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

[TEW]

I'm pretty certain

14 minutes ago, RaySearching said:

Just a thought 

We have  an Emily Currie who wed Harry W Pullen in 1911

 

But we  have no evidence (or do we) that the Emily Currie who wed Harry W Pullen in 1911 was the daughter of James and Ada Currie

 

If not, then it opens other lines of  possibility's

 

Ray 

 

 

Maybe not 100% evidence but the form in Joseph's record puts two of his sisters at 30 The Green, Yeadon. One is Mrs E Watson, age given links her to Emily Currie plus the go states the two sisters are living together in June 1919.

 

That does contradict

1919  Harry Watson Pullan + Emily are residing at 30 Town Street Yeadon.

 

Although the two sources could be different dates, not sure when the electoral roll for 1919 was compiled. Or just a little more subterfuge!

TEW

 

[BarbaraG]

2 hours ago, dink999 said:

Does this help?

 

 

Dave

 

Thank you. 

[The Inspector]

Hi All,

Agnes Watson, Harry's mother is also at 5 The Green.  Yeadon.

Ray, Thanks for the additional info. I had seen some of it.....so it's not him in the photo...... will keep looking.... 

We could do with the marriage cert for Harry W Pullan, 1911 9a,314. Wharfedale......over to pshelley..perhaps....unless we find it first! Very strange set up.

Is 30 The Green, Harry's shop?

I would love to know the Common Ancestor's DNA % of centimorgans and segments. To find a common ancestor so soon is not the norm, especially from such a low number on the family tree. I have only 4  common ancestors and nearly 300 "cousins " all with varying degrees of cms. and segs. and my tree runs into thousands.

Still searching..

Regards Barry

[helpjpl]

1 hour ago, RaySearching said:

 

We have  an Emily Currie who wed Harry W Pullen in 1911

But we  have no evidence (or do we) that the Emily Currie who wed Harry W Pullen in 1911 was the daughter of James and Ada Currie

 

1.  Page 7:  

 

Note:  The Inspector details the use of the Watson/Pullan names in his post earlier today

 

2.  1939 Register - Emily and Harry Pullen were living at 5 The Green. 

 

3.  1911 Marriage - Wharfedale is the Registration District for Otley:

 

4.  Birth of Harry Watson Pullen registered Wharfedale:

 

JP

Edited 4 February , 2021 by helpjpl

[The Inspector]

Hi JP,

Thanks for your usual detailed breakdown.....slowly getting there!

Regards Barry

[ilkley remembers]

The Green at Yeadon is on Town Street so 30 The Green would be 30 Town Street 

[sadbrewer]

2 hours ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

Agnes Watson, Harry's mother is also at 5 The Green.  Yeadon.

Ray, Thanks for the additional info. I had seen some of it.....so it's not him in the photo...... will keep looking.... 

We could do with the marriage cert for Harry W Pullan, 1911 9a,314. Wharfedale......over to pshelley..perhaps....unless we find it first! Very strange set up.

Is 30 The Green, Harry's shop?

I would love to know the Common Ancestor's DNA % of centimorgans and segments. To find a common ancestor so soon is not the norm, especially from such a low number on the family tree. I have only 4  common ancestors and nearly 300 "cousins " all with varying degrees of cms. and segs. and my tree runs into thousands.

Still searching..

Regards Barry

 

Barry, if it's any sort of clue...I have a relative in Australia, his Grandmother and mine were sisters, we share 97 Centimorgans ....however his mother is still alive and I share 353 Centimorgans with her.

Edit...on checking another cousin...his Grandfather and mine were brothers and we share 180 Cm.

Edited 4 February , 2021 by sadbrewer

[The Inspector]

Hi sadbrewer,

Thanks, I am certain that pshelley's DNA results will turn up trumps, but they may also turn up something very unexpected! I have researched a few trees for individuals on Ancestry in Canada and some were very surprised to find they were not who they thought they were!

Here's hoping for some more information ......

Regards Barry

 

[TEW]

Just a quick input regarding Harry Watson Pullan. His baptism 6/9/91 gives his name as Harry Watson Pullan Watson (not a typo). Parents just managed to marry before his birth.

 

He had a brother James b 6/4/1894. James stayed as Watson and is with mother Agnes Watson in Aireborough in 1939.

 

James should have WWI service but not suggesting he's in the photo.

 

I thought I had a connection from Pullan to Ruthven (remember that?) but can't link it to Harry W Pullan. Veering beyond the grey area with that one!

TEW 

 

 

[The Inspector]

Hi TEW and all,

The Rector obviously had a bad day  when he baptised 9  children, Harry being the 7th. He made a mistake on the previous entry, no wonder he was confused about the Christian names, later life shows the family couldn't make their minds up either.

