Tracing correct relative

[Linda H]

17 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Just been out out for a socially-distanced walk and had a thought - so looked when I came back = PIN 26 files at the Ministry of Pensions [A sample selection of complete pension files at the National Archives]

5 x Frederick Thompson = but don't think I saw one related to the above service numbers/units - probably would have been a miracle if had turned up given PIN 26 are such a select few files.  [But they are non-digitised files so anyway would require somebody to visit Kew to view in detail, if appropriate]

Hey ho - on you go!

:-) M

 

Edit: As for Occasional Copy A - I think it might be relevant when an entry had been changed at some time - perhaps that is why there are two 1928 death entries for Frederick Thompson (34) of Bellingham..  If you go ahead and get both you might see a change/difference between them even if for the same man.  Just a thought.

Some kind souls have already gave me the pension records, Andrew is more than happy at how you have helped him (and me of course).  I will definitely order the two copies, see what differences they bring up.  I thought it odd that two with the same name died within weeks in the same town.  Watch this space   Thanks again

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, Linda H said:

Some kind souls have already gave me the pension records

I know!

PIN 26 are very specialised full pension files but if you get a hit then a whole goldmine, lock, stock & barrel, is likely to appear - not likely in your case it would seem.

Was just trying a pre-search for you.

;-) M

[Linda H]

15 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I know!

PIN 26 are very specialised full pension files but if you get a hit then a whole goldmine, lock, stock & barrel, is likely to appear - not likely in your case it would seem.

Was just trying a pre-search for you.

;-) M

Ah!  All this is another language to me, you can see why I get confused.  Time for a nap I think.

[The Inspector]

5 hours ago, PRC said:

Update 1. - going back to the 1911 Census, the two youngest living children of Thomas and Mary Jane - Ruby May (5) and Elizabeth Alice, (4) are both shown as born Gateshead. And while the Census enumerator has shown the family living at Annfield Plain, Thomas Thompson has signed the declaration with an address that appears to start "N.E.R yd" (North Eastern Railways Yard perhaps?).

Hi All,

Very interesting.......

The 1911 census address is 1 West Road, Annfield Plain. ( Schedule -Next page) Thomas's occupation is "N.E.R. Rolleyman" which matches the marriage cert. The daughter is Ruby MARY.

Frederick was born, "Longhirst, Northumberland" which is 2.5 miles from Morpeth.  According to Linda's tree and death records Frederick died in 1928, Bellingham, 10b, 385, aged 34 yrs. OR 10b,440.

I think the probability of two Frederick Thompsons aged 34 yrs in 1928 dying within a couple of months of each other in Bellingham is pretty remote!

5 hours ago, PRC said:

his discharge on the 26th June 1919 his permanent address is given as 33 Bell Street, Newcastle upon Tyne - there is a character reference request received from the same address in 1920. It came from the Civil service - remember the original Civil Service proof of birth I uncovered for a man born Morpeth 1893 aka Brown. From the 5th July 1921 he moved to 8, Blandford Street, Newcastle upon Tyne.

 

Thomas Thompson's wife's maiden name was Mary Jane BROWN, married Morpeth 1891, 10b, 518a. 4 th qtr.  1911 census married  ?????  19 yrs. Difficult to read. She died 1938.

Mary J's eldest brother was a Frederick William Brown baptised 19.8.1860 @ Morpeth Father "No Name"

Her mother Elizabeth was unmarried in 1881 but had married by 1891 to a William Watson (Welton?). Mary J still on the 1891 census with her mother and two siblings and step- father..

 

? Why did Gertrude Harbottle state on her marriage cert. in 1917 that her father George was deceased when in 1939 he is living with his wife Maria M and his daughter Euphemia  Grace and family in Wetherby? The 1911 census has his correct name and his wife's but has been transcribed incorrectly. The marr. cert. shows him as a Butler and in 1911 he is an "Oddman" at the Hon. Ivo Byng's residence.    So what was she trying to cover up?

Time to take a break....It took me that long to search that I missed the above posts......at least we are thinking the same.....

