Help required - trying to solve family mystery and identify this soldier (Yorkshire connection)

[Keith Brannen]

59 minutes ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

I wonder why the Registrar, N.Whitaker, included  the occupation and address of "Hannah Smith" when all that is asked for is the "Name and Maiden Surname of Mother" and described Blanche Harriet Jones as the Occupier of New Hall, Newall, Otley, ie. the Union Workhouse. when she was the "Matron".

Would this be to disassociate the birth with the workhouse or to be blunt...cover it up? Still searching..

Regards Barry

 

Usually, the informant is the father or mother (which does bring up the question as to why the mother didn't register the birth) and so assume that  "occupier" was used (rather than an occupation) as she lived at the address where the birth took place. It also signifies no relation to the mother. For example, a death certificate usually has a relationship noted, or "in attendance" for a non-relative. 

 

As for Hannah Smith, the address was probably included as she did not reside where the birth took place (I did check all the certificate I have, but none were born at a place not their residence).  But I do agree that the inclusion of an occupation is unusual, but it may be because of the unusual situations (not born at her residence and an informant of no relation).

[TEW]

I still want to see the three other BCs mentioned plus a new GRO version.

 

Are all four locally issued BCs? When were the others issued? Did Whitaker issue all four? Is the information identical for all four with the exception of the additional 'work'?

 

Presumably the four existing BCs won't all be 1916 issues? If so that raises questions.

 

Having four BCs didn't stop Ronald entering his birth year wrong by a year in 1939, on purpose - error?

 

Workhouse Matron.

David & Blanche Jones were running the institution in 1901 & 1911 (censuses). Would not be surprised if Blanche doubled up as back up mid-wife and is the informant on many BCs in the Wharfedale district.

TEW

[corisande]

25 minutes ago, TEW said:

I still want to see the three other BCs mentioned plus a new GRO version.

 

Until @pshelley returns , we will never know

[FROGSMILE]

18 hours ago, corisande said:

 

Until @pshelley returns , we will never know

I think we’ve frightened him off 😉

Edited 1 February , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[corisande]

 

Yes, a pity as I thought we had a reasonable change of getting there with the sort of information we were seeking

[Bob Davies]

Off we go-  an uncertain "science" .  It would be good if we could figure out any records of those with signallers badges-but that might be as wishful as me winning the next Eurolottery roll-over jackpot. 

I am a bit late turning up for this great search, however after a bit of searching I went for the hyphenated  surname 'Smith-Hopton' route. My thinking was that Smith might be his Fathers name ie the pictured Leicestershire regiment lance corporal. I came up with the following; 7451 Alfred Smith MM 2nd then 1st bn. https://royalleicestershireregiment.org.uk/entity/121013-smith-alfred-mm?q=MM Or 11524 Charley Smith MM. 1st bn. Who has a Yorkshire connection. However he was sergeant at the time of him being awarded his MM. So possibly not him. For you Guest from the Green Tiger 1913, under 1st Battalion news;  

The following qualified ‘as‘ Ist Class-Signallers,dated 28th~February, 1913:-

A Coy': Lance-Corpls. G, Smith, Naslh, G. SimmOnds, Ptes. W. (Taylor, and G. Lovell. ‘B Coy.: Lance-Corpl. W. Pope and Pte. A. Dean. C -Coy.: Corpl. G. Mabbutt, Lance-Corpl..H., Wood, Ptes. P. Thomas and P. White. D Coy.: Ptes. -T. Hunt and S. Clarke. E Coy.: Lance-Corpls. C. Whitley and F. Stegles, Ptes. E. Saunt, J. Marston, BL Abrahams, No.' 8453 A. Hunt. F Coy.: Lance- Sergt.'G. Green, Pte. G. Ball. G Coy.: Corpl. G. Spencer, Lance—Corpl. C. Pick, Ptes. H. Sibson, A. C. Mills. H Coy.: Lance-Corpl. C. H. Hulls, Ptes. Hewitt and J. W. Taylor.  There are more in the Green Tiger, also awards of GC badges which I believe are Good Conduct badges? @FROGSMILEmay know more about these? Regards, Bob.

 

[Madmeg]

Having trawled through a few census entries over the years (:-) ) I would suggest that "housekeeper" seems to have sometimes been used for an unmarried female living in the same residence as an unmarried male. Sometimes the housekeeper was shown as a sister, or the sister in law where the wife had died or - just the "housekeeper". As according to the posts above the house in question seems to have been pretty small this could be the case here. Hannah and the occupant of Rose Cottage are living together and when Hannah becomes pregnant she has the baby at the local workhouse- ? because it has hospital facilities? because she needs discretion due to her unmarried status? 