13 hours ago, TEW said:

Just a quick input regarding Harry Watson Pullan. His baptism 6/9/91 gives his name as Harry Watson Pullan Watson (not a typo). Parents just managed to marry before his birth.

 

   

Regards Barry 

 

[helpjpl]

On 01/02/2021 at 22:15, pshelley said:

There has been a match with someone else on the site of the testing company I used and we have managed to establish a link with a common ancestor. It’s not 100% certain, but there is a very high chance indeed that I am related to Joseph Currie. In fact, it seems he was my great grandfather.

 

It is a shame that Joseph was killed at Plouvain and his was recorded as Missing. Even with the amazing technology we now have, we can’t locate the dead and that is one mystery that will probably never be solved.

 

The following may be of interest.

 

17867 Private Joseph Currie, 'A' Company, 1st Platoon, Duke of Wellington's West Riding Regiment

 

1.  Reported missing 03 May 1917 at Plouvain and officially declared killed in action on 28 March 1918:

http://www.lostancestors.eu/memwar/O/OtleySold.htm#9

 

2.  A sister, Miss Zena(?) Currie, wrote to the International Committee for the Red Cross enquiring if Joseph was a prisoner of war. A Private H Montague stated -

'Pte Currie was lying face downwards east of Roeux' and this news was communicated to the family (presumably Zena Currie at 30 Kirk Lane, Yeadon):

https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/3628385/3/2/

 

3.  Roeux is 2.42 km from Plouvain:

 

JP

 

[The Inspector]

Hi JP

The sister is  Mary ZENA Lizzie Currie... service records relatives of the deceased declaration .  30 The Green ,Yeadon.

Regards Barry

 

Edited 5 February , 2021 by The Inspector

[Bob Davies]

Hi All, this is possibly more for By pshelley as a record for 17867 Pte Joseph Currie. No picture of him but his details on this site and a mention of Lance Sergeant Francis Pullan (son of Frank Pullan of Otley) Duke of Wellingtons. It may help some of you super sleuths? Regards, Bob. https://astreetnearyou.org/person/746460/Private-Joseph-Currie

Edited 5 February , 2021 by Bob Davies

[sadbrewer]

14 hours ago, Bob Davies said:

Hi All, this is possibly more for By pshelley as a record for 17867 Pte Joseph Currie. No picture of him but his details on this site and a mention of Lance Sergeant Francis Pullan (son of Frank Pullan of Otley) Duke of Wellingtons. It may help some of you super sleuths? Regards, Bob. https://astreetnearyou.org/person/746460/Private-Joseph-Currie

 

Frank Pullan

Courtesy of the British Newspaper Archive 

 

[TEW]

I noted a few Pullans from Otley but could not link them to Agnes Pullan and therefore Harry Watson Pullan who should really be Harry Watson or Harry Watson Watson etc. Wonder what his BC says.

 

I did find a Ruthven Pullan which might have linked to the adopting mother but same story with regards to a connection.

 

Harry Watson Pullan is a one armed, one man crime wave. 23 hits on BNA just for his criminal activities up to the late 40s. Only seen the search results.

 

Wonder if Mary stuck around to be with him, no sign of any children.

 

No connection to the original photo known anyway.

TEW

[RaySearching]

Confirmation of the death of Emily Watson Pullan (nee Currie)

 

The electoral register  have the couple Emily and Harry in 1948 at 5 The Green Yeadon

 

Harry Watson Pullan died in 1971 aged 80 in Bradford

 

Ray

 

 

 

[helpjpl]

2 hours ago, TEW said:

I noted a few Pullans from Otley but could not link them to Agnes Pullan and therefore Harry Watson Pullan who should really be Harry Watson or Harry Watson Watson etc. Wonder what his BC says.

 

1.  Agnes Pullan married William Henry Watson after Harry's birth:

 

2. Harry's birth was registered as Harry Watson Pullan:

 

3.  Harry was baptised at Guiseley St Oswald on 06 September 1891 - over a year after his birth and after Agnes and William had married:

 

JP

[Madmeg]

" Emily Currie worked there in 1911." 

No she didn't=- Emily is shown as being a nurse at the Asylum, not working at the workhouse. There is a difference. This does not link her to the dubious David Jones.

 

I noted the marriage for Emily to Harry W Pullan some time ago to correct the marriage stated as being to Watkinson (which was on the same registration page ). I note that the death I found for a Henry W Pullan the following year appears to be for a different man. I did not find any children to this couple, it seems odd that 

 

I have had a go at superimposing the photos- its  difficult due to the dots on the newspaper one, however, while the ears are similar the eyes are very different as is the bridge of the nose and the facial proportions do not match. I do not believe from my initial attempt that they are the same man and the service records would appear to show this.

