Genealogy Chat

Hi Andrea Thanks for your reply, we have contatced the local offices, the place the family were living seems to be on 'disputed territory' between LRO's. We now have evidence that he is deffinately part of the family from the 1911 census and his place of birth so we can go back to the office concerned. They have been very helpful but the extra evidence may help. I did in fact e-mail the office earlier today following someone else's advice, so waiting for the reply. Thanks again Jo Oh forgot, we do have the siblings certificate and parents marriage ( along with many unwanted certs) but thanks for the tip.

Have you tried the local register office? I've read that 1% -2% of records never make it to the national index. I've found that local staff are very helpful and you have his father's name and at least mother's first name. You could always get the birth cert for one of his siblings then you would have his mother's maiden name - if you haven't already:-)

Hi Ego Sadly loads of Edward's, both as forenames and surnames. I've compiled a list of all George Cooks, Edward Cooks, and many other variants. I've scoured the death records and eliminated the ones who died, then ordered the certificates for all thouse left in the area - no luck. I've also spent hours looking who were their neighbours in 1901, just in case there was a flash of inspiration. My Dad has ordered the 1927/1905 certificate. I now have a copy of the 1911 census for the family whci gives his age a 7, surely it would be difficult to get a young childs age wrong by 2 years? Not sure what I would do with my life if grandad's birth was found.... Thanks again for your advice. Jo

Jo- census and death records can be wrong and are more likely to be innacurate compared to a birth record...the middle name is important, how many other George edwards did you find in this area?

Following on from Ego's posting re illegitamcy. The Act came into force in 1926 and the following link explains... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb(.)com/~framland/acts/1926legitAct.htm Personally I think this is the most likely scenario. Chris

Thank you all for your help BUT sadly this marriage in 1905 isn't the one I'm after, I'm not sure this is even the birth I'm after. I've been searching for several years for a George Edward Cook, born 1903. I have his marriage and death certs, both suggesting a birth in 1903. I now also have 1911 census which show him as 7 years old, confirming a birth in 1903 in Gateshead. He is the 6th of a family of 7 children all born in the same area. I have checked out all the George Edward Cook's and all the George Cook's in the area between 1901 and 1905, bought numerous wrong cetificates and still not found the one I'm after. Awaiting the 1905/June1927 birth certificate in the hope that 1905 has been wrongly interpreted and should have been 1903, but I guess its anoth wasted £7. Thanks again for all your advice and thanks for reading this. Jo

yes it looks like the family was just a normal family and he was the first born on the cusp of the marriage .......is there a family photograph with him and his siblings? If you acquire the marriage cert as to Andreas post before this...and purchase the birth cert under the name Gott dates and details will clarify matters-sounds like a shotgun wedding scenario,through pregnancy etc....,or a possible case of him being fathered by someone else outside of the steady courting couple perhaps and Mr Cook has made an honest woman of her so to speak and settled down and taken him on as his own either unwittingly or knowingly........the later correction in 1927 as I say could have been the result of regulations started in that year or something to do with his voting rights....someone with a similar scenario may be able to see something that looks familiar.

There is a marriage registered in Tynemouth district in Sep quarter of 1905 between Joseph Cook and Rachel Agnes G Gotts. If they are George's parents then might they have thought that the registrar would know that they were about to be married and thought that they had better use the 'correct' name? Other than that i suppose the registrar might have made a mistake - it does happen.

Thanks Ego I can cope with the illegitemate bit, but how likely is it that the birth mother would let the child live with the fathers family, being wife, 5 older children and another one following 2 years later? Jo

thanks a lot without help from kind people on here we wouldn't get far with our trees

I have the same problem does anybody know what m43 would mean as I think my rellie was also illegitamate I have sent for this cert but do not want to waste a pile of money on certs.

means march quarter 1943...a new entry will be there

This may be a coincidence but Jan 1st 1927 saw the introduction of legal adoption and he may have been informally adopted before ....he would have needed ID to vote at the age of 21, I would have thought, so maybe this is what triggered off the new registration...basically getting his house in order. However the answer is more simple perhaps as he was registered with his mothers name june 1905 as george Gotts...so he was illegitimate, and I presume either his birth parents got married in the meantime or he finally found who his father was and reregistered his name once an adult. So to clarify>>>> sep q 1905 george edward gotts tynemouth 10b 332 original entry (mothers surname) june q 1927 george e cook (gotts) is registered and the entry is inserted in>>>> sep q 1905 under cook so he is basically registered under both surnames in sep quarter 1905.

This is quite a common thing, I do transcribing for freeBMD and it occurs a lot. it is because a correction has been made. I loked at 2Q 1927 and there is a George E Cook mother's maiden name (Gotts) is on there as this was included by 1927.

Hi Jill (and everyone else) No I don't mind you joining in, more heads are better one. I'm still not sure I've found the birth I'm after - I received a copy of 1911 census for the family this morning ( National Archives were really quick - her 3 days after ordering!). It shows my grandad aged 7 in 1911, which matches his marriage and death certs. He was the 6th of 7 children, all the others registered 'normally'. We've checked the electoral roles and have addresses from 1901-1930's showing them in Gateshead/Sunderland all the time. There is a 3part question on the 1911 census requiring an answer to the number of children born(7), still alive(7) and children that have died (0), so no suspicion of an adoption/change of name. Any miracles gratefully received!! Jo

Hi Jo Sorry if I hijacked your thread - it's been interesting and helpful so I hope you don't mind! Jill

Hi Janet. I know - I've been caught by that before. The GRO did search from Jan 1883 to Dec 1885 and info on census returns re his age fit. He may have been a bit fuzzy about his year of birth but his parents seem to have it as 1884 so I can't make sense of it. It will come clear somehow - I'm very optimistic! Jill

Thanks OC I know that he joined the army in 1901/2 and was in the reserves for a year or so - presume until he reached age 18. On 1891 census he shows as 6 and on 1901 he shows as 16. (Which makes sense for a July birthday). An aunt told me that he had lied about his age to join the army - but that makes no sense as all info fits. I am beginning to think that mum and dad were not married - even though they said they were married on census returns - and John (and siblings) may well have been registered under mother's maiden name. Which I don't know. And I cannot find any likely marriage for mum and dad. (I think I will need to search further ahead in case they married when the children were grown up - but George and Elizabeth SIMMONS - it's not that rare a combination ...) Sooner or later this brick wall will come down! Many thanks for your help and advice. Jill

Jill, don't assume that because you know when he was born that he was born then. My grandmother knew she was born in 1893. However, when I eventually found her birth she was, in fact, born 1890.

Once worked in local RO entries amended were usually because if after baptism child was given different name to that in birth register it was then re-registered with amended name. Another possibility is that child was illegitimate and originally registered with mothers maiden name, after providing proof of mothers marriage it is possible to re-register with name of father. hope this helps. Ann