So far the only Hannah Smith I have found in 1911 born in Otley (assuming she was local) was Eva Hannah Smith living with her grandparents John and Mary Ann in Weston YRK. Also in the household is 30 year old Minnie shown as daughter to the above (but not necessarily mother to Eva). The fly in the ointment is that Eva Hannah is only 11 years old so would seem to be a little bit too young to be having a child of her own in 1913- but obviously possible and it would explain an adoption. Birth reg is 1899 dec quarter.

1901 has Eva Hannah as the daughter of Joseph and Martha born Clifton- tgis appears to be on the other side of Leeds from Otley- not a local so only going by the maps. There is a brother George Dale Smith - a Percy Dale is working for her grandparents in 1911 so there may be a connection. Do either of these show up in the Leicesters?

 

There is a 17 year old Hannah in Leeds with her Thackeray in laws in 1911. Otherwise there are many many Hannah Smiths in Yorkshire including in the Leeds area with their parents. I haven't been through them all- not that many in Leeds and only that one in Otley.

 

Freereg has a marriage for a Hannah Smith weaver to a Percy Lee truck labourer on 10 May 1913- both aged 27- at Farnley Leeds. Her parents Martin- deceased. His father William. Witnesses Harry Lee and Bertha Smith. I haven't been able to find her family in census. Given the birthdate for Ronald perhaps another reason for the workhouse birth?

 

I would also suggest that the baptismal name has been added later - different handwriting- and that it obviously indicates the adopted name with a recognition of the mother's name.

Ref Blanche as the "occupier"- she hasn;t stated that it is the workhouse either- so could be embarassed to admit it? but that seem unlikely as she would surely be registering quite a few births and would have been known. Maybe workhouse isn;t stated simply because everyone knew? occupier could just indicate a dfficulty in knowing what the title should be? Not the owner, not a matron , "the wife of the person running the place" is a bit of a mouthfull? occupier meets the bill easily.

 

As for adoption- my grandfather's sister died in the flu epidemic, shortly after her husband also died leaving their three children. These were "adopted" by my grandfather's older brother and his wife who had no children of their own. When great uncle Ted died intestate in the 1950's it turned out there were no official papers and his estate had to be split between all the cousins equally. The details of the death certificate for one of the children listed on the NSW BMD show her parents as Uncle Ted and his wife- even though they were not her parents but her uncle and aunt- ie the death certificate is incorrect.

 

The 1913 birth cert rather than the 1916 would be interesting.

Edited 1 February , 2021 by Madmeg

[FROGSMILE]

11 hours ago, Bob Davies said:

 There are more in the Green Tiger, also awards of GC badges which I believe are Good Conduct badges? @FROGSMILEmay know more about these? Regards, Bob.

 

Yes Bob, that’s correct, in the form of inverted stripes worn on the left lower sleeve.  Our subject possesses one indicating that he has two to three years of blemish free service with a regular or service battalion before the end 1917.

Edited 1 February , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Michelle Young]

@pshelley last visited on Tuesday and said they'd be too busy to review the thread until the weekend. We live in uncertain times, perhaps something has cropped up that has prevented them visiting.

[The Inspector]

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I think we’ve frightened him off 😉

Hi All,

He, pshelley/PBS,  may be a she! It makes a big difference researching the families, as we all know. I don't think most individuals realise how simple it is to trace back as long as you start with the most up to date information, which we have not yet been given.  Having been through the same scenario and found the answers I still think there will be someone else "out there"  with information the OP doesn't have. So......once again.....pshelley......we need your input.

Regards Barry 

[Madmeg]

I would advise pbs to go for DNA , I've been finding it really interesting and helpful linking possible finds more positively.

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

He, pshelley/PBS,  may be a she! 

You’re quite right.  Until a few minutes ago it had read ‘them’ instead of him, but it looked so odd in the cold light of day this morning that I took a punt as to gender...

[The Inspector]

On 23/01/2021 at 16:15, pshelley said:

So its been an eventful week since I got hold of the birth certificates and my DNA results also came back. There's a story beginning to emerge here and its looking quite an interesting one (IMHO). I'm still crunching through the DNA data and I think it will be of some use.

Hi All

Madmeg....you probably missed the above post.

Regards Barry

[Madmeg]

2 minutes ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All

Madmeg....you probably missed the above post.

Regards Barry

oops- must admit I haven't read my way through all of the posts - skipped pages 3 and 4. :-D. Be interesting to see if they will share some more data for us......

 

[TEW]

I think I was confused a few pages back about the 1913/1916 birth certificates. I had thought the 1916 BC was going to be an official second version showing the added 'baptismal' name. This should have nulled the original entry.

 

What has been posted here is the 1913 BC requested in 1916. If a new GRO version is ordered now it will be the 1913 BC requested in 2021. Doesn't make it a 2021 BC.

 

My feeling towards the addition of the baptismal name seen so far is a fairly clumsy but clear case of fraud. I suspect a new GRO copy will have that column blank.

