Find Ancestors

Any chance Kathleen was living with someone else and going by his surname when she died?

Name: Kathleen Irene Skillen
Birth Date: 18 Dec 1920
Death Registration Month/Year: May 1999
Age at death (estimated): 78
Registration district: Worthing
Inferred County: West Sussex
Register number: 4B21C
District and Subdistrict: 7864B
Entry number: 20


That's the only Kathleen born on 18 Dec 1920 who died in 1999.

edit -- not that one -- Kathleen I Fairbrother was registered first quarter 1921 and married Skillen. I'll just leave it here for ruling out.

she may be registered deceased under kathleen mitchell as she lived with a stan mitchell but they never married. she def used his name. I will def get mum to find the info you suggest. I have to put little one to bed now but will keep you posted and let you know more as I find it. I also found out today that william lynch you mum knew as her dad may not have been adopted at all. it was suggested by kathleen. I also found out that kathleen brothers and sisters were very likely to of all had different fathers.This was suggested by stan mitchell
what a lovely family!!!! unfortunatly my mum cant remember which hospital she died. all i know is london!
thank you x

So I was thinking along the right lines for searching for a death!

Well then here we go, I think:

Name: Kathleen Mitchell
>> Birth Date: 18 Dec 1918
Death Registration Month/Year: Jul 1999
Age at death (estimated): 80
Registration district: Southwark
Inferred County: London
Register number: C13A
District and Subdistrict: 2511C
Entry number: 36


Now, that doesn't mean the date of birth in that record is correct. I find that the birthday (day and month) usually are, even if the year is off.

That's illustrated by the fact that both that record and your mum give the same birthday, different years!


And this brings me back to a birth I'd been eyeing for some time.

Name: Kathleen Cordwell
Mother's Maiden Surname: Hurley
Date of Registration: Jan Feb Mar 1919
Registration district: Bethnal G
Registration county: Greater London
Volume Number: 1c
Page Number: 176

Except, absolute rats, there is a John Cordwell + Amy Hurley marriage in Bethnal Green, possibly, in 1903, and several other births there up to 1927.

So that birth is ruled out too.

Well here's one to rot your socks.

It may be this one. No, it isn't this one, this is the first one under KENNY in the list. But this one takes you there:

Name: K??
Mother's Maiden Surname: Kenny
Date of Registration: Jan Feb Mar 1919
Registration district: Tynemouth
Registration county: Cumberland, Northumberland/Westmorland
Volume Number: 10b
Page Number: 358

Kenny starts at the bottom of the first column and so of course continues at the top of the next. The last one at the bottom of the first column is John. (The K?? one is the first on the list so it obviously isn't K; could be Ann?)

So what can anyone read at the top of the next column?

This is the link to the image at Ancestry:

http://search.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=view&r=an&dbid=8782&iid=
ons_b19191az-0618&fn=&ln=K%3f%3f&st=d&ssrc=&pid=43481031

The top of the second column is a big black blotch.

Is there any chance the first entry at the top of the second column is Kathleen? I think it is. And maybe mother's name is Kenny?

The district can't possibly be read.

The page number is four digits. Greenwich page numbers have four digits.

The two Manning-Kenny-Hurley births were vol 1d pp. 1638 and 1738.

Here's an example of a birth registered in Greenwich in Q1 1919:

Name: Albert Smith
Mother's Maiden Surname: Randall
Date of Registration: Jan Feb Mar 1919
Registration district: Greenwich
Registration county: Greater London
> Volume Number: 1d
> Page Number: 1156

If you search for surname Ken* registered Q1 1919, there are a couple of dozen shown at Ancestry as Ken?? because of this. And there are Kenn? and Kenn??t, etc. No idea which might stand for the one at the top of column 2. Ancestry (edit - I meant FreeBMD) actually gives *no* Kenny births for Q1 1919.

Anybody do any better at that than I can, and what do we think of that possibility??

Its a possible,but I cant read it.
Suggestion?

Gro will do a search either side of a birth year without ref numbers,but it does take 2/3 weeks for them to come back to you with or without a result,I know as I have spoken to them about it and have one in at the moment with fathers name added.
£9.25p and ALL money back if nothing found.
I would get all the details I know together and then phone GRO and order over the phone with this one as its slightly difficult.

