Genealogy Chat

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.

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

Good questions, Rose.

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!

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.

"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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

Poor Lily. Condemned as a forger purely on the basis of her occupation!

Now, I may be quite wrong here, but surely if Lily was the registrar she would not need to take an unwanted certificate and alter the details. The certificates that are issued are after all only certified copies of the original information which has been entered in the register. So if Lily were the registrar and wanted a certificate with false details on it, could she not just start with a blank certificate and put in what she wanted. Why would she need to alter an existing certificate?

What was the date of issue of the altered certificate, and which details appear to have been altered? It occurs to me that, if the dates fit, it might more likely have been altered in order for someone to claim their old age pension when it was introduced (or something of that sort).

Incidentally, I am not sure that I agree with the suggestion that short certificates were usually obtained in order to cover up the fact that the individual was illegitimate. In my own family, I have a number of short certificates that have been passed down to me. None of the individuals was illegitimate. In each case they seem to have been obtained when a birth cert was needed to claim some sort of benefit, or when applying for a job (some employers asked to see birth certs). If you could not find your original certificate and had to buy another one, the short certificate was cheaper.

Tina

PS I have just gone back and re-read the beginning of the thread and realise that the pension/job argument does not hold water as the certificate was issued so soon after the birth. But I still think Lily is being unfairly vilified!!!!!!

I won't disagree with the queries about the questioning of Lily's integrity. ;) It does just seem a coincidence though.

I do really think the forgery may have been a private job, to get Ernest and Ethel an adopted child by taking matters into their own hands.

I'd have the altered certificate examined by a forensic document examiner. I would imagine they would be able to determine at least some of what the certificate originally said.

Just google

forensic document examiner uk
or
forensic document examination uk

and there are loads.

This site has a list, for instance:

http://www.sciencecentral.com/site/482087

Well it appears that the certificate belongs to Dolly Wood born 25th October 1918 entry 349 Book 52.

Now Dolly Wood's mother's maiden name is Quantick. Theres no Quantick/Wood marriage on free bmd and I've checked the full indexes from 1911-1918. So it appears Dolly is illegitimate.

My problem is, is Dolly actually Doreen? If so why change the birthdate? If Dolly isn't how did they get the certificate to falsify in the first place.

Oh, you'll love this, there are Quanticks in Staines and Wandsworth both areas that were familiar to the Rookes.

If Rob could give you the parent's names for Dolly that would save some money and time.

It doesn't make sense to go to the trouble to alter Dolly's cert. if she is Doreen. One reason for choosing Dolly could be because it was easier to alter Dolly to Doreen and then Wood to Rooke.

I wonder if it was some kind of baby selling agency/orphanage that didn't have a cert. for Dorothy so they just altered one they had, and changed the entry number so it couldn't be traced. Apart from the faint brown marks they did do a rather good job of altering the certificate. I would appear they had some skill in washing ink.

Rose

Janet,

Was the registration date of 30/12/1919 altered too?

Just wondering because 25/10 - 30/12 is greater than 6 weeks. This would make it a late registration and there could be penalties to pay.

One reason to alter the birth date would be to avoid this.

Rose

I think I might get in touch with the GR members with this person / these people in their trees:

Dolly Wood 1920 Unk. Tracy
Dolly Wood 1919 Unknown Barrie


No other Dolly Wood was born 1917-1921 in England/Wales.

... In fact, I know I'd get in touch with them!


No one named Dolly born 25 Oct 1918 has died since 1984.

I've contacted Tracy and Barrie and am now waiting for a reply. I've also contacted someone on here (the name escapes me) who has quite a few female Quantick's in her tree in the right areas who would have been of childbearing age in 1918.

Poor Rob at wandsworth is going to get fed up with me contacting him but before I ask him for Dolly's mum's name I should really check to see if there is an overseas marriage for Quantick/Wood.

Does anyone have a sub to find my past?

Quantick seems to come pretty exclusively from Devon.

There are these possibly interesting births after 1911:


Births Dec 1921
Quantick George W Quantick Edmonton 3a 1062

Births Mar 1924
Worsley John A Quantick Edmonton 3a 958
Births Mar 1926
Worsley Louisa F Quantick Edmonton 3a 1034
Births Sep 1936 (from Ancestry)
Worsley Charles W Quantick Hackney 1b 548

Births Jun 1925
Nelson Albert W Quantick W.Ham 4a 329

Births Jun 1926
Sawyer Phyllis A Quantick W.Ham 4a 432

and more later of course.


The births in Edmonton-Hackney could be to one woman who wasn't married for the first.

I do wonder whether Doreen/Dolly wasn't the child of a man killed in WWI, and placed with the Rookes one way or another when the mother couldn't keep her, and they then altered the cert. Unfortunate that the father would have surname Wood. With his full name it might be possible to check that possibility.


edit - aha, the marriage to go with - Worsley isn't transcribed yet so at first I didn't find it when I searched the other way:

Marriages Dec 1923
Quantick Florence E Worsley Edmonton 3a 1325

Births Jun 1895
> Quantick Florence Evelyn Staines 3a 7

Births Dec 1897
Quantick Florence Elizabeth Williton 5c 246

Births Dec 1900
Quantick Florence Eveline St. Austell 5c 105
> Quantick Florence Evelyn Staines 3a 3

Births Jun 1901
QUANTICK Florence Emma Newton A. 5b 124
Deaths Mar 1902
Quantick Florence Emma 0 Newton A. 5b 107


Every blasted Florence born 1890-1901 was an "E". None after that.

Florence born Staines 1895 is in Ashford Berks in 1901 and on the same census so is Florence born 1900. In 1911 Florence 1895 is in Plymouth but the other one is in Edmonton.

I think in future I shall refer to Putney, Edmonton/Wood Green and St Pancras as

The ROOKE TRIANGLE!

Or should I refer to Edmonton, Staines and Wandsworth as

the QUANTICK TRIANGLE!