View Full Version : Who was Edwin Henry Hooker and what happened to him?
I've stumbled on a little mystery for you all, though doubtless Kate or Merry will have it solved by the end of the first page. :p
On this (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/SRYRG12_1009_1010-0184?pid=19191679&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1891%26indiv%3dtry%26h%3d1 9191679&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1891 census page, we can see Henry Hooker's family in Egham, Surrey.
Henry - head, 43
Henry, Jr. - son, 18
Albert - son, 12
Edith - daughter, 15
Janet - daughter, 10
(There is also another daughter - Minnie, 17 - who is absent as she is a servant in another household (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/SRYRG12_1009_1010-0066/19188403?backurl=http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/85127359/person/48510927292/facts/citation/343517015809/edit/record)).
Below these are the people I am interested in, as the next person on the census is something of a mystery to me, and I am trying to work out whether he was in fact a son of Henry's - and thus missing from this particular family tree - or simply a relative of some sort.
The entry has been transcribed by Ancestry as 'Elburn Hy - son, 6' but I thought that rather unlikely, and tried putting Edwin into FreeBMD. Sure enough, I found this:
Births Dec 1883
HOOKER Edwin Henry Windsor 2c 429
Egham is (or was) in the Windsor registration district, which has been written down as his place of birth. The age also matches up, more or less.
Beneath Edwin, we then have Matilda, a servant, and beneath her Henery (?) and Arthur something, who are given as boarders. Ancestry has transcribed them as Hooker, but I cannot work out what the word after them is supposed to mean, as it is not the same (an 'e' has been added after it) as when used with Henry's family. Perhaps one of you more familiar with census records can help me there.
Also, Henery has an occupation given, but I can't quite make it out - something-House Boy?
Unfortunately, I can't find any marriage or death registries for Edwin, and the only reference I can find to him on the census records is in 1891, in which he has been transcribed as Elburn.
Could any of you please help me find him? I am really just trying to rule him out as having been Henry Hooker's son, as otherwise I have someone missing from that particular family tree, which would be unfortunate.
Obviously the last resort is that I purchase a copy of his birth certificate, but hopefully I'll be able to find some other information without having to do that. You lot are usually quite good at finding people lost in the mists of time. ;)
Incidentally, I have everything I've been able to find on the other children: Harry, Albert, Edith, Minnie & Janet - only Albert married and had any children. I have managed to find dates of birth and death for most of them from the 1939 Register and probate records.
Thank you!
kiterunner
30-03-16, 12:39
The surname for Matilda, Henery and Arthur is Doe. Henery's occupation is House Boy and the person who was extracting the data from the census form has written Dom next to it to show what category it should be counted in.
Ahhh! Thank you Kate, that makes sense. I did look at it and think Doe, but then I just thought it seemed odd and was perhaps a variant of ditto or something, and thus Hooker. I'm not an expert on reading census records so thought it best to ask.
Still, if that means the Does are a different family then that may bode well for Edwin indeed being Henry's son, although the question is then what happened to him, and who his mother may have been.
On the 1911 census (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/2352/rg14_03023_0221_03/41394682?backurl=http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/85127359/person/48510927290/facts/citation/343516798391/edit/record), Henry has writen 5 children total, 4 still alive - this is because both Edith and her mother Maria died in Woking Asylum. However, assuming the 1911 census is only counting the children of Henry & Maria - and Edwin was a bastard - then presumably it would not count him.
kiterunner
30-03-16, 13:11
I expect you already have this, but Maria was admitted to Woking Asylum 26 May 1881 and seems to have stayed there until her death in 1916, so it does look very unlikely that she was Edwin's mother.
Yeah, I have that as a source, thanks. Maria died in 1906, also in Woking Asylum.
Judging by subsequent census records, it doesn't look like Henry ever re-married, so if Edwin was his son then it seems very likely he was a bastard.
It seems Matilda Doe still worked for Henry ten years later, in 1901 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/BRKRG13_1165_1168-0305/1635457?backurl=http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/85127359/person/48510927290/facts/citation/343516798390/edit/record).
I wonder if she was the mother? It says she is married, though.
EDIT: I wonder if this could be her:
Deaths Dec 1932
DOE Matilda 84 Windsor 2c 511
She's down as being 41 on the 1891 census, so the age would match up.
I'm just trying to see if we can maybe trace Edwin (under a different name) by tracing Matilda, but of course it could be a false lead.
kiterunner
30-03-16, 14:24
I think this is Matilda in 1881 though the sons' details don't quite match 1891:
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7572/LNDRG11_208_213-0397/14037785?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.u k%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1881%26so%3d2%26pcat%3d188 1UKI%26gss%3dangs-c%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3dmat*%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3ddoe%26gsln_x%3d1 %26_83004003-n_xcl%3dm%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3dvm5&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
84 St Pauls Rd, Kentish Town, St Pancras
Charles Doe Head Mar 42 Publisher Surry
Matilda " Wife 33 Somerset
John " Son 9 Scholar "
Henry " " 5 "
Joseph A " 4 " Bucks
Elizabeth Hathaway Visitor Unm 57 Independent "
Margaret Entwistle Visitor " 11 Scholar "
Annie Young Visitor " 25 " "
kiterunner
30-03-16, 14:28
In 1901 Charles Doe is married but his wife isn't there, so that 1881 family must be the right Matilda.
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/SRYRG13_584_587-0583/4500034?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1901%26so%3d2%26pcat%3d190 1UKI%26gss%3dangs-c%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3dcha*%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3ddoe%26gsln_x%3d1 %26gskw%3dsur*%26gskw_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3dvm 5&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
Yes, I was just looking at the 1881 census, although I hadn't found Charles in 1901 yet.
