Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

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

The British Newspaper Archive

British Newspaper Archive

Read about historical events at the time they were happening. Perhaps you'll discover your ancestor in their local newspaper?

Start searching


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Outside the box ideas? UPDATE page 7

Page 2 + 1 of 9

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Jooleh Report 8 Apr 2009 22:31

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.


EvieBeavie Report 8 Apr 2009 22:54

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!


Jooleh Report 8 Apr 2009 23:33

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!


Julie Report 9 Apr 2009 07:58

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



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

Janet 693215

Janet 693215 Report 9 Apr 2009 19:23

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


Jooleh Report 9 Apr 2009 19:37

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.

Janet 693215

Janet 693215 Report 9 Apr 2009 19:44

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.

Janet 693215

Janet 693215 Report 9 Apr 2009 19:54

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.


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:02

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


Jooleh Report 9 Apr 2009 20:07

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


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:16

Oops, Lily would have been a little old for the job:


Name: Lily Edith Rooke
> Age: 21
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1870
Relation: Daughter
Father's Name: Thos S
Mother's Name: Hannah E
Where born: Camberwell, London, England

Making her nearly 50 at the time of the birth.

You did say that your friend is the spitting image of Hannah though. So I'd be looking in that family -- a niece of Lily as the mother maybe.

Julie -- for Walter Sidney Rooke -- I think I was just going on the info Janet had given about him, which it seems may have been based on her going after the wrong Ernest, now. So that would be *an* Ernest withbrother Walter, but maybe or likely not the right Ernest.

Edit to add the rest of that Rooke household in 1891:

Thos S Rooke 46
Hannah E Rooke 47
Lily Edith Rooke 21
Bertrice M Rooke 10
Sydney S Rooke 17
Grace E Rooke 16
Olise Maud Rooke 13
Awbray P Rooke 12

and 1881 - the full complement of kids:

Thomas S. Rooke 36
Hannah E. Rooke 36
Florence B. Rooke 12
Lily E. Rooke 11
Beatrice M. Rooke 9
Sydney S. Rooke 7
Grace E. Rooke 6
Olive M.E. Rooke 3
Aubrey P. Rooke 2

For the woman who was the mother to be a Rooke, she would have to have been the daughter of one of the brothers (or herself the daughter of an unmarried mother!).


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:22

Lily's brothers' marriages:

Marriages Jun 1905
Chaldecott Owen Mansel Christchurch 2b 1468
FRANCIS Lucy Christchurch 2b 1468
ROOKE Aubrey Piercy Christchurch 2b 1468
SHEPPARD Florence Annie Christchurch 2b 1468

Marriages Jun 1896
Rooke Sydney Scarnell Lambeth 1d 905
Thomas Ellen Lambeth 1d 905
Wadhand Arthur Philip Lambeth 1d 905
Yeulett Edith Elizabeth Lambeth 1d 905

Sydney would be the candidate for grandfather, I'd think.


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:26

Sydney's household in 1901:

Sydney Rooke 27
Ellen Rooke 28
> Violet Rooke 4
Sydney Rooke 2


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:29

Sydney's household in 1911:

ROOKE SYDNEY 1874 37 Lambeth London
ROOKE ELLEN 1873 38 Lambeth London
ROOKE VIOLET 1897 14 Lambeth London
ROOKE SYDNEY 1899 12 Lambeth London
ROOKE HILDA 1907 4 Lambeth London

So my money's on Violet ...


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:33

1901 has Violet born in Clapham.

Births Jun 1897
Rooke Violet Olive Wandsworth 1d 667

Possible marriage:

Marriages Mar 1920
Lee Jesse (Rooke) Wandsworth 1d 771
Rooke Violet (Lee) Wandsworth 1d 771

Place your bets!


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:36

Only one obvious candidate for a child of that marriage:

Births Mar 1921
Lee Richard H (Rooke) Wandsworth 1d 1070

and there are a couple of people at GR who look like they have him in their trees.


EvieBeavie Report 9 Apr 2009 20:47

So this is the Ernest we're looking at now?

1891 in Islington:

George H Rooker 47
Emily Rooker 43
Harry Rooker 19
Alice Rooker 20
Richard Rooker 17
> Ernest E Rooker 10 (matches birthdate in 1911)
Florence Rooker 7
Archibald Rooker 1

1901 in Islington:

George Rook 57
Emily Rook 53
> Ernest Rook 24
Harrie Rook 19
Archie Rook 11

Births Dec 1879
Rooke Ernest Edward Holborn 1b 745

Ernest + Ethel marriage certificate!!

Janet 693215

Janet 693215 Report 9 Apr 2009 21:31

Texted Pat to see if shes got the marriage cert of Ernest and Ethel so we can establish for certain which one he is.

I'm not a betting woman but I reckon Violet is a candidate. However, it could be a married Rooke who played away while her hubby was serving in the forces. Lily the registrar would have access to blank certificates so why doctor someone elses? Then again, she could have changed occupations before 1918 and used one from a family member.

Why oh why did they all have the same names?

I wish ancestry would hurry up and get the R's on for the military records!

Names from Doreens address book which may or may not bear any clues

Lily Rooke
Arthur Rooke
Jack Rooke of Rochester
Nelly Rooke
Harry Rooke
Ada Rooke of Southwick (near brighton)
Nelly Pullen
Rene Rooke

Janet 693215

Janet 693215 Report 9 Apr 2009 21:37

I wish I had all the papers to look at as I can ask Pat if shes got different bits but its difficult trying to piece together when the odds and ends might not seem relevant but might hold the key.

Click ADD REPLY button - not this link!

Click ADD REPLY button - not this link! Report 9 Apr 2009 22:05


Any chance you'd be willing to email me an image of the cert? I'd like to see how it's been doctored.