Regards Barry

 

Edited 7 June , 2020 by The Inspector

[PRC]

1 hour ago, Linda H said:

Do you have any idea what "Occasional Copy A) means next to the first one?  I plan to order both, but confused about the Occasional Copy A

 

	Name:	Age at Death (in years):
	THOMPSON, FREDERICK	34
	GRO Reference: 1928  J Quarter in BELLINGHAM  Volume 10B  Page 440  Occasional Copy: A
	THOMPSON, FREDERICK	34
	GRO Reference: 1928  S Quarter in BELLINGHAM  Volume 10B  Page 385

 

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

Edit: As for Occasional Copy A - I think it might be relevant when an entry had been changed at some time - perhaps that is why there are two 1928 death entries for Frederick Thompson (34) of Bellingham..  If you go ahead and get both you might see a change/difference between them even if for the same man.  Just a thought.

 

 I have a hazy memory that Matlock is correct - which raises the possibility of a coroners inquest and therefore a newspaper report!

 

Normally the death wasn't registered until after the coroners inquest, but I think I've had a couple of research cases over the years, one case where an autopsy was subsequently requested before an employer would admit liability for a contributory cause of death and the other for when a more definate date for a discovered body was identified as a result of a murder inquiry and so a coroners inquest was opened \ re-opened. Cannot for the life of me remember whether there was a second death register entry but presumably that would only apply if the inquest took place in a different quarter. So possibly there was an inquest to ascertain whether Frederick's wartime disabilities had an immediate role in his death and therefore possibly a pension for Gertrude.

 

BTW - I note from the death certificate for Gertrude that her niece didn't actually know her uncles first name. Looking at the causes of death for Gertrude and considering the amount of pain medication she must have been on, it's probably understandable that the information she passed on to her niece about a husband who had died nearly 40 years before her didn't necessarily reconcile with what appears to be the reality.

 

Cheers

Peter

 

[Linda H]

4 minutes ago, PRC said:

TW - I note from the death certificate for Gertrude that her niece didn't actually know her uncles first name. Looking at the causes of death for Gertrude and considering the amount of pain medication she must have been on, it's probably understandable that the information she passed on to her niece about a husband who had died nearly 40 years before her didn't necessarily reconcile with what appears to be the reality.

Could well be, or the niece just knew she had been married and he was a soldier. I would be vague about long dead relatives too, to be honest. I think you could well be right about the two death certificates.  I will ask Andrew if he has access to newspapers, but that long ago, probably not much available.  It will be interesting to get the two certificates ... though it will be a few months I imagine.  

[Linda H]

40 minutes ago, The Inspector said:

Why did Gertrude Harbottle state on her marriage cert. in 1917 that her father George was deceased when in 1939 he is living with his wife Maria M and his daughter Euphemia  Grace and family in Wetherby? The 1911 census has his correct name and his wife's but has been transcribed incorrectly. The marr. cert. shows him as a Butler and in 1911 he is an "Oddman" at the Hon. Ivo Byng's residence.    So what was she trying to cover up?

Firstly, words and numbers get muddled in my head. I have asked Andrew for his advice regarding the top bit.  As for Gertrude, I remember her and visited her twice in London, she is my father's aunt.  I too wondered about the father, but it was a rushed marriage by licence.  Perhaps she said he was dead to speed things up?  I don't know about consent etc in those days, but perhaps this meant they could be married quickly, especially as this wasn't near to where her father lived.  I imagine post in those days could take weeks to get each way.  I don't think she was trying to cover anything up.  Her father was in service at a house, living away from his children for a number of years.  I imagine butler/odd job man/whatever meant nothing to a young child growing up.  Probably told by her elder sister, who looked after them, he's a butler.  I certainly would not read anything into that.  Gertie was a gentle, lovely lady.  I just see it as a young couple rushing to get married before he goes back to his war duties, who knows, maybe to somewhere they thought pretty risky.  

[Linda H]

1 hour ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

Very interesting.......

The 1911 census address is 1 West Road, Annfield Plain. ( Schedule -Next page) Thomas's occupation is "N.E.R. Rolleyman" which matches the marriage cert. The daughter is Ruby MARY.

Frederick was born, "Longhirst, Northumberland" which is 2.5 miles from Morpeth.  According to Linda's tree and death records Frederick died in 1928, Bellingham, 10b, 385, aged 34 yrs. OR 10b,440.

I think the probability of two Frederick Thompsons aged 34 yrs in 1928 dying within a couple of months of each other in Bellingham is pretty remote!

 

Thomas Thompson's wife's maiden name was Mary Jane BROWN, married Morpeth 1891, 10b, 518a. 4 th qtr.  1911 census married  ?????  19 yrs. Difficult to read. She died 1938.

Mary J's eldest brother was a Frederick William Brown baptised 19.8.1860 @ Morpeth Father "No Name"

Her mother Elizabeth was unmarried in 1881 but had married by 1891 to a William Watson (Welton?). Mary J still on the 1891 census with her mother and two siblings and step- father..

