Genealogy Chat

Janet
What about the Walter Sidney Rooke connection? That would make Evie's postings the correct ones?
Julie

Have we considered the posibility that Lily herself was the mother??

I've traced the wrong Rooke I think. I was so focused on looking for Ernest Edward that when I found the Ernest E Rook on the 1901 I was convinced he was mine. Mind you at the time I found him I had only Doreen's name and DOB and hadn't found that the birth hadn't made it to the GRO.

Will have to re evaluate. The one in Putney must be correct.

Lily the registrar isn't his sister as her parents are Thomas and Hannah but you bet your life she's a cousin or something. Lots of female siblings now to trace for illegitimates.

Off to sort out these Rookes and will hopefully come back with the correct census refs etc.

B****r packing for my camping, I believe you can probably get away with wearing your clothes for 4 days if you stay outside.

Ernest did have a sister but she was older than him:

1881 census

42 Winslade Road

Registration district: Hackney
Sub registration district: Stamford Hill


Robert Rooke 30
Elizabeth Rooke 30
Edward Rooke 5
Kate Rooke 3
Ernest Rooke 1

Tracked her 1881 >1891(servant)> 1898 marriage> 1901 and found that in 1901 she was living at the same address as the Rooke family that Evie posted earlier.

Henry Crawley 27
Kate Elizth Crawley 23
May Crawley 1

Not sure about 1911 -there is a Katherine Crawley aged 32 and May Crawley aged 11 living in the same household in Shoreditch.

So, I scanned the certificate and sent it to Rob at Wandsworth RO. Before sending it I tweaked the image though I really didn't need to. When you see it full screen it's fairly obvious its been altered. I mentioned this to Rob in the e-mail and he agrees the only thing that is definately correct is the district and subdistrict. Bless him, he's gone through 11 years of registers to see if he can find Doreen and free of charge. Now thats what I call customer service.

Anyway, my money is still on Lilly Rooke who was a registrar having obtained an unwanted cert. and altering it to cover for an illegitimate in the family.

Am going to have to put it on hold til next week as I'm off camping in Suffolk for the weekend, however can you add any names male or female you can think of that end lly or tty that are no more than 5 letters.

I'll start you off with Lilly, Dolly, Billy, Nelly, Betty, Hetty, Netty, Jilly

LOL Evie

It's me that is confused i thought Janet said his sister Lily was the registrar, so have been back and checked & it was their daughter lol

Sorry
________________

UPDATED

SAid on the 6th Apr
Hannah and Thomas's family lived in Lambeth, not a milion miles from Putney/Wandsworth and it was their daughter Lily who worked as a registrar. Roll on tomorrow when, fingers crossed, the certificate should arrive

So it Thomas & Hannah was his parent then Lily was his sister

Think i'll go back to bed

Sorry for confusing the issue. I think (and I'm sure I'll be put right if I'm wrong!) when a birth is registered it is done at the nearest registry office to where the people live. On the certificate it then says

'entry number ----'

and possibly

'registry book------'

Those refs are unique to that registry office.

Then every 3 months all the info is sent to the General Records Office to be recorded centrally. The Volumes there are divided into registration districts

i.e Pontefract = Volume 9c

EDITED (cos I've confused myself)

The Vol No and page No are then used in the GRO Index which lists events by Year/Quarter and names are entered alphabetically by surname.


If that isn't clear can someone please explain it better than me.

It is possible to search Freebmd on Wandsworth Dec qtr 1918 but yes there are a lot of names to trawl through!

People just keep confusing me ...


I thought that the vol/page numbers in the GRO index *were* the local volumes/pages. ?

The GRO index itself isn't divided into those volumes and pages.

Or is what's in the index the info about the GRO's volumes and pages ...

Oh well. I don't need to get it - there's an actual registry clerk on the case!

Damn - yes of course- that's where the birth certificate was issued so the info on it is specific to the local registry office not the GRO indexes.

You can't use FreeBMD because the book/page numbers Janet has are specific to Wandsworth and are not related to the GRO page and volume numbers.

