in 1861 in Aldershot
RG09; 431; 194; 22

Who was the informant for the Jan 1865 (Edmonton) registration?

Are there any later records with Charles's date of birth, eg school admissions registers, 1939 register?

Did John and Annie have any children, and if so, would any pregnancies exclude Annie from giving birth to Charles in Dec 1864?
Looking forward to hearing answers to these questions.....also had William left the army by the time of  his marriage in 1870?

ADDED: I was interested in this thread because an ancestor's birth was registered twice but for a different reason - once by hospital & once by mother
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=759201.0
Seeking: RC baptism Philip Murray Feb ish 1814 ? nr Chatham Kent.
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN, ENGLISHBY; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, WILLIAMS,DUNEVAN Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Halifax & Pictou: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON

Offline Bartonin NZ

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #10 on: Friday 15 November 19 17:31 GMT (UK) »
Apologies for the silence but needed sleep (NZ time).

The informant on the first birth registration Jan 1865 was Annie herself.

Charles William Pearson died 1929 - so not alive for 1939 register.

John and Annie had a space of 5 years between child born 1862 and 1867 and the next six births were spaced 2-3 years apart. 

I think avm228 that your assumption sounds the most likely.





Offline Bartonin NZ

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #11 on: Friday 15 November 19 17:51 GMT (UK) »
Altho thinking about another option:

On the 1861 census Elizabeth was living at home with mother and stated she was an engineers wife, she was 29 years of age at this time.  At the earliest birth registration of 1864 Elizabeth was 32.

Elizabeth and William had no other children.  Maybe Elizabeth couldn't have children so John and Annie gave Elizabeth their second born.   Why would Elizabeth register the birth 6 months after the birth date which was still prior to her marriage in 1870?  William died in 1874.

I thought avm228 had the most plausible explanation and then I couldn't forget about the other option.



Offline josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,358
  • Sooty why won't you come in?
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #12 on: Friday 15 November 19 18:16 GMT (UK) »
Hmm that's plausible too; but why would John & Annie have called their own son Charles Pearson? Unless the plan was already hatched & Elizabeth already involved with William. Separately, why would Elizabeth say she was married in 1861? 
Seeking: RC baptism Philip Murray Feb ish 1814 ? nr Chatham Kent.
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN, ENGLISHBY; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, WILLIAMS,DUNEVAN Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Halifax & Pictou: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,751
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #13 on: Friday 15 November 19 19:01 GMT (UK) »
If William was an Old Etonian Army officer then perhaps it was an inequality in socioeconomic status which meant he didn’t marry her at first.

I see that Elizabeth’s mother Lydia was widowed by 1851 and (with her 7 children) was living with her “pauper” parents. Elizabeth and two of her sisters were servants. This modest or even impoverished background would not have been unusual, but it wouldn’t normally place Elizabeth in a position to be courted by somebody of William’s apparent social status.

Perhaps they were in a covert relationship and Elizabeth did not expect him to acknowledge or support the child - hence the lies about his parentage on first registration (albeit with very pertinent given names to send a message to William) but things changed and he was later registered with the correct parentage, the marriage following a few years later.
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline arthurk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,688
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #14 on: Friday 15 November 19 20:13 GMT (UK) »
Did any of John and Annie Cockle, and William and Elizabeth Pearson, leave a will? Or, indeed, any of their parents? If so, there might possibly have been a bequest to Charles, along with an explanation of the relationship if it wasn't entirely as it appeared.

For example, since Charles wasn't a legitimate son of William, the only way he would have been able to inherit from him would have been if he was explicitly mentioned in a will. And since there was no formal adoption in those days, then if, say, he'd been informally adopted by Elizabeth he wouldn't have inherited from her unless similarly mentioned. A will that named someone like that wouldn't necessarily explain the relationship, but it might.
Researching among others:
Bartle, Bilton, Campbell, Craven, Emmott, Harcourt, Hirst, Kellet(t), Kennedy,
Meaburn, Mennile/Meynell, Metcalf(e), Palliser, Robinson, Rutter, Shipley, Stow, Wilkinson

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Bartonin NZ

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Two birth registrations for what appears to be same child
« Reply #15 on: Friday 15 November 19 20:34 GMT (UK) »
Thank you for those suggestions arthurk.  I will look to see if any did leave a will, although am not convinced I have the correct death for William.  At this very moment I am checking his details.

Have read John Cockles Will and there is nothing relating to Charles Pearson.