 

? Why did Gertrude Harbottle state on her marriage cert. in 1917 that her father George was deceased when in 1939 he is living with his wife Maria M and his daughter Euphemia  Grace and family in Wetherby? The 1911 census has his correct name and his wife's but has been transcribed incorrectly. The marr. cert. shows him as a Butler and in 1911 he is an "Oddman" at the Hon. Ivo Byng's residence.    So what was she trying to cover up?

Time to take a break....It took me that long to search that I missed the above posts......at least we are thinking the same.....

Regards Barry

 

I know, some things don’t add up. Frederick’s father is listed on 1901 as living alone and married.  His mother, Mary Jane is still with her mother and step father.  We have them as marrying October that year, but why was Thomas married on the census and she single?   I note their marriage record on the tree shows  just Thomas’ name under his name, and just Mary Jane’s under her name, with different page numbers, some things just don’t add up. I have asked Andrew to look at it.  In the family there are two lots of Thompsons marrying Thompsons, the whole thing is a nightmare to be honest.  I do feel there is something not quite right.  I even wondered if Frederick belonged to one of the other Thompsons and was brought up by whoever. OH gosh, my head is spinning, I need to stop thinking about it!

[travers61]

Linda

 

Have tried to check this by reading the thread, so apologies if this has been answered, but are you still waiting for birth certificates to find the mothers maiden name ?

 

One short cut to find out the mothers maiden name & build up family groups is that on the GROs own online index, which is free to log on to, you get the extra info for pre 1915 births of mothers name & for pre 1915 deaths, age at death.

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp

 

Travers

 

 

 

Edited 7 June , 2020 by travers61

[George Rayner]

What a fascinating trail through yesterday Linda. Best of luck with your researcher tracing it out!!

 

Two questions if I may-but no obligation to answer as I'm not sure they are pertinent 

How do you know that Gertrude Fallingon is the correct Gertrude-other than first name and birthdate?

Had you come across her parents in 1939 Register in Wetherby living with Euphemia and her husband?

 

Still working my way through Fred Thompsons in various places

George

[Linda H]

8 hours ago, travers61 said:

GROs

Unfortunately for Frederick, there is just a - for mother’s maiden name. On Ancestry it is blank, but on FMP, two of the siblings show as Thompson for the maiden name, the other two are blank.  It really does vary so much depending where you search, I didn’t realise that until my helper pointed it out to me, and he is right.

 

Thank you for your message.

[Linda H]

35 minutes ago, George Rayner said:

How do you know that Gertrude Fallingon is the correct Gertrude-other than first name and birthdate?

Had you come across her parents in 1939 Register in Wetherby living with Euphemia and her husband?

 

Still working my way through Fred Thompsons in various places

We are certain Gertrude is the correct one.  Because she disappeared, and I remember visiting her in East Ham in London several times in the sixties, I knew she eventually moved down south, and I know her sister was down there too.  The Gertrude on 1939 has the same birth date, the year two years out, but that happens so much.  Bad writing, people not sure what year they were born because they were illiterate etc, it is very common.  That Gertrude was a dressmaker, as was my Gertrude, she used to make dresses for me, but it is well documented in the other censuses.  My helper traced her by date of birth and occupation.  We are both confident this is her.  

 

Yes, we have her parents on the 1939 in Wetherby.  But remember, Gertrude was brought up for years by her elder sister, whilst her parents were in service out of the area.

 

And we think we have it rough now.   Andrew is absolutely confident we have the right Fred.  He is very experienced but did get stuck with the military side, and you have all been such a great help there.  We just need Frederick's birth certificate, but as I say, he is confident we have the right one.  Andrew has worked on this and made quite an extensive tree for the Thompsons and every piece fits together now.

[George Rayner]

That is excellent news and thank you.

Such a strange name for her to choose though. Wonder where it came from?

 

George

[Linda H]

10 hours ago, The Inspector said:

H

 

Thomas Thompson's wife's maiden name was Mary Jane BROWN, married Morpeth 1891, 10b, 518a. 4 th qtr.  1911 census married  ?????  19 yrs. Difficult to read. She died 1938.

Mary J's eldest brother was a Frederick William Brown baptised 19.8.1860 @ Morpeth Father "No Name"

Her mother Elizabeth was unmarried in 1881 but had married by 1891 to a William Watson (Welton?). Mary J still on the 1891 census with her mother and two siblings and step- father..