This (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Charles&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msgdy=1867&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=34&h=8126499&recoff=7+8&db=FreeBMDMarriage&indiv=1&ml_rpos=1) looks to be the marriage, then.
Matilda Brooks.
Births Mar 1853
Brooks Matilda Yeovil 5c 558
So, could be an 1852 birth. That'd match up with the Yeovil, Somerset stuff on the Henry Hooker census.
Births Dec 1838
Doe Charles Windsor 6 244
Deaths Sep 1924
Doe Charles 85 Kingston
Likely?
EDIT: And 1911 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Charles&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1838&msbpn__ftp=Egham%2c+Surrey%2c+England&msbpn=82105&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5286%7c82105% 7c0%7c&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=CEN_1910&h=42139268&db=1911England&indiv=1&ml_rpos=1).
kiterunner
30-03-16, 15:07
Charles Doe's death is probably the one Jul-Sep 1924 Kingston, age 85.
Charles Doe's death is probably the one Jul-Sep 1924 Kingston, age 85.
Yeah, I already edited that in. :D
Trying to find him in 1841 & 61. I think I've found him in 91 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Charles&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1838&msbpn__ftp=Egham%2c+Surrey%2c+England&msbpn=82105&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5286%7c82105% 7c0%7c&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=CEN_1890&h=7723069&db=uki1891&indiv=1&ml_rpos=1), but his place of birth is given as St. Pancras... could be because he's just a boarder, but of course it could also be the wrong Charles Doe. (There is another Charlie Doe in St. Pancras in 1911).
Edwin Henry Hooker is a total mystery, though. We have a record of birth, but no sign of him after that - not even under a different surname.
My first thought is that he may have been the child of Henry and Matilda - she was his housekeeper for many years and is living with him, and two of her children, in 1891 whilst Charles is boarding. She's still living with him in 1901. Also, in 1901 and 1911 Charles is still down as married, but is obviously not living with his wife, and in 1911 he hasn't put how many years he's been married. This could be due to his age, or because he's been separated for so many years he doesn't really consider it a marriage.
Just a hunch, of course. I could well be wrong.
Although that does make me wonder what happened to Edwin. Did he die unregistered? Was he taken in as a foundling and given a new identity? Did he go into a workhouse, or go abroad?
kiterunner
30-03-16, 16:32
Also, in 1901 and 1911 Charles is still down as married, but is obviously not living with his wife, and in 1911 he hasn't put how many years he's been married. This could be due to his age, or because he's been separated for so many years he doesn't really consider it a marriage.
That section was only supposed to be filled in for married women, but a lot of people didn't read the instructions.
Although that does make me wonder what happened to Edwin. Did he die unregistered? Was he taken in as a foundling and given a new identity? Did he go into a workhouse, or go abroad? I don't think he could become a "foundling" since he was 6 years old on the 1891 census. But he could have been brought up by another family and given a different name. I spent some time looking for him on later censuses etc earlier and found nothing yet.
Thanks, Kate. I didn't know that section was only for married women.
I've had no luck finding Matilda in 1911, either.
I suppose if Edwin did change his name then we won't have much luck finding him. :(
kiterunner
30-03-16, 19:03
If you get his birth certificate then we will have his mother's name (in case she isn't Matilda) and his exact date of birth, which might help.
In a perfect world, you'd discover he changed his name to Harrison and joined the army ;)
In a perfect world, you'd discover he changed his name to Harrison and joined the army ;)
Don't tease! Where is he? :D
Are you thinking of Marg's elusive Peter, Phoenix?
Haha, oh, I get it now. P.H.H.
Very good. :p
Could be nothing, could be something.
Edwin Henry STYLES (http://search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Edwin+H&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Styles&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1883&cpxt=1&cp=11&catbucket=rstp&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=1630476&recoff=9+11+35&db=SurreyBaptisms&indiv=1&ml_rpos=15) born. 6/12/1883 baptized 13/07/1884 in Croydon
Mother is Elizabeth Styles, no father's name given, no birth by that name registered (that I can see) on FreeBMD.
Trying to see if I can find them on any census records.
I've only read post #20, but wondered if that Edwin Henry Styles bap belongs to this Edward Henry?
Births Dec 1883
STYLES Edward Henry Croydon 2a 267
Deaths Sep 1884
STYLES Edward Henry 0 Croydon 2a 120
Possible, although logically his death would be registered under his baptismal name, surely? It does seem odd to register a child with Edward and then baptize him with Edwin, then revert to Edward.
There's also this marriage (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=try&db=ONSmarriage1984&h=64021793) to an Ada L Willimot, Lewisham, Sep 1916.
Marriages Sep 1916
Styles Edwin H Willimott Lewisham 1d 2009
I've not been able to find the Edwin H Styles it refers to (yet) if your Edward is the same boy.
Possible, although logically his death would be registered under his baptismal name, surely? It does seem odd to register a child with Edward and then baptize him with Edwin, then revert to Edward.
it could be a mistake by the vicar. I noticed he didn't manage an address for Elizabeth and her child.
I think the Edwin H Styles marriage was Edwin Hubert (or similar?), but I have no idea if I've made that up or it was something else I looked at during the time since I posted #21!
I did note Matilda's son Joseph (1877) went to live in Canada in 1906. (definitely him). I guess I should have been posting things here as I came across them! :o:o:o
I think the Edwin H Styles marriage was Edwin Hubert (or similar?), but I have no idea if I've made that up or it was something else I looked at during the time since I posted #21!
Edwin Horace is the name on a private ancestry tree, but I have no idea if that can be trusted.