Rose

What I've been wanting for ref


Ernest Rooke's household in 1891 in Shoreditch:

Robert Rook 39
Elizabeth Rook 39
William Rook 15
Ernest Rook 11
Walter Sidney Rook 9
Robert Henry Rook 6
Benjamin Rook 4


and in 1901:

Robert Rook 51
Elizabeth Rook 51
Edward Rook 25
Ernest Rook 21
Walter Rook 19
Robert Rook 16
Benjamin Rook 14
Alfred Rook 7


Load of boys, not likely to have had any girls post-1901. ;)


Ethel in 1901?

Sidney D Phelps 50
Kate M Phelps 36
Ethel E A Bartlett 14 - niece


Seems to be her in 1891 also in Hornsey:

Joseph Bartlett 27
Emma E Bartlett 24
Joseph C Bartlett 6
Ethel A Bartlett 4


and the family in 1901 in Ilford:

Joseph S J Bartlett 35
Emma E Bartlett 33
Joseph C Bartlett 16
Agnes Bailey 19 - it says Aunt; domestic

I second that! I'd been searching through the thread trying to see whether there was a vol/page reference.

I wonder whether the short version birth cert doesn't give it? I'm not familiar with them.

I tried searching for Smith reg Dec Q 1918 in Wandsworth to see what the page numbers were for births reg in that quarter in that district, and there are just waaaay too many of them to work with. (9775 entries in vol 1d for Wandsworth, Dec Q 1918.)


And sorry - Janet said Ernest and Ethel had no *sisters*, not no sibs. So one does wonder whether Doreen might have been the child of a brother.

Just done an experiment on freebmd.org.uk

Put in the volume and page no and year/quarter range but no name. You then get a list of the births for the district within the given time frame.

Janet if you post the vol & page no here asap we can all have nosey and see if anyone can help you make a connection with any of the names................

Julie

Janet said her Ernest and Ethel didn't have sibs, per the censuses.

I wonder too though. The birth was in 1918 - maybe a sib born after the 1901?

Im wondering if your friends Mum was adopted by Ethel & her birth Mum was a younger sister of Ethel's
_________________________

If this is the right Family
This is the 1901 and Ernest age is out but this could be the Putney connection

Ernest Rooke
Age: 14
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1887
Relation: Son
Father's Name: William
Mother's Name: Harriett
Gender: Male
Where born: London, England

Civil Parish: Putney
Ecclesiastical parish: St Mary
County/Island: London
Country: England

Street address:

Occupation:

Condition as to marriage:

Education:

Employment status: View Image

Registration district: Wandsworth
Sub registration district: Putney
ED, institution, or vessel: 8
Neighbors: View others on page
Household schedule number: 338
Household Members: Name Age
William Rooke 55
Harriett Rooke 54
Ernest Rooke 14
Lily J Rooke 24
Florence A Rooke 23
Rosalie Rooke 19
Wm Robertson 60

HI Evie

Yes Putney does come under the reg district of Wandsworth & there is also a Wandsworth in Wandsworth, but the borough of Wandsworth is absolutely huge lol

A few years back when Wandsworth did away with council tax there was up roar as Putney is expensive to live in

I guess I'm not that shocked.

See if you can get the other name(s) with that book/page number. There's a small chance the surname/maiden name might hold some clues.

Rose

Sort me out here!

Putney is in Wandsworth reg dist. There's another part of the district just called Wandsworth?

... Yup. The 1901 has them both as place names, both in Wandsworth reg dist.

Janet may have meant the reg dist. I'm not too clear on where the Rookes were ...

Ethel Elizabeth Alberta Bartlett and Ernest Edward Rooke
married December quarter 1909 Islington

1911

ROOKE ETHEL ELIZABETH 1888 23 Watford Hertfordshire
ROOKE ERNEST EDWARD 1880 31 Watford Hertfordshire

by themselves, no other Rookes in household.

All the Rooke-Bartletts were born 1921-1929 in Islington reg dist, so that's where they were in 1918 maybe. But not necessarily ... ?

edit - are those Rooke-Bartletts theirs, or am I confused? They start a little late for a 1909 marriage. I think I'm confused, and Ethel and Ernest didn't have kids ...............

Hannah and Thomas's family lived in Lambeth, not a milion miles from Putney/Wandsworth and it was their daughter Lily who worked as a registrar
_________________________

Can i just add my 2p worth

Wandsworth is the 2nd biggest borough in London & there no way i'd walk to Wandsworth from Putney i'd get the bus lol