 

The fact that we have not yet identified Hannah Smith does not mean that she does not exist. The name is extremely clear on the birth certificate while the possible Emily looks like an addition after the fact. She does not have to be a local girl which makes it much harder to track her down, that does not mean she is non existant. I'm not sure why people are chasing Emily Currie when we have Hannah Smith to find (even if an Emily is easier :-) )

 

I think someone may have hit the nail on the head when they suggest perhaps the photo is of the adoptive family- it might give more reason for it being ripped up.

 

I also note that it is stated that the woman in the photo is believed to be the mother- NOT that the man in the photo is believed to be the father. I would have thought that if the latter were the case then the family story would be that these are believed to be the parents- rather than just the mother.

 

"

Hi sadbrewer,

Thanks, I am certain that pshelley's DNA results will turn up trumps, but they may also turn up something very unexpected! I have researched a few trees for individuals on Ancestry in Canada and some were very surprised to find they were not who they thought they were!

Here's hoping for some more information ......

Regards Barry"

 

Re DNA- one of the first people who showed up on mine was  1st or 2nd cousin- I knew exactly who they were because we share the same grandfather (but not grandmother) , my next match at 2nd or 3rd cousin has strong DNA links to my grandmother's side of the family and other shared relatives with siblings of my grandmother in their tree, we should share a common link at about my grandmother's parents -but their tree is entirely devoid of any of my known relatives...... I'm pretty sure my tree is correct :-D. 

 

 

 

Re Hannah Smith.

I have already found a possible marriage for a Hannah Smith in the local area to Percy Lee.

[TEW]

@helpjpl Thanks for the correction, somehow I muddled the dates and thought the marriage was just before the birth.

 

@Madmeg I also feel that Emily Hannah Smith or plain Hannah Smith is real and not a cover up for Emily Currie.

 

I think originally the photo was supposed to show the parents then the soldier was no longer believed to be the father so the female is suspected to be the mother AKA Hannah Smith who is the bridesmaid at ????'s wedding. There must have been contact between one blood parent to adoptive parent a few years after the birth for the photo to be in the adoptive parents' possession.

 

 

Whoever tore up the photo did so in anger at someone in the photo (in my opinion). Makes sense if the adoptive parents were upset by the photo of birth mother/father or both lying around.

 

TEW

[helpjpl]

1 hour ago, Madmeg said:

Re Hannah Smith.

I have already found a possible marriage for a Hannah Smith in the local area to Percy Lee.

 

Is this the Hannah Smith, baptised 28 April 1886, who married Percy Lee at the parish church, Farnley, on 10 May 1913 - ten days before Ronald was born.

Hannah and Percy were living at 162 Low Fold, Farnley, when Percy joined up. His papers are available on ancestry:

 

JP

 

[Madmeg]

Going back to the "original" birth certificate...

 

As before stated the filled in bits are very clear and obviously in the same handwriting.

There have been at least three (unauthorised?) additions to the certificate.

1) the name Ronald Hopton printed top LH corner in pencil.

2)A purple printed stamp with "Full Time" and something illegible top RH corner

3) The name Ronald Smith Hopton written in the last column in a different hand.

 

There is then something scratched out in the mothers name column. This has been possibly identified as the name Emily- but tbh I can't read it as such although I can't read it as anything- the last letter looks like a + to me but could be a y- or a g or... 

 

Here's how I read it.

 

Joseph Currie and his parents live at Rose Cottage in 1911 by 1913 the parents have moved to somewhere nearby- was that Chevin Side I've lost track- leaving Joseph and his live in girlfriend "housekeeper" at Rose Cottage. Hannah falls pregnant and has the baby at the local hospital aka workhouse. The birth is registered from there by the Keeper's wife- and as it does not state that the mother resides at the workhouse it looks like the intention is for her to return home to Rose Cottage. 

Note that this is a legal document, the informant must have done a number of these and would have been aware that it was a legal document and it seems highly unlikely that she would have had any reason (unlike family) to lie about the mother's name and residence. 

Hannah returns home but for some reason she and Joseph do not marry.

Then the war breaks out and he signs up.

Hannah is not eligible for his pay as she is not his wife. That said Joseph could have named her on the document instead of his family so maybe the relationship was breaking up  by then.

Hannah is left on her own with the baby to bring up.

Option 1) Hannah quite possibly drops the baby off at a local orphanage or the workhouse- like other families in similar situations she may drop him off there when times are hard and pick him up again when she has more money.

