Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
That Grey Zone from 1901 - 1911
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:00 |
I've discovered my mum has a whole load of unknown aunts and uncles who were from her grandfather's first marriage. I've found 3 as they are listed in the 1901 census and I have another b. 1909 because my mum remembers him. I'm sure there are probably others born between 1901 and 1911 when the first wife died. Problem is, how do I find out? Mother's maiden names aren't listed on the 1837 birth records until 1911. Short of ordering every birth certifcate for the surname Riddle in Portsmouth what can I do? Suggestions please. Crista |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:10 |
Depends how many Riddles there are from Portsmouth, but try going back from the one you know in 1909. If you know which quarter, then try back a year, or 3 quarters at a push. It did tend to be like shelling peas back then, but even they had to wait for one baby to be born before they could make another. Also, 2 names on the same page could be twins. So, if you find a possible in 1908, get that certificate. If it matches then go back to 1907 or 3 quarters before the 1908 one, and so on. There will be quite a lot you can eliminate in this way. Also, see if there seems to be a pattern in the names. Do they all begin with the same initial or something like that. |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:14 |
Carol, There's no naming convention that I can see and no family names that were reused. From the 1901 censuses there are about 3 other couples who would be popping out children around that time. Crista |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:15 |
If you have found your family on the 1901, you can eliminate the children from the other families. Just a thought. |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:16 |
Incidentally, what time is it over there? |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:30 |
Carol, It's UK - 8 hours so it's 5:30 pm here. I have the family from the 1901 census with the 3 children then. If I assume a spacing of a child every 30-33 months (people breastfed in those days and that surpressed ovulation) then there are probably 3 others between the youngest listed in 1901 and the one born in 1909. Could be another born in 1911 when the mother died too. Crista |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:41 |
It is a matter of guess work, then prove it. I think there could have been another when mother died, it was common for women to die in childbirth, it was a risky business then. Also check for the child dying too. Also, a lot of children died young. You only have to look at early death indexes and see all those zeros in the age column. Its nearly 2am here, and I really should go to bed soon. |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:43 |
Thanks for your help Carol. Goodnight. Crista |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 01:44 |
Hope you find them all Carol |
|||
|
Mike | Report | 15 Oct 2003 02:00 |
Crista I hate to spoil the party, but the notion that breastfeeding suppresses ovulation is not something upon which one should rely, as many unlooked-for pregnancies testify. I also suggest that the length of the breastfeeding period is so variable - for example, dependent upon the mother's own nutritional status - as to be a matter for mere conjecture. The average length of gestation, calculated from the LMP, fortunately appears to be immutable! Mike |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 02:23 |
Mike, Unfortunately, I don't have the LMP for my relatives so I based my calculation on the spacing of the first 3 children and the next birth listed with a matching surname. That, plus I've never come across any children in my tree that are less than 18 months apart. Crista |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 15 Oct 2003 02:55 |
It is 3am now, so I really am going to bed On second thoughts, I will have a cup of tea first. |
|||
|
Lois | Report | 15 Oct 2003 23:44 |
Crista, I know exactly what you're going through - my great-grandfather re-married sometime after 1901 and had four more children. The worst prognosis is that we have to wait until 2011 for the next census release! |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 15 Oct 2003 23:48 |
Lois, I'm wondering if there are school records or other parish records that might have the family listed. I refuse to order certificates at 8.50 pounds a pop plus postage to the US. Most of the certificates won't be the right ones anyway. Crista |
|||
|
Lucky | Report | 16 Oct 2003 00:21 |
I think this is a problem for many of us. More present day history we can't confirm as the census is not available. I have just been lucky meeting up with a second cousin on here. He is related to the Greens I have left alone so far as its such a common name. He has given me a little bit of information that will edge me along. If you can't get that you really are in the dark. I read somewhere the 1911 wasn't done under the same restrictions as usual and it should be available now. It would make such a difference to my research. I have families all over the place I can't complete. You expect that further back but not 20th century |