Edit.
OR ring Greenwich Reg Office and ask them about it as that page is spoilt on the index.

That is amazing!!!!!!!! that def seems to fit everything and makes perfect sense. you are a star!!!!!!

I'd take FBG's advice there, Clare.

If you want me to send you a copy of that image, send me your email address by private message and I'll send it on.

Yes just had a look thank you. I will give them a ring in the morning as I think that is right. it makes perfect sense. what a find. I am sooooooo happy with this. I am logging off now but this is great thank you thank you thank you

Might FMP have a better copy of the image?

Don't know what Q this is but can't see it on Ancestry or FreeBMD:

KENNY Katharine Greenwich London 1919

Julie

Julie.

Good thinking.
It looks good on there as Kathleen Kenny (not Katherine as transcribed)and Mothers maiden name as Hurley..!

This is what it is all transcribed as

Name: KENNY, Katharine

Registration District: Greenwich

County: London

Year of Registration: 1919

Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar

Mother's Maiden Name: Fariss

Volume No: 1D

Page No: 1154


But I dont make mothers maiden name to be Fariss at all as it looks too much like Hurley,but maybe that just because I know it should be that?.

Oh, well, that's interesting! I'd been wondering about variants of Kathleen too, of course.

FreeBMD has no Kennys at all. Its list for Q1 1919 births skips from Kenealy to Kennaird, at which point it shows a "possible gap in the data", and then skips again from Kennedy to Kenn_ford and Kennell, and then -- this is the bit that concerns us -- skips from Kennington to Kenrick.

Can you see the image at FMP??

I did just mean it as a *possible*, I hope I haven't got Clare's hopes up to dash them!

Oh, edit! FBG, really?? Farm out!!

Editing cos of gremlins in the works.

Blinkin site has gone up the creek on me.!

Blinkin site has gone up the creek on me.!

Dont trust the ref numbers as they are smudgy and hard to read as well.

Want to see the image JC?

Well I have sent it anyway(I hope)
you know what my sending of things is like,a bit hit and miss really.

Sure, but you're right, Clare will have to give this one the personal touch when ordering. You're the best one to advise on that (I mean, at least, I'm the worst one).

I took a look at FreeBMD's image as well, via

http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=140476250&d=bmd_1283811321

and it's about the same as Ancestry's. I do see it as Kathleen, and I can see where it might be an "l" in Hurley misread as an "i" in Fariss, whatever that might be. It does look like an "r" in front of it. The letter after that looks like a pointy one, like "v" or "y", but that's probably just the pixels mushing.

Send it on. If Clare wants to see, I can just forward that to her with the Ancestry one -- but it sounded like she might have been able to access the Ancestry one herself there.

Oh, that is loads better than the one that FreeBMD and Ancestry have.

(The magic of the internet, eh? went to gmail and there it was.)

Well, definitely Greenwich, and definitely Kathleen. With a middle initial?

Mother looks rather like Haring. ;) But I for sure think Hurley is about the most sensible reading of it!

Okay now, c'mon. Would this ever have been found 'cept for dog-with-bone moi on the case??

Well, I guess maybe if I'd pay for FMP I might have found it sooner, or somebody else might have ... but nah. ;)


Oh, and I do make it 1d 1154. In the incomplete list at FreeBMD for K births in that quarter, 1155 is a valid number. Hang on ... Yup, 1154 is a valid page number for that quarter in Greenwich -- and the list shows only 5 names, i.e. one missing, I think.

Just before I go.

JC ego polish coming up..:}

Pat Pat,Polish Polish;;...0)

Well done you ,first class work.

Take that, professional genealogists. ;)

hi janeycanuck.
I just read all you put on last night and I saw the entry on GR and that was a little smudged but you could just make out kathleen and 4 digits.
I have to say it looks pretty good. I will be on again later today when little one goes to nap.
I ordered the marraige lynch/kenny and ordered the manning BC so as soon as they turn up I will let you know but I think the BC you where last talking about sounds right. we shall see
thanks

Images emailed!