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

Icons

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

Unregistered birth?

Page 2 + 1 of 3

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Janet

Janet Report 28 Jun 2010 23:17

Quite agree Sylvia - my grandmother always thought her birthday was 30 June until she applied for her birth certificate when she was in her 60s or 70s and found it was the 29th June! Turns out I have discovered her half brother (John Key) was 30 June a few years earlier. I'm starting to think seriously about the twin issue as far as Albert and John are concerned. Wish I could get a baptism...

Janet

Madmeg

Madmeg Report 28 Jun 2010 23:45

In the absence of a lot of information that you say you don't want repeating, I am hard pushed to imagine why you suspect that Albert was not the son of Hannah.

He was born in 1888. In 1891 you have him as the son of Hannah, and in 1901 I assume he is the lad in Bury with his sister Ellen - is that right?

So what makes you think he is not Hannah's son?

If Dan was dead, then his father was simply someone else. After all, Hannah was only 39 when he was born, and presumably young enough to have a second lover after Dan died.

Nicky found five possible births around the right time in Carlisle, and asked if any of the names meant anything to you. You haven't responded to that.

Here they are again with my comments:

MCAVOY Albert Carlisle Dec 1887 10b 467 - Not found in 1891, Died Dec 1887.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Mar 1888 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELLISON Albert Ernest Carlisle 10b 471 - Found in 1891 with parents.
MURPHY Albert Carlisle 10b 459 - Not found in 1891
PEARSON Albert Carlisle 10b 453 - Not found in 1891, died Mar 1888.
ZELLER Albert George Carlisle 10b 475 - Not found in 1891, died Jun 1889

So that leaves just Albert Murphy unaccounted for.

Hmm. So who is Albert Murphy?

Given that information, I personally would want to be able to eliminate Albert Murphy from my list of possibles - if indeed, I had any other list of possibles.

But perhaps you have already eliminated him, and don't need the suggestion?

Madmeg

Madmeg Report 28 Jun 2010 23:51

Just to add, I do have a family in my own tree where the parents insisted on recording a child as their own on censuses - and she was the grandchild. So I am not dismissing that as a possibility here. But in that case I had other evidence that she was not the granchild.

Potty

Potty Report 29 Jun 2010 16:52

Do you have the birth cert for the John you think might possibly be Albert's twin? If he was a twin, the cert would have time of birth on it. If it does, try contacting the relevant register office and ask them to check who the twin was. I have known in the past for only one of twins to be in the GRO index.

Janet

Janet Report 29 Jun 2010 21:11

Thanks Potty, yes I do have John's birth certificate and no time on it! I think Albert must always remain a mystery - even his own son was in doubt as to the parentage and figured it was probably Annie. The fact that Albert came to NZ to join Annie after old Hannah died possibly reinforces that. Still strange that his birth wasn't registered, unless as others have suggested, it was under a different name. That doesn't quite seem right to me though. Oh well!

Janet

Madmeg

Madmeg Report 29 Jun 2010 23:49

Has this one been mentioned?

England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915
about Edward Pattinson
Name: Edward Pattinson
Year of Registration: 1888
Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar
District: Whitehaven
County: Cumbria, Cumberland
Volume: 10b
Page: 602 (click to see others on page)

But I guess it isn't him, as there is a likely family for him in 1891.

There is an Edw A Pattison travelling London-Freemantle on 9/11/1911, but he's travelling with a Mrs Pattison, married, and presumably a brother E.W Pattinson.

If this is an important person in your tree, I would still investigate the mystery Albert Murphy b Mar 1888 Carlisle, cos he appears on no census in 1891, 1901 or 1911, nor is there a death for him. Even more interesting is that there are no Murphys in Carlisle in 1891. There are Murphys over the border, but no Alberts.

There is a Bert Murphy travelling from Liverpool to Sydney in 1908. No age, but single, and a blacksmith. Was your Albert a blacksmith? Was he known as Bert?

I'd still say there is nothing to doubt that he was Hannah's son. He went to NZ to follow Annie cos both his parents were dead, and he had a friendly family face to join there.