Option 2) Hannah leaves the baby with another family- the Hoptons

 

In 1916 (Joseph is still alive) we can guess that maybe something changes requiring more than one copy of the birth certificate (OP told us there were three copies I believe) - this could indicate some sort of adoption. Some one writes in his new name in the baptismal column.

 

At the time of dropping the baby off (for the last time?) Hannah leaves with him a photograph of his mother- and ? her new boyfriend?? a relative?? This may be the only photograph that Hannah owns which could explain the presence of the soldier.

 

The Hoptons adopt or "adopt" young Ronald. He is too young to remember his mother his father or any institutions he may have lived in.

At some stage some entity requires his birth certificate for their records. This could be workhouse/orphanage. This institution keeps records on large numbers of children in a drawer probably in a cardboard file folder. They write the names of the children in the top left corner so that when they want to find a certificate they can riffle through the corners rather thn have to pull every last one out to look at the names. This would imply that Ronald was in an orphanage AFTER the Hoptons took him on but it could also apply to some circumstance in later life of course. 

At some stage he takes on a job where they want to see his birth certificate and it is stamped with his work status (wonder what he did- oh wait there is a business register for him that I found- just can't remember the business)

 

Then we have that problematic bit in the mother's column. This does NOT look like it was in there at the time of the original copy in 1916, it is NOT the official mother's name- it looks very much like someone has squeezed something in at a later date- to the extent that when someone has scratched it off the paper they have removed some of the red ink of the printed form. Possibly Ronald got hold of it at a young age and put in the adopted mother's name (which could have been Emily (or not) and someone removed it again.

 

This covers the bases.

 

Another possibility is that Joseph and Hannah's falling out was at an earlier stage leaving her to meet Percy Lee and marry him- but he doesn't want someone else's baby. When I suggested that marriage I hadn't noticed the dates and I now find it a bit unlikely that they would have married so close to Ronald's birth.

 

Ref the soldier in the photo- yet another possibility is that he isn;t even a relative. I have lots of photos of my grandmother during WW1 with soldiers that just blew through her life and she socialised with- some have been identified through these pages including John Baker DSC (I think that was it) of whom there is just the one photo with my GM taken in c 1917 when he was convalescing in various country house cum hospitals in the north of england (except the photo was taken in Bournemouth). She and her friends and workmates had tea and genteel walks along the prom with them, played cards with them, put on pierrot shows for them, took photos of them and never saw them again. This photo could be the same- Hannah is at a friends wedding (if that is a bridesmaids dress?) and meets this chap gets talking to him about his bravery evidenced by the medal , gets her photo taken as part of the wedding entourage and never sees him again. Not so likely due to her sweethearts broach but possible.

 

 

[helpjpl]

 

1.  Nobody should assume that Hannah is the young woman in the photo.

 

2.  If pshelley still hopes to identify the mystery couple he/she could ask a national newspaper to put out an appeal.

 

Speculation is futile.

 

JP

[corisande]

1 hour ago, helpjpl said:

Speculation is futile

 

Yes, I reached that conclusion a long time ago.

 

pshelly either lost interest soon after posting the original question, or else may have run into family members who did not want it investigated publicly

 

Until pshelly feels able to give us the various "editions" of the birth certs the thread is unlikely to progress

[RaySearching]

1 hour ago, helpjpl said:

Nobody should assume that Hannah is the young woman in the photo.

Speculation is futile.

  I agree

 

At present the couple in the photo  identity's are unknown

The parents of Ronald are also unknown, although there is a DNA match to the  Currie family

which links the Currie family or family's to Ronald

 

we could all weave a story around the scarce facts we have so far  (this being unhelpful and just pure guesswork )

 

Facts and evidence are needed to progress

 

Ray

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Inspector]

Hi All,

Regarding births at the workhouse I have trawled through the records and B.H.Jones  does not appear up to 1910. The last records online. She was there from 1901. 

On 06/02/2021 at 19:39, helpjpl said:

 

Is this the Hannah Smith, baptised 28 April 1886, who married Percy Lee at the parish church, Farnley, on 10 May 1913 - ten days before Ronald was born.

Hannah and Percy were living at 162 Low Fold, Farnley, when Percy joined up. His papers are available on ancestry:

 

JP

 

Hannah Smith, b.1886 was a weaver in 1901, 1911 and 1913 when she was married to Percy Lee. So not likely to be Hannah the housekeeper from Rose Cottage. Percy Lee was demobbed to Class Z.

The only birth reg'd at New Hall,Otley that I can find (records online up to 1910) was that of a child to the Gardener in the Cottage. No children in 1911 at the Workhouse under the age of 2 and other children with a parent as previously posted. 

It looks as though pshelley does not want to know any more, if he doesn't post more info. then...Final answer from me!

Regards Barry

 

Edited 7 February , 2021 by The Inspector