I've not been able to find the Edwin H Styles it refers to (yet) if your Edward is the same boy.
'My' Edward is dead! :confused::confused::confused:
'My' Edward is dead! :confused::confused::confused:
Yes, that's what I mean. If Edward Henry Styles (died as a baby) is Edwin Henry Styles (Elizabeth's son) then I don't know who the Lewisham marriage refers to, but you've since mentioned that it's (possibly) an Edwin Horace.
kiterunner
03-04-16, 14:19
There is an Edwin Horace Styles in Canadian Soldiers of the First World War, born 25 Mar 1894 at Benenden, Kent, but his attestation papers don't show any marriage details.
kiterunner
03-04-16, 14:27
And there is a couple Edwin H Styles and Ada L Styles in Saskatchewan on the Canadian Voters' Lists, and Edwin Horace Styles and Ada Louisa Styles burials in Saskatchewan. So it looks likely that the Edwin whose marriage you found is Edwin Horace.
kiterunner
03-04-16, 14:33
There is an Elizabeth Styles death Oct-Dec 1888 Croydon, age 26.
I've ordered a copy of Edwin's birth certificate from the GRO, as well as one for a possible first marriage for James Brown (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?viewrecord=1&r=5538&db=FS1EnglandBristolParishRegisters&indiv=try&h=375085).
Hopefully having Edwin's mother's name will allow us to trace him somehow...
Oh good! Fingers crossed.....
Okay, now this has well and truly confused me:
https://i.imgur.com/1jAZC5r.jpg
Maria was his mother, which makes him legitimate -- why was he born in Egham? Was she not supposed to be in Woking Asylum at this time? Why has he not been counted alongside his siblings on Henry's 1911 census record? (total children born alive 5, still living 4, dead 1)
Can Edwin's date of birth provide any clues? I had assumed the answers to these questions would revolve around the fact he was a bastard and was perhaps living with his mother, but him being Maria's daughter actually seems to have provided more questions than answers!
Any ideas?
It's worth bearing in mind that Albert, Edith, Minnie & Janet were all baptized together at Longcross, Surrey on April 16th, 1893. Harry and Edwin Henry were not. I had assumed that Harry, being the eldest, simply didn't want to, or perhaps he had already been baptized in Buckinghamshire, prior to the move to Surrey.
But if Edwin was still alive in 1893, and still living with his father (as he was in 1891) then it stands to reason he'd have been baptized as well - surely?
kiterunner
14-04-16, 11:58
I see that Henry registered the birth. Maybe he lied about who the mother was?
I see that Henry registered the birth. Maybe he lied about who the mother was?
I hadn't even considered that (it can't be common, surely) but given that Maria was in Woking Asylum from 1881 until her death in 1916, I don't see how she can have given birth to a son in Knowle Hill, Egham in November 1883. Even if she did get pregnant by Henry whilst at Woking, she wouldn't have given birth to Edwin in Egham, would she?
I really don't like this, as it's making me think I've made a massive mistake somewhere, but I've followed up other records with sources and I know that Henry had five children, and one (Edith) died in 1906 - these are the children accounted for on the 1911 census (5, 4 living, 1 dead).
Edwin has really thrown a spanner into the works as I am confused at Maria being his mother, and yet if she isn't, I don't see how we can find out who is, and I have no idea what happened to him after the 1891 census. I'm sure that Henry would have had him baptized with the other children in 1893 (he was the youngest afterall) and if he was Maria's child, it makes no sense for him to have been 'forgotten' on the 1911 census.
Something really doesn't add up...
I see that Henry registered the birth. Maybe he lied about who the mother was?
That's called "doing a Sidney"!!
(Sidney Whelan (1887-1854) had two children with his wife around the date of the 1911 census. They then split up and he went on to have several other children with several other woman. Two of these children he registered with his wife as the mother even though he's not seen her for years!)
It does make you wonder what Henry's other children made of it all, though. They were living with Edwin on the 1891 census, and presumably at least Harry (the eldest) would have known their mother was in an asylum and so very unlikely to have been Edwin's mother. I mean, presumably the mother was 'on the scene' at some point.
God, what a horrible brick wall. I don't think we will ever find him now. :(
kiterunner
14-04-16, 12:43
I don't suppose Henry showed them a birth certificate or told them that he had put Maria's name down.
I looked at men called Edwin with that dob on the 1939 Register, but nothing stood out. If Edwin had a chaotic upbringing he may not have known his dob anyway!
I don't suppose Henry showed them a birth certificate or told them that he had put Maria's name down.
No. The free short cert doesn't give the names of the parents.
kiterunner
14-04-16, 12:56
I've had a look at all Edwins with dob 20/11/1883 on the 1939 Register but there are likely birth regs for all of them. And there is only one Edwin with that dob in the England and Wales Death Index on ancestry (exact dob is only shown on the index from 1969 onwards) and he is one of those who had a birth reg. So that didn't help.
kiterunner
14-04-16, 12:59
I looked at men called Edwin with that dob on the 1939 Register, but nothing stood out. If Edwin had a chaotic upbringing he may not have known his dob anyway!
Even some people whose upbringing seems to have been pretty normal have an incorrect dob on the 1939 Register.
I suppose Edwin could have been in the armed forces at the date of the register in which case he wouldn't be included anyway.
To me, a big clue is the 1911 census. In 1891, Henry is living with five of his six (?) children - Minnie is a servant at another house in Egham - and at that time we are led to believe that Henry and Maria had six children, and Edwin's birth certificate tells us that.
However, by the time of the 1911 census there is no sign of Edwin and he has apparently been disowned/forgotten, as there are clearly only five children mentioned. Also, as mentioned, only four of the five younger children were baptized in Longcross in 1893, which suggests that by then Edwin was no longer on the scene.