TEW

[Madmeg]

Someone with an ancestry sub .....

I've just tried a search on - name fields blank, any date- 1912 (and 1913), lived in- west chevin, otley, keyword rose cottage.

I get Harry Brown as the first entry (followed by others but I know ancestry will just give me the closest ones)

 

Can someone with a sub check it out and see if Harry Brown is living at Rose Cottage through 1912 and 1913- or is he just in west chevin , otley as i only have the index result....

[sadbrewer]

1 hour ago, Madmeg said:

I would advise pbs to go for DNA , I've been finding it really interesting and helpful linking possible finds more positively.

Agreed.....whilst DNA might not absolutely solve it in the first instance, it will at very least put you in the ballpark, and the beauty of it is, it doesn't lie nor is it influenced by family lore.

Edited 1 February , 2021 by sadbrewer

[TEW]

@Madmeg

 

Which series is this with Harry Brown?

TEW

[Madmeg]

2 minutes ago, sadbrewer said:

Agreed.....whilst DNA might not absolutely solve it in the first instance, it will at very least put you in the ballpark, and the beauty of it is, it doesn't lie nor is it influenced by family lore.

So far i've found mine more useful for confirming possible ancestral relatives rather than finding new ones - possibly because I've done more research than many of the distant relatives :-D. But it has confirmed a couple of possible ancient aunties etc.  for me. Others have been more elusive, one showing as a  close cousin has a tree which bears no resemblance to the DNA connections showing between us and other relatives- one of us has got it wrong somewhere and I'm pretty sure it isn't me :-D :-D ;-) .

 

I'm currently assuming in my searches

1) Mother's name Hannah Smith (but Smith may not be her maiden name)

2) Parents most likely not married

3) Father may not have died in war

4) Photo shows hannah and ... someone connected to her.

5) hannah may not hve been born in WYK (leicestershire a possibility)

 

[Madmeg]

1 minute ago, TEW said:

@Madmeg

 

Which series is this with Harry Brown?

TEW

series? Its the west yorkshire electoral registers.

I just entered the search details above and he was the first hit- I've found him (and family) in 1911 census working (surprise surprise) at the Manston asylum- it may just be that he also lived in "a" Rose Cottage but not the one we are after- I'm limited to what ancestry will show me. Now starting to wonder if Hannah worked at the asylum where she could have met Joseph (or Harry)- I've had a quick census crawl in 1911 and not found anything hopeful.

 

There are a number of other hits- including the Curries but they are further down the list that ancestry pulls up on that particular search criteria. Note I didnt put any name into the names fields- I have just searched for Rose Cottage in West Chevin Otley.

That's going to be me for now- bed calls.. 

[TEW]

@Madmeg

 

NB with your No.1 that it looks like Emily has been scratched off the BC. It may have been added incorrectly.

 

Will check the WY electoral rolls.

TEW

[Madmeg]

I've ignored the "Emily" (is that what it is? maybe?) on the gorunds that the writing in the box is extremely clear and all in the same hand- I could try for an Emily Hannah I suppose but the Emily doesn;t look right.

Be good to find out who was there in 1912/13 if possible eh.

[TEW]

Harry Brown is Rose Cottage, Menston.

 

I've been through the WY electoral rolls and although circumstantial I think the Currie family were at the same address 1905-1914. They call it Rose Cottage in 1911, the ER calls it Chevin Foot.

TEW

[RaySearching]

2 hours ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

He, pshelley/PBS,  may be a she! It makes a big difference researching the families,

 

This "private family tree on ancestry  indicates a He 

 

Ray

 

Edit

We need sight of the original 1913 birth certificate to compare with the altered 1916 certificate

 

outstanding question, why has the name Emily been added to the 1916 Cirt ?  (is it on the 1913 B Cirt? )

and why was it later scratched out ?

 

If its not on the 1913 Cirt I believe it is not ,why was it added to the 1916 Cirt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 February , 2021 by RaySearching

[The Inspector]

34 minutes ago, RaySearching said:

 

This "private family tree on ancestry  indicates a He 

 

Ray

Hi Ray and all,

We will soon be able to tell PBS a lot more than he knows about himself!  There are other public trees on Ancestry relating to Emily Currie and her siblings BUT...a few names from PBS would help!

1 hour ago, sadbrewer said:

Agreed.....whilst DNA might not absolutely solve it in the first instance, it will at very least put you in the ballpark, and the beauty of it is, it doesn't lie nor is it influenced by family lore.

Hi sadbrewer...did you miss this post as well? DNA results already received by PBS.

2 hours ago, Madmeg said:

oops- must admit I haven't read my way through all of the posts - skipped pages 3 and 4. :-D. Be interesting to see if they will share some more data for us......

 

 

Regards Barry