Author Topic: Relatively recent searching  (Read 549 times)

Offline DianaCanada

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 14 October 21 13:51 BST (UK) »
Rather odd, newspaper says 73, FreeBMD says 64, yet her date of birth on the 1911 census says 18 May, 1899.

My read on the FreeBMD is that her age was 72, which jives with the newspaper article saying she was in her 73rd year.
I found one other possible marriage for an Alice Williams to a Devonport:

Mar 1903 Birmingham

Edward Devonport
John Henry Lane
Lily Spencer
Alice Williams

Offline DianaCanada

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 14 October 21 14:08 BST (UK) »
Rather odd, newspaper says 73, FreeBMD says 64, yet her date of birth on the 1911 census says 18 May, 1899.

My read on the FreeBMD is that her age was 72, which jives with the newspaper article saying she was in her 73rd year.
I found one other possible marriage for an Alice Williams to a Devonport:

Mar 1903 Birmingham

Edward Devonport
John Henry Lane
Lily Spencer
Alice Williams

I think I have found John Henry Lane and wife Lily on the 1939 in Birmingham, there are a number of Lane-Spencer children listed in FreeBMD, and two females with them match for age to be two of the children listed as Lane/Spencer.

Offline DianaCanada

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 14 October 21 14:27 BST (UK) »
There is an Alice Davenport b. 25 May 1871 living at 101 Oakfield, Birmingham, widow, in 1939. Paid domestic work.  Very close in age to the one who died in 1945.


Offline garden genie

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 14 October 21 16:46 BST (UK) »
Thank you for those points DianaCanada. I think we can now be certain that the newspaper item does not refer to John's wife Alice. It looks like all I can do is trawl the newspaper archives hopefully and/or consider wether these people are worth the cost of a speculative certificate or two. (even though it might still not be obvious if it is the right person.) I'll have to have a think.

Offline Comberton

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,053
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 14 October 21 17:20 BST (UK) »
What about this death?
Alice Davenport 66
Dec 1968
Hyde

Offline crisane

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,227
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 14 October 21 20:36 BST (UK) »

John's father died in 1911 and did not leave a will. His mother might have died in 1913, but there are other possibilities. His younger brothers can't even be located in 1939 as their baptisms didn't helpfully record the date of birth. ( You can't go buying certificates for everybody!)

THomas Davenport Dec 1/4 1897 reg dist Prestwich volume 8d page 407 mother's maiden name    Kirkwood

From Lancs OPC
Thomas Devenport - Child of John & Mary Ann Devenport  of 10 Thompson Street, bpt 14 Dec 1898 St Alban, Cheetham, Lancashire
 Born: 21 Sep 1898
John was a contractor

The birth reg on the GRO index is definitely 1897 so he wasn't baptised until nearly a year after his birth or was there a Thomas who died then another son named after him? Can't see any other births of a Thomas D*v*nport 1897 - 1899 on FreeBMD in Prestwich.

William Davenport Dec 1/4 1900 reg dist Prestwich vol 8d page 358 mmn Kirkwood
I can't see a baptism for William although there is one for John Willie.

Offline DianaCanada

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 14 October 21 20:50 BST (UK) »
Thank you for those points DianaCanada. I think we can now be certain that the newspaper item does not refer to John's wife Alice. It looks like all I can do is trawl the newspaper archives hopefully and/or consider wether these people are worth the cost of a speculative certificate or two. (even though it might still not be obvious if it is the right person.) I'll have to have a think.

You're welcome, Garden Genie!  I always think 20th century families will all fall together but I have several knotty problems I am working on too.

Offline crisane

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,227
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 14 October 21 21:03 BST (UK) »
I think  William is with his sister Ethel in the 1939 register at 21 Dutton St Manchester. They are both single, Ethel unpaid Domestic duties, William a commercial traveller for Foods - Lard Compound Merchant. Ethel's birth date 30 October 1884 which is a bit out from her birth date on her baptism record - 20 Aug 1884. William's birth date 19 August 1900.

Offline garden genie

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Relatively recent searching
« Reply #17 on: Friday 15 October 21 09:20 BST (UK) »
Thank you Comberton, that suggestion for Alice is very near the two suggestions for John isn't it. I might just send for that and hope she does get described as 'widow of...'

Crisane, you were right to remind me that this family have a very lax attitude to dates - which is very trying for something like the 1939 register where you might want to search by birthdate! In the previous generation there are several children who seem to be baptised or registered but not both. Incidentally Ethel's birth was registered in fourth quarter 1884 so the date could possibly have been adjusted to avoid a fine for late reporting. Maybe she used the date on her certificate and didn't know it was wrong!
As far as we are aware Ethel remained single. So did her next sister Gertrude whose death I do have in 1958. Eleanor and the first Annie died young. The second Annie I have all the details for. Cissie/Mary Ann (born 12 Jan 1892 according to her certificate) reputedly married a John Masters(?) and supposedly lived in Shropshire on or by a farm.