It does suggest to me that even by 1893, Henry may have abandoned Edwin to his mother's family (having since admitted to the obvious, that Maria wasn't his mother) and by 1911, he does not acknowledge him as a child of their marriage.
Of course, none of this can be proven!
Henry may have abandoned Edwin to his mother's family (having since admitted to the obvious, that Maria wasn't his mother)
I doubt he would have had to admit to anything - only the birth cert gives the mother as Maria, I don't suppose anyone was under any allusions about who Edwin's mother was - it's just us who are wondering! (time for the time machine again?)
Did we ever find Matilda Doe in 1901?
Did we ever find Matilda Doe in 1901?
I don't think so, no. Matilda isn't in any of my family trees and so I need to work through this thread and note all of her sources. She's still my #1 suspect, even if it's just speculation right now. The confusing aspect is that Matilda (minus her children) is still living with Henry in 1901, and so even if she was Edwin's mother, that doesn't explain his absence at that point, and even if Edwin did change his name, presumably it would be to Doe?
The confusing aspect is that Matilda (minus her children) is still living with Henry in 1901
So, your answer to my last question should have been yes, not no!!! lol
I had forgotten she was on the 1901 with Henry (I remember now that was the census with her age wildly out, wasn't it?). I had looked at Edwin Doe entries before without any luck (I think!)
Haha, oh Merry, I am sorry. I am getting confused by all of this now!
I think it was 1911 we couldn't find Matilda in, even though it looks like she died some time after that. We found her husband in 1911, though.
EDIT: Yes, from page 1:
Births Mar 1853
Brooks Matilda Yeovil 5c 558
Deaths Dec 1932
DOE Matilda 84 Windsor 2c 511
1871 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Matilda&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbpn__ftp=Yeovil%2c+Somerset%2c+England&msbpn=1675790&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5283%7c167579 0%7c0%7c&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=35&h=14845184&db=uki1871&indiv=1&ml_rpos=3)
1881 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Matilda&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1853&msbpn__ftp=Yeovil%2c+Somerset%2c+England&msbpn=1675790&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5283%7c167579 0%7c0%7c&cp=0&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=14037785&db=uki1881&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2)
1891 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Matilda&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1853&msbpn__ftp=Yeovil%2c+Somerset%2c+England&msbpn=1675790&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5283%7c167579 0%7c0%7c&cp=0&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=19191680&db=uki1891&indiv=1&ml_rpos=3)
1901 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Matilda&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Doe&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1866&msbpn__ftp=Yeovil%2c+Somerset%2c+England&msbpn=1675790&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5283%7c167579 0%7c0%7c&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=35&h=1635459&db=uki1901&indiv=1&ml_rpos=3)
1911?
Well, I think I've found Matilda in 1911, but the entry is about as unhelpful as it possibly could be!
If you search for Charles Silverside b 1850 you will see what I mean!
Oh, that's odd....you have her death in Windsor district in 1932 but the Mrs Doe at 52 North St Egham (1911 census) is still at that address in 1934 and does have first name Matilda. :confused::confused::confused:
I suppose the electoral rolls were complied a while before printing - I knew that happened, but hadn't come across one two years behind before!
In 1935 there's Mary Lena Doe at the same address who I seem to remember was one of Matilda's children. I tried entering the address only into the eroll search and also found Eleanor Doe 1936-1939. Of course no male Does and no Edwins! lol
Haha, that 1911 entry is fantastic! Oh lord, it probably is her - absolutely bloody useless!
How did you find it!?
Poor Edwin. I wonder what happened to him. :(
EDIT: I wonder if he ended up going to the Foundling Hospital?
I searched Doe in Surrey b 1854 +/-5years on fmp. If an age isn't given fmp give you the result anyway whereas ancestry doesn't, so after a load of Does with the wrong first name I came across that one right at the end!
Oh, that's odd....you have her death in Windsor district in 1932 but the Mrs Doe at 52 North St Egham (1911 census) is still at that address in 1934 and does have first name Matilda. :confused::confused::confused:
I suspect it is her; she's the only Matilda Doe death registered in Windsor. The only alternative (anywhere) is the woman of the same name living in Yorkshire, who can be accounted for on separate census records.
Whoever she was, I get the feeling she did not want her husband to find her...
Poor Edwin. I wonder what happened to him. :(
Goodness knows.
Okay, so here's a punt. Could be nothing, obviously...
On the 1939 Register there's an Edwin H Edwards (http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/locked?id=tnnco3qcnsmpr4erzm7am7sbsafecve6mf3vsm2j ddhjf4br53lq%3d%3d%3d%3d&enc=true) who apparently shares our Edwin's birthday (20/11/1883), but his year of birth doesn't appear on the (free) transcript. He and his family are living in Leicester in 1939.
He married (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Edwin+H&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Edwards&gsln_x=0&msdpn__ftp=Leicester%2c+Leicestershire%2c+England&msdpn=85113&msdpn_PInfo=8-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5272%7c85113% 7c0%7c&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=34&h=8801251&recoff=7+8+9&db=FreeBMDMarriage&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2) Ada Lilian Atherstone Q4 1910 in Leicester, and they appear together on the 1911 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Edwin+H&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Edwards&gsln_x=0&mssng=Ada&mssns=Edwards&cpxt=1&cp=11&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=26091070&db=1911England&indiv=1&ml_rpos=1) census, where he is aged 24. She was born Q4 1889 in Leicester, and it looks like she died Q4 1964 in Leicester, aged 74:
Births Dec 1889
Atherstone Ada Lilian Leicester 7a 244
Marriages Dec 1910
Atherstone Ada L Leicester 7a 563
Deaths Dec 1964
EDWARDS ADA L 74 LEICESTER 3A 614
Now, the only Edwin Edwards born in Leicestershire during that period were in 1881 (Oakham) and 1889 (Rugby), and both died as infants the following year. I can't find an appropriate birth entry for Edwin H Edwards, and so far I've not been able to find him before 1911.
