Find Ancestors
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
Looking for Wilcockson birth registrations
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Julie | Report | 15 Feb 2020 11:37 |
I have a situation where 2 Marson sisters married 2 Wilcockson brothers. Thomas and Susan married in 1874, Martha and William married in 1879. Census data from 1881 through to 1911 shows both couples in Stoneyford, Derbyshire throughout. The 1911 census indicates that Thomas and Susan had 16 children only 5 of whom were still living, William and Martha show 7 children 4 still alive. Census data gives me the living children, but only 1 of those who is dead. I have identified 22 birth registrations for Wilcockson and variant Wilcoxson with MMN Marson and a couple of variant spellings in the Basford RD, which straddled the Notts/Derby border. I did this by searching the GRO index using the variant options they provide for Wilcockson, ultimately without any MMN, and trawling for anything that might be a misheard or mistranslated version of Marson. However, as it isn't possible to search for MMN Marson without a surname, I am struggling to find the potential missing entry. Yes, I appreciate that one of the couples may have miscounted. But, does anyone have any suggestions regarding searching for a possible misheard or mistranscribed variant of the Wilkcockson surname? I should perhaps add that only those children that survived beyond infancy appear to have been baptised, so I cannot use baptism records nor in turn burials. |
|||
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 15 Feb 2020 12:08 |
Maybe they counted a child that was stillborn or died soon after birth |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 15 Feb 2020 12:13 |
There’s loads of young deaths between 1879 and 1911 on freebmd |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 15 Feb 2020 14:18 |
Thomas's children in censuses: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 15 Feb 2020 14:24 |
Thanks for the suggestions, there is only one child that appears on one census but not later ones, the other children I've found both birth & death regns for mainly died before reaching their first birthday, in many cases the same quarter they were born. I'm not quite clear what the suggestion is with young deaths, are you suggesting tracing all the young deaths back to the GRO birth index, irrespective of surname? My first thought is that a birth registration may not have been recorded under the same names as a death, a death could have been recorded correctly and transcribed correctly, in such a case searching for the incorrectly recorded birth regn is not going to produce any result. A birth regn will only match up with a death regn if both have been recorded under the same names, or at the very least close variations. |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 15 Feb 2020 14:38 |
ArgyllGran - I have the same kids as you and same deaths. However, I don't think Thomas is the twin of Arthur, the birth were not registered at the same time . one is Q1, the other Q2. I appreciate that I'd need sight of the birth cert for one of these to sort out who the mother was. |
|||
|
greyghost | Report | 15 Feb 2020 15:47 |
Living at Stoneyford. Father a Miner. |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 15 Feb 2020 16:05 |
Both ladies married very young, 14 nd 15, so unlikely to be any births prior to marriage. The above baptisms do I suspect miss a couple of children that were alive in 1889 of Thomas & Susan. These families and various others related to them do seem to have children baptised in batches, the Longdon's appearing in the register between the batches of Wilcocksons are those of another sister and her husband. Alice is baptised later on her own, but there are related children baptised at the same time. My conclusion is that this habit of "batch baptisms" meant that those children who died in infancy, did so before they had been baptised |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 15 Feb 2020 16:32 |
I expect it you'd had about 15 or 16 children it would be easy to lose count! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 15 Feb 2020 17:16 |
ArgyllGran, I guess so, I've several other cases with couples who had this sort of numbers fo kids, where I just haven't been able match up the 1911 numbers. There is also the issue of misunderstanding the question and including still births, or indeed of not registering births/deaths where a child survived only a short time. In another forum some suggested some people thought they didn't need to separately register a birth and a death in such circumstances. With these 2 couples they do seem to have registered births and deaths. Now the other issue I have is sorting out for some of these births is which ones relate to which couple, lack of baptisms doesn't help. I don't think I can do it without a few birth certs. |
|||
|
malyon | Report | 15 Feb 2020 18:32 |
Mary Jane Wilcockson |