Genealogy Chat

Oh Evie, I'm going to have to e-mail Rob again. Still have to wait til next week as I have to go to bed.

Your right. Pat said Sidney and at the time I was following the Ernest from the Islington Rookes. It was Sidney De'lisle Phelps in Deben Suffolk. Grandmothers uncle from the 1901. Must remember to visit old info. Problem is when you get the info in drips and drabs and don't know which bits are relevant, its difficult to figure how it pieces together.

Good question!

Couldn't have been that Walter Sidney Rooke -- because he doesn't have a grave!

http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=1587668

Name: ROOK, WALTER SIDNEY
Date of Death: 27/03/1918
Memorial: POZIERES MEMORIAL

"The POZIERES MEMORIAL relates to the period of crisis in March and April 1918 when the Allied Fifth Army was driven back by overwhelming numbers across the former Somme battlefields, and the months that followed before the Advance to Victory, which began on 8 August 1918. The Memorial commemorates over 14,000 casualties of the United Kingdom and 300 of the South African Forces who have no known grave and who died on the Somme from 21 March to 7 August 1918."

The suspense is killing me! But I'm confused (again-happens a lot!)

Who's grave did Doreen take Pat to see?

*Was* it a brother of Ernest?

"Obviously he's not going to tell me to which birth the numbers relate cos that would be covered by the data protection."

Do you think? Aren't the books open for public inspection?

Isn't there also a chance that the certificate is Doreen's own real certificate, that has been doctored to change all that info?

Another possibility, you know, is just that Ethel wanted a kid and this was their way of "adopting" one. Meet an unmarried woman with an unwanted kid, get cousin Lily to alter the birth certificate to show she was theirs.

Or it could have been Ernest playing away. Wives have been known to have to rear their husband's extracurricular offspring.

I think the numbers been doctored too. Rob confirmed the Wandsworth and Putney hadn't been altered and I assume the signature of the registrar hasn't but the year name and date including month have. Obviously he's not going to tell me to which birth the numbers relate cos that would be covered by the data protection.

As an extra, notice how Ethel and Ernest died age 63 and 74 whereas Hannah Rooke nee Scarnell was late eighties, her mother Sarah in her late eighties and Doreen ninety.

I asked Pat if her mum liked to be the centre of attention and Pat said yes. Looks like she still is!

Good questions, Rose.

Got it Janet!

Funnily enough, my OH is William!

I see what you mean. There is some faint brown lettering underneath the black ink where the name, dob, entry no. and book numbers are.

Can you make out the registrar's name? Rob should be able to recognise it if he/she were real.

Also, what name does Rob have for entry number 309 and book number 52?

Rose

It should be with you Rose. Is your OH Portland Bill then? LOL

Just got a message back from Pat, she hasn;t got the marriage cert but has got the deaths.

Ernest died 19th feb 1954 aged 74 so 1879/80 birth and Ethel died 13th feb 1950 age 63.

Janet,

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

Rose

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.

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

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!!

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.

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!

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 ...

Sydney's household in 1901:

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

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.

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

1891:

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!).