There are other Edwin Edwards, such as the guy from Aston, Warwickshire who appears on several census records. I think this is him:
Births Jun 1880
EDWARDS Edwin Henry Aston 6d 357
Deaths Dec 1953
EDWARDS Edwin H 73 Nuneaton 9c 799
Edwin & Ada had five children, and so some or all of those are probably listed on their 1939 Register entry, which I can't view as I don't have a FMP sub.
I really just wanted to rule him out, as he claims to have been born in Leicester, but I can't find a suitable birth for him - even if he was lying about his age.
I think this might be his death:
Deaths Jun 1954
Edwards Edwin H 67 Downham 4b 363
Thoughts?
kiterunner
14-04-16, 22:35
I looked at him earlier. Firstly, when FMP brings him up in the list of results, it isn't saying that his year of birth matched your search, just that it is a possible because they have no year of birth indexed for him. When you look at the image, it says 20 Nov 85 and above it is written 20 11 65, and in the next column TRH 26/8/49. Ada's dob is written as 27 Oct 89 and above is 22 10 then a year beginning with 8, then also TRH 26/8/49. Edwin's occupation is Shoe Finisher. There is an Edwin Henry Edwards birth registered Oct-Dec 1865 Stepney district so I thought that was him, but maybe that isn't what the 65 means given what you have found.
kiterunner
14-04-16, 22:43
There is an Edwin H Allen, age 14, shoe finisher, in Leicester on the 1901 census, son of John T Allen and Emily:
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/LEIRG13_3004_3006-0542/17552354?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.u k%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1901%26gss%3dsfs28_ms_db%2 6new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26gsf n%3dedw*%26gsfn_x%3d1%26msbdy%3d1887%26msbdy_x%3d1 %26msbdp%3d2%26msrpn__ftp%3dLeicester%252c%2bLeice stershire%252c%2bEngland%26msrpn%3d85113%26msrpn_P Info%3d8-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5272%257c85113%257c0%257c%26msrpn_x%3d1%26msrpn __ftp_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3dvm5&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
But I don't think he is the same person as Edwin H Edwards since there is an Edwin Allen, shoe finisher, of the right age in 1911. Maybe shoe finisher was a very common occupation in Leicester? I'll have to look at this tomorrow.
Given his age on the 1911 census, I strongly doubt it is the 1865 Stepney birth.
Mary from Italy
14-04-16, 23:06
Maybe shoe finisher was a very common occupation in Leicester?
Yes, extremely common.
I can't say I remember this Edwin from the 1939 Register, but did you notice in 1911 it says "15 years of age, cripple" in the end column? I did wonder if this could possible have an impact on his (apparently missing) 1901 census record?
I can't say I remember this Edwin from the 1939 Register, but did you notice in 1911 it says "15 years of age, cripple" in the end column? I did wonder if this could possible have an impact on his (apparently missing) 1901 census record?
Yeah, I did notice that, and it looked to be sort of scribbled in. Not sure what to make of it.
Let's see what turns up.
I looked at him earlier. Firstly, when FMP brings him up in the list of results, it isn't saying that his year of birth matched your search, just that it is a possible because they have no year of birth indexed for him. When you look at the image, it says 20 Nov 85 and above it is written 20 11 65, and in the next column TRH 26/8/49. Ada's dob is written as 27 Oct 89 and above is 22 10 then a year beginning with 8, then also TRH 26/8/49. Edwin's occupation is Shoe Finisher. There is an Edwin Henry Edwards birth registered Oct-Dec 1865 Stepney district so I thought that was him, but maybe that isn't what the 65 means given what you have found.
I knew that the year of birth wouldn't be the same, as it had a dash, but I assumed that the date of birth would be the same due to the fact his name appeared on the search results.
What does TRH mean? These notes would certainly suggest his exact DOB is not really known.
Were you able to find a corresponding birth entry? I've had no luck finding this Edwin on the 1891 or 1901 census records, and I couldn't find a birth for him in Leicestershire.
kiterunner
16-04-16, 11:58
I don't know what TRH means but I was wondering if it was the date they put in for an old age pension, although he would have been a few months off 65 at that date. I didn't find his birth reg yet.
Here is Ada in 1891 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Ada+L&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Atherstone&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1887&msbpn__ftp=Leicestershire%2c+England&msbpn=5272&msbpn_PInfo=7-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5272%7c0%7c0% 7c&cp=0&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=35&h=24069617&db=uki1891&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2), 1901 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Ada+L&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Atherstone&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1887&msbpn__ftp=Leicestershire%2c+England&msbpn=5272&msbpn_PInfo=7-%7c0%7c0%7c3257%7c3251%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c5272%7c0%7c0% 7c&cp=0&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=35&h=17368664&db=uki1901&indiv=1&ml_rpos=1) and 1911 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1911England&indiv=try&h=26091072), and so with her birth record we can safely assume she was indeed from Leicester, and seems to have spent most or all of her life there.
No luck finding Edwin yet so far, though the cripple thing is interesting... assuming we're going by his actual age (1883 rather than 1887), if he was crippled at 15 then that'd be about 1898/9 - if, as a hunch, that meant Henry 'got rid of him' somehow, then it would explain why he isn't on the 1901 census (with Henry).