 

 

 

Andrew explained this by email last night.  Mary Jane was married to Thomas at the time, but her mother had just died, and at the time of the census she was staying with her father in law, no doubt to help out after the recent death of her mother.  Both Thomas and Mary Jane were illegitimate. Andrew also pointed out that Ancestry had incomplete marriage details for Thomas and Mary Jane, whereas FMP has the full details (amazing but true).  From now on I will check both sites for everything I am looking for.

[Linda H]

Thank you all for all of your amazing help.  We feel we have this all on track now, but until the birth certificate arrives for completeness, we won't be 100% certain.  I am ordering the two death certificates today, as I believe you are quite right, there was an inquest.  It may be of interest to you to find out if the inquest did or did not consider his death related to war duties.

 

But this has made me happy, Gertrude did manage to have a few married years with Frederick, and he wasn't killed at war shortly after they married.  Once we have the birth certificate, then I will try to trace his grave.  The search continues 

 

Stay safe

 

Linda

[Linda H]

8 minutes ago, George Rayner said:

hat is excellent news and thank you.

Such a strange name for her to choose though. Wonder where it came from?

I don't think she chose it!  The census is poor quality and I could not make anything out.  You would not believe some of the transcriptions, even from very legible writing.  Apparently Ancestry records are transcribed in America, and I think Andrew sums up the transcription errors with just that explanation!  

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

12 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

 As for Occasional Copy A - I think it might be relevant when an entry had been changed at some time - perhaps that is why there are two 1928 death entries for Frederick Thompson (34) of Bellingham..  If you go ahead and get both you might see a change/difference between them even if for the same man.  Just a thought.

 

Perhaps they relate to the same man  the first being amended by a coroner's inquest or police investigation occurring in the next quarter?

 

Edit: PRC has already suggested this.

Edit Edit: Here's someone who's previously encountered this:

https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/dec16news.htm#Occasional

 

 

Edited 8 June , 2020 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[Matlock1418]

12 hours ago, PRC said:

So possibly there was an inquest to ascertain whether Frederick's wartime disabilities had an immediate role in his death and therefore possibly a pension for Gertrude.

Unfortunately as it stands we can only see details of payments etc for a Disability Pension for Frederick Thompson 76662 from his Pension Ledger but the Pension Card only indicates a Widow's Pension claim by his widow - no payments.

:-) M

Edited 8 June , 2020 by Matlock1418
added service number to ensure clarity

[Linda H]

21 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Unfortunately as it stands we can only see details of payments etc for a Disability Pension for Frederick Thompson 76662 from his Pension Ledger but the Pension Card only indicates a Widow's Pension claim by his widow - no payments.

Poor guy, he clearly wasn't well.  Does this mean whilst he was alive he got some sort of pension, but no record of Gertrude getting one after he died?  I don't want anybody to go digging, I have put you to too much trouble already, but does anything that has shown up so far, show where Frederick served during his four years in the army?

Edited 8 June , 2020 by Linda H

[PRC]

On 07/06/2020 at 10:05, PRC said:

Longhirst was then in the Morpeth Civil Registration District, but the only likely birth I can see in that District wasn’t recorded until the January to March quarter, (Q1), of 1895. I couldn’t track down a mothers’ maiden name for that one but someone with access to Ancestry \ FindMyPast may have better luck. There is a baptism record at Bothal, Northumberland for a Frederick Thompson born 2nd January 1895, parents David & Anne. Bothal was also in the Morpeth Civil Registration District so likely that one can be ruled out.

 

Oddly I did come across a Civil Service proof of age record for a Frederick Thompson aka Brown born Morpeth, Northumberland 1893. All I have is a reference  R 58775 172 if that is of use to anyone.

 

On 07/06/2020 at 11:29, PRC said:

Baptism record transcription here (free source) https://www.freereg.org.uk/search_records/5818c66de93790ec8b249940/frederick-thompson-baptism-northumberland-bothal-1895-02-17?locale=en

 

You have 42 days after the event to register the birth, and there is only one Frederick Thompson registered in the Morpeth District in Q1 1895, so I'm 99% certain that when you get the birth certificate back he will turn out to be the son of David & Anne, not the son of Thomas and Mary Jane that you are looking for.

 

As your "Frederick" was recorded as 7 in 1901 & 17 in 1911 you are looking at an late spring1893/early spring 1894 birth unless his age was deliverately mis-stated or miscalulated on both occasion.

 

Took a look at Frederick's whose birth was registered in the Morpeth District in the period Q1 1892 - Q4 1894 and the only things that leapt out at me was that there were two Frederick Browns registered in the April to June quarter of 1894 - volume 10b lines 375 & 382. As Thomas & Mary Jane are believed to have been married at that stage that raises the possibility of adoption. Prior to 1927 practically all adoptions were informal and undocumented.

 

23 hours ago, PRC said:

 The 1911 census was taken on the 2nd April 1911, the 1901 census on the 31st March 1901. A birth registered on the first possible day the Registrars Office was open in 1895 would have legally been born no earlier than the middle of November 1894, otherwise the criminal justice system and fines kicks in. A child born even as early as that would be no more than 6 in 1901 and 16 in 1911 - unless as I said earlier the age was either deliberately mis-stated or mis-calculated.

 

It also means that the Frederick Thompson born Bothal in Q1 1895 does not have a civil birth registration. Civil Parishes covered by the Morpeth Civil Registration District can be seen here:-

https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/morpeth.htm

 

19 hours ago, PRC said:

FindMyPast has a few surviving pages for that man, who they have indexed as born 1893.

 

He originally attested at Aldershot on the 1st November 1915 and he was discharged on demobilisation. He gave his age as 21 years and 308 days and his occupation as a Cartman.

 

16 hours ago, PRC said:

 My rudimentary maths says 1st November should be the 305th day of the year (edit - in a non-leap year!), which leaves a balance of 3 days which working back should be the 29th December 1893.

 

I was obviously not on my finest form yesterday as I checked the birth records again for the Frederick Thompson whose birth was registered in the Morpeth District in Q1 1895 and can now see that the mothers' maiden name is Thompson as well - so either a single parent of a case of a Thompson married to a Thompson.

 

And in theory If the child baptised at Bothal shown as born 2nd January 1895 was indeed born at Bothal, or anywhere else in the Morpeth District, then the evidence would suggest the two records should be the same individual. The Bothal baptism child couldn't legally be registered in Q2 - that starts more than 42 days after the birth.

 

I made the schoolboy error of not checking for a  young death, I.e. pre 1901 Census, but fortunately for both Frederick and me, no likely candidates in the Morpeth District.

 

But the couple proved incredibly elusive to track down on the Census record, where I was looking to confirm where that Frederick is stated to have been born. On Fredericks' baptismal record father David is recorded as a Pitman, and the family were living at Pegswood. Going through the baptismal records for St Andrew, Bothal, there is also a baptism for a William Thompson, (born 10th February 1893, baptised 12th March 1893) whose father David was a Pitman and the family was living at Pegswood. Mothers' forename is shown as Ann. In the matching civil birth record that mothers maiden name is shown as Thirtle. Possibly the reference to mothers' maiden name as Thompson is a transcription error and so the GRO source shouuld be checked out - @travers61 ?

 

Which brought me on to marriages. I couldn't find anything in the parish records but there is a (potential) civil record for the marriage of a David Thompson to an Ann Thirtle in the Morpeth District in Q4 of 1891. In the absence of a parish record I'd look confirm that from a subsequent census, but even trying surname as Thomson I still can't find the family.

 

So it looks like the birth certificate is the route to ruling that particular Frederick in or out.

 

Meantime I still keep going back to that Civil Service Record and the 'also known as Brown' reference. Just in case that was a standard formating to show mothers' maiden name I tried looking at a sample of other records from the same source - both people of a similar age to Frederick and those with a similar R series reference - only one of the latter had an aka name and that is described as being as a result of declaration, so I'm assuming the equivalent of changing name by deed poll.

 

Which in turn leads me back to suggest the birth certificate shows he was born a Brown. Given the calculated date of birth that would most likely be a Q1 1894 registration, however the only candidates in the Morpeth District were in Q2. Of the two available, for page 382 the mothers' maiden name was Baker, but for page 375 it was Brown. Neither child appears to have died in the Morpeth District before the 1901 Census. On the 1901 Census there is a 7 year old Frederick Brown who was born Ulgham, which was another civil parish covered by the Morpeth Civil Registration District. Parents were Alexander and Margaret. Checking out the mothers' maiden name for his four siblings shown as born Ulgham it's Baker.

 

Which I would suggest leaves the birth registered on page 375 as your prime suspect - a Frederick Brown, mothers' maiden name Brown. (Other candidates may also be available!)

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

Edited 8 June , 2020 by PRC
Typo

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, Linda H said:

Poor guy, he clearly wasn't well.  Does this mean whilst he was alive he got some sort of pension,

Yes - for Frederick Thompson 76662 - here is the rear of the Pension Ledger - he got a Pension, but it was Provisional

Image thanks to the Western Front Association & Fold3

The most interesting thing to me is the last line "8.12.22 - Cancel allowance for wife"

= Is there any chance that they might have separated in 1922? [as that might explain such a cancellation]

 

You asked "but no record of Gertrude getting one after he died?"

Not that we have yet found evidence of Widow's Pension payments - just a Pension Card claim

If they were separated then a claim would be likely to fail - but, either way, at the moment we have no definitive proof of how the claim went

 

"I don't want anybody to go digging"

Hey, no problem - that's what GWF like to do

:-) M

 

Edited 8 June , 2020 by Matlock1418
Added a questions/quotes that failed to upload

[ss002d6252]

He was a paid a pension (P) on conditional grounds (C) - a pension was always paid as conditional until such point as they were happy there would be no change in the condition before a final (F) pension was issued.

 

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said:

He was a paid a pension (P) on conditional grounds (C) - a pension was always paid as conditional until such point as they were happy there would be no change in the condition before a final (F) pension was issued.

Thanks for explaining that to the OP

I think the missing Region 11 docs would be good to find re: Widow's claim [but not holding my breath they will be found any time soon, if at all!]

:-) M

Edited 8 June , 2020 by Matlock1418
clarification

[PRC]

2 hours ago, Linda H said:

but does anything that has shown up so far, show where Frederick served during his four years in the army?

 

Thank God we got back to the Great War before the admins closed us down for turning this into a Genalogy Forum

 

The Frederick Thompson who was 76662 Royal Army Medical Corps has a surviving service record - I can find it on FindMyPast and it should also be on Ancestry.

 

His Discharge Protection Certificate and Certificate of Identity dated 26th June 1919 shows him in No.8 Company.

 

The two pages that show his statement of services has him overseas from the 7th June 1916 but the unit and theatre details have either been burnt off or practically completely faded away.

(Courtesy FindMyPast)

A next of kin card that summarises his treatements in 1917 at various locations in France has "15 FA" in pencil scribbled at the top. That could be one of the places he was treated or could be meant to imply he was serving with 15 Field Ambulance. He was in the Military Hospital at Eastbourne by the 23rd September 1917 as a patient and possibly didn't go back overseas again before the end of the war.

(Courtesy FindMyPast)

 

His Medal Index Card only shows an entitlement to the Victory Medal and the British War so he didn't serve overseas until some point on or after the 1st January 1916.

 

May be worthwhile checking out the War Diary for the 15th Field Ambulance to see if they received a draft of men in the week after Frederick went overseas. It's unlikely that Frederick will be mentioned by name anywhere in the diary, so for now it would be on a best guess basis that it's where he served. By one of life's little quirks,while the 15th Field Ambulance was nominally part of the 5th Division, it was normally associated with the 15th Brigade on a daily basis, and one of the Battalions of that Brigade was the 1st Battalion, Norfolk Regiment, so its one I tend to take an interest in - I knew there was a reason why I was contributing to this thread

 

Cheers,

Peter

Edited 8 June , 2020 by PRC
Typo

[The Inspector]

Hi All

Can someone please explain the annotation on the 1939 register for Gertrude "FALLINGON" ,Ancestry.. b.2.2.1890, Dressmaker. "Hill Crest", Dunmow, Essex. Above her occupation is "BXA 2.6.48."  The mistakes on this entry are obvious. Should read Edward Ernest Ridgewell and Winifred M Ridgewell, his daughter. Probate was granted 17.12.1959 to Winifred Madeline Ridgewell and Gertrude CHOPPING, Spinsters. on the death of Edward on 8.10.1959. There is also a Mary A Chopping residing at the same address, the entry above Edward.

Is it possible  that 2.6.48 refers to a date of marriage for Gertrude? Eg. Sunderland. 2nd qtr 1948 a Gertrude Thompson married one Thomas Nelson, 1a, 2052.

Regards Barry

On 08/06/2020 at 08:42, Linda H said:

I don't think she chose it!  The census is poor quality and I could not make anything out.  You would not believe some of the transcriptions, even from very legible writing.  Apparently Ancestry records are transcribed in America, and I think Andrew sums up the transcription errors with just that explanation!