Yes, more speculation of course, but I'm just trying to work out the dates.
There is an Edwin Henry Edwards birth registered Oct-Dec 1865 Stepney district so I thought that was him, but maybe that isn't what the 65 means given what you have found.
Births Dec 1865
Edwards Edwin Henry Stepney 1c 491
Deaths Dec 1869
Edwards Edwin Henry 4 Stepney 1c 428
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/14918056/person/19986966914/facts
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/46201120/person/6943749116/facts
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/635425/person/-2066202687/facts
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/14918056/person/20035606204/facts
Now, these don't have sources but they are interesting as they have dates of birth and death (including the house he was born in), but I can find a birth for an Edwin Hardy Edwards, Mayes or Meyes - and I am very curious to know where those names came from. I'll contact a tree owner and try to find out.
The children seem about right, but obviously they're less sure of Edwin's parents. Hmm.
The first tree you linked to seems to connect with this Edwards family in 1891L
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/LEIRG12_2531_2533-0279?pid=21546669&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26db%3duki1891%26gss%3da ngs-d%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3dcharles%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dedwards%26gsl n_x%3d1%26msbdy%3d1890%26msbdy_x%3d1%26msbdp%3d2%2 6gskw%3dleic*%26gskw_x%3d1%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d11%26 catbucket%3drstp%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3d672%26pcat%3d 35%26fh%3d0%26h%3d21546669%26recoff%3d%26ml_rpos%3 d1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true
Mother is Jane from Barrow upon Soar, and a son Charles, right age, and an EDWARD Edwards aged 4.
And this is the same family in 1901:
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/LEIRG13_2988_2990-0819?pid=17387899&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3fgss%3dangs-c%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26gsln%3dEdwards%26gsln_x%3 d0%26msbdy%3d1887%26msbpn__ftp%3dLeicester%252c%2b Leicestershire%252c%2bEngland%26msbpn%3d85113%26ms bpn_PInfo%3d8-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5272%257c85113%257c0%257c%26msfng%3dCharles%26m smng%3dJane%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d11%26MSAV%3d1%26uidh %3dyke%26pcat%3d35%26h%3d17387899%26db%3duki1901%2 6indiv%3d1%26ml_rpos%3d2&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true
So he's Edward, then Ted, then Edwin. Still can't find a birth, though.
Think it's him?
No, because he is in London in 1891!
I looked at that Ted entry for ages a couple of days ago. I had an uncle called ted and none of his siblings (13 of them!) realised his birth name was Edwin and not Edward! So, I was hopeful when I first saw it, but then found him in 1891 as Edward and dismissed him because your Edwin was listed as Edwin Hooker on the same census.
Perhaps Edward Edwards is listed under Jane's previous name for his birth reg, but we don't know what that is (if not Mayes/Meyes etc)
Oh, here's what the tree people are referring to:
Births Dec 1886
Hardy Edwin Mayes Leicester 7a 255
I meant, do you think Ted is the same Edwin in Leicester in 1911! :d
Let's see if any of those tree owners get back to me. Hopefully someone will know something (I suspect someone must be a relative) and then we can rule him out.
EDIT: Oh. Interesting. Hmm.
I meant, do you think Ted is the same Edwin in Leicester in 1911!
Probably!
We don't actually know the middle name of the man in Leicestershire do we?
Bother - Leicestershire BMD transcribe mmn, but they don't have 1886 Leicester yet. :mad:
Thanks, Merry. It is looking like he could be the same chap.
Oh Edwin, where did you disappear to!? :D
Just found this (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/60931/44994_adm_104_148-0200?pid=275298&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3fgss%3dangs-c%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26gsfn%3dE%2bH%26gsfn_x%3d1 %26gsln%3dHooker%26gsln_x%3d0%26msbdy%3d1883%26msb pn__ftp%3dEgham%252c%2bSurrey%252c%2bEngland%26msb pn%3d82105%26msbpn_PInfo%3d8-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5286%257c82105%257c0%257c0%257c%26cp%3d0%26MSAV %3d1%26uidh%3dyke%26pcat%3d34%26h%3d275298%26db%3d UKMilitaryBMDRegisters%26indiv%3d1%26ml_rpos%3d2%2 6hovR%3d1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true); could be something, could be nothing.
Sadly no ages are provided, but I wondered whether the same person appeared on any other Navy lists anywhere. I know that young lads often joined up quite early, so it's possible that Edwin may have joined up sometime after 1891. You often hear of 13 and 14 year-old 'boy sailors' during the 19th century, so I suppose it's possible he joined up at that age and died as an adult. That would explain him not being on later census records, right?
Does anyone know if there's a more comprehensive list of Royal Navy deaths during this period? Also, can anyone read any of the handwriting on that form? :o
EDIT:
I don't have a FMP sub atm but I have just seen this:
Hooker Edward Horace 1892 1917 1917 WW1 Naval Casualties Great Britain
Is that the same person/date?
The entry yu provided a link to is the same person as this:
http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/3043706/HOOKER,%20EDWARD%20HORACE
I expect the fmp is the same again, but I'll take a look now....
Yes the fmp entry is for the same person. Extra info given is his dob: 28 May 1892 and that they informed:
Relatives notified
Fiancee. Miss G. Slads. 70, Green Bank Hotel, Falmouth
So, one record says they were married and the other that they were engaged. Also her initials have changed!.
(I haven't read back so I don't know if this is the person you are looking for)
Married shortly before he was killed:
Marriages Jun 1917
Hooker Edward H W Slade Falmouth 5c 253
Slade Julia R Hooker Falmouth 5c 253
Just went back to post #1 and realised it's not the same person. :o
:D
Thanks, Merry. Back to the drawing board, then.
@Merry
Now you've solved the mystery of James Brown, any chance you could find poor little Edwin for me? Pretty please? :D
*bangs head against wall*
Only if you do a one post summary of what's known and what you need to find out. :D
... but if we didn't find the right thing before......
I suppose this (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=746403.0) is a good summary (first post).
I don't have anything else to go on, just his birth certificate and the 1891 census. He seems to have been erased.
Yes, but it doesn't say what we've already done, so I guess there's no choice but to read this thread.
The only lead we got was the housekeeper, Matilda Doe, which I think was a red herring. We found her up to 1911, and a death for her in the Windsor district I believe, but there was never an Edwin candidate with her.
We managed to rule out a number of other Edwins.
What if we just say, Maria wasn't a permanent resident during her first few years at the asylum allowing her to be Edwin's bio mother, then Edwin left home between 1891 and 1901 and changed his name because he didn't want to go back. When the census enumerator called in 1911 the form was filled in by son Harry who considered the names of his siblings without including himself and.....voila!...... no need for any more searching :D:D:D
I'd say: get on your bike. ;)
But seriously: where is he? :( *sobs*
kiterunner
03-01-17, 13:37
He could be one of the many "Male Unknown" death registrations.
I suppose that's possible, Kate.
I had originally considered that he might have been adopted or given to the Coram foundation, but he would perhaps have been too old; I've no idea if foundling hospitals had an age cut-off point, as Edwin is on the 1891 census at the age of about 7.
Did they take 'foundlings' with living known parents then?? :eek:
Perhaps he left home under difficult circumstances and was 'disowned' by his father/family?
EDIT - I realise this is old ground.....
I was thinking, (!) Maria appears on the UK, Lunacy Patients Admission Registers, 1846-1912 on Ancestry with admission date 26 May 1881 and 'discharge' date 8 Nov 1916 which was her date of death. Someone on the other site suggested she might have been allowed home if her condition was not too bad and therefore she might have had Edwin during one of these periods. However, I think there were quite strict rules regarding people classified as lunatics. For instance I have a relative who was admitted to an asylum in the 1880s and, because his parents were very well off they arranged for him to be cared for in his own home with private carers. They had to go through a lengthy court process to allow this to happen, as he was 'certified' as a lunatic, and give details of how and where he would be cared for etc etc, so I can't see Maria being allowed out once she was registered a lunatic. (I know Kate has already said it's unlikely Maria ever came home).
So, the choices are, someone else was Edwin's mother or Maria had a baby in the asylum (so not born in Egham after all) and Henry took the child on (I cant see Henry being the father in that case). Henry might have chosen to lie about the place of birth for reasons best known to him. But would Henry really be willing to take on a child that wasn't his under these circumstances? I really find that extremely difficult to believe especially in that era.
So, does that just leave us with 'someone else was Edwin's mother'............... :D
Yeah, I've always worked under the assumption that Maria never left the asylum, which is why I was so surprised to see that she was down as being the mother on Edwin's birth certificate. Henry signed it, so in theory he could have lied, and the fact that Edwin wasn't baptized with the other children and isn't recorded as having existed on the 1911 census makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.
I've always thought he was a bastard, but I can't prove or disprove this either way, and there's absolutely no trace of him after the 1891 census.
Henry & Maria are living at Knowle Hill on the 1881 census, and Maria was admitted to Woking Asylum in May 1881. Edwin was born in 1883, and - according to his birth certificate - in Knowle Hill. So, either Maria was allowed to return home in order to give birth, or Edwin was born in Woking Asylum and Henry didn't want this information being on the birth certificate (understandable, I suppose).
Regardless of exactly where Edwin was born, this doesn't help us trace him after the 1891 census, or explain why he wasn't baptized at Longcross in 1893.
Oh, curse this damned GRO search. :D
HOOKER, WILLIAM WRIGHT
GRO Reference: 1870 S Quarter in WYCOMBE Volume 03A Page 464
HOOKER, WILLIAM 0
GRO Reference: 1870 S Quarter in WYCOMBE Volume 03A Page 335
Henry and Maria (Edwin's parents) married in High Wycombe in 1869, and their eldest son Harry was born in 1872, so the timing certainly makes sense. He obviously died very young (registered the same quarter) and it's possible Harry never knew about him ever having existed, hence not listed among the children of his parents' marriage on the 1911 census.
(This doesn't explain Edwin's disappearance, but it's another little piece of the puzzle).
kiterunner
07-01-17, 19:06
Oh, curse this damned GRO search. :D
HOOKER, WILLIAM WRIGHT
GRO Reference: 1870 S Quarter in WYCOMBE Volume 03A Page 464
HOOKER, WILLIAM 0
GRO Reference: 1870 S Quarter in WYCOMBE Volume 03A Page 335
Henry and Maria (Edwin's parents) married in High Wycombe in 1869, and their eldest son Harry was born in 1872, so the timing certainly makes sense. He obviously died very young (registered the same quarter) and it's possible Harry never knew about him ever having existed, hence not listed among the children of his parents' marriage on the 1911 census.
(This doesn't explain Edwin's disappearance, but it's another little piece of the puzzle).
So you think it was the son who filled in the 1911 census form, not the father?
Probably a dumb Q, but when you copy and paste birth reg details from the GRO site how come they never seem to have the mmn included?? :confused:
Probably a dumb Q, but when you copy and paste birth reg details from the GRO site how come they never seem to have the mmn included?? :confused:
They do. In the above case, it's Wright. I think it's just how the paste doesn't include the big tab spaces, Merry.
So you think it was the son who filled in the 1911 census form, not the father?
I believe so, Kate. I have no proof of this, but I'm going by the theory that Henry's (the father) name was always written Henry, whereas his son was called Harry (and registered as such, rather than Henry); the 1911 census form is signed by Harry Hooker, and he has distinguished between Henry Hooker Sr. and Harry Hooker Jr.
So, on that basis, and because William (and Edwin, but that's less clear...) is not counted among the children of the marriage, I would say that Harry Jr. filled in the 1911 census form.
lol *goes to Specsavers* :D
Just to (I hope) help rule out the Matilda Doe link... using the GRO search, I was able to confirm the earlier belief that Matilda Doe was Matilda Brooks, who married Charles Doe in Brentford, Middlesex in 1867.
Going by names of the children on the 1891 census (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/SRYRG12_1009_1010-0184?pid=19191680&backurl=//search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss%3Dangs-g%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26msT%3D1%26gsfn%3DMatilda% 26gsfn_x%3D0%26gsln%3DDoe%26gsln_x%3D0%26msbdy%3D1 853%26msbpn__ftp%3DYeovil%252c%2BSomerset%252c%2BE ngland%26msbpn%3D1675790%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5283%257c1675790%257c0%257c%26cp%3D0%26MSAV%3D1 %26uidh%3Dyke%26pcat%3DROOT_CATEGORY%26h%3D1919168 0%26db%3Duki1891%26indiv%3D1%26ml_rpos%3D3&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true) (when they're staying with Henry's family), we can confirm them using the GRO search as:
DOE, JOHN BROOKS
GRO Reference: 1871 S Quarter in YEOVIL Volume 05C Page 468
DOE, MARY LINA BROOKS
GRO Reference: 1873 S Quarter in YEOVIL Volume 05C Page 496
DOE, CHARLES HENRY BROOKS
GRO Reference: 1875 J Quarter in YEOVIL Volume 05C Page 485
DOE, JOSEPH ASHER BROOKS
GRO Reference: 1877 M Quarter in YEOVIL Volume 05C Page 461
I followed up each of the siblings' census records to 1911, but could find no trace of Edwin - although I haven't found Joseph's 1911 census yet. Charles ended up as a clerk, Joseph was a bricklayer, and John went from being a footman and butler to - by 1911 - being a lay brother in the CofE. :D
It seems Charles Henry and Joseph Asher were known by their middle names.
although I haven't found Joseph's 1911 census yet.
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/57332647/person/44032825043/facts
:D
Here' is Joseph Asher Doe's wife and two sons travelling to Canada:
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/2997/40610_B000502-00125/48469329?backurl=%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3f_phsrc%3dRAw4834%26_phstart%3dsucc essSource%26usePUBJs%3dtrue%26db%3dukoutwardpassen gerlists%26so%3d2%26pcat%3dROOT_CATEGORY%26gss%3da ngs-g%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3dagnes%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3ddoe%26gsln_x%3d 1%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d11%26catbucket%3drstp%26MSAV%3 d2%26uidh%3d672&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
The boys were registered Gilbert Asher and James Edward (mmn Gilbert, 1903 and 1905)
Here's Joseph a few months earlier:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=RAw4840&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&indiv=1&db=UKOutwardPassengerLists&gss=angs-d&new=1&rank=1&MS_AdvCB=1&gsfn=joseph&gsfn_x=1&gsln=doe&gsln_x=1&MSAV=2&uidh=672&pcat=40&fh=4&h=45414527&recoff=6%208&ml_rpos=5
I note they suggest he is single! lol
Well spotted, Merry! :)
Back to the drawing board with poor Edwin, it seems...
I don't have a FMP sub atm, but I'm wondering if there might perhaps be something in a local newspaper, relating to a possible kidnapping, disappearance or accidental death (but even then, there'd be a registration of death).
However, last time I looked through the newspaper archives on FMP there wasn't anything for Surrey. :(
I don't have a sub at the moment (waiting for a deal) but I just stumbled across something (https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl?start=1907&end=1907&sq=4&eq=4&type=Births&vol=3a&pgno=521&db=bmd_1494280030&jsexec=1&mono=0&v=MTQ5NTUxNDU2OTpkNzI0Yjc2NjAzZjYyMmNjMWEzNmIwM2M4 MjY4Nzg3NTUxZDYyN2Yx&searchdef=surname%3DHooker%26db%3Dbmd_1494280030%2 6type%3DAll%2520Types%26sq%3D1%26eq%3D4%26given%3D Edwin&action=Find) that could well be nothing, but I'm wanting to look into it just to rule it out.
I was doing a search for Edwin Henry Hooker and noticed that a Q4 1907 Edmonton birth for someone of the same name was in the same registration group as a Richard Edwin Wright. Wright was Edwin's mother's maiden name, and as his true parentage has always been in doubt, I simply wondered if it is possible that it is the very same Edwin's son registered under both names. There is a corresponding death for the child in Q1 1909.
This would obviously imply that Edwin married under the name Wright and later had a son registered under both names, but of course it could just be a case of the two names being genuine coincidence and totally unrelated to my Edwin. That's very probably the case, but the name understandably stuck out.
If anyone would be kind enough to do a cursory look into this I'd be much obliged. This is the best clue I've seen so far, and on the face of it may confirm my theory that Edwin's father was indeed not Henry Hooker, and Edwin grew up under a different name after his disappearance c1891.
Any thoughts?
EDIT: Oh no, different mmns I think! :(
kiterunner
23-05-17, 07:26
Your link doesn't work, because the FreeBMD search data isn't kept. If those had been alternative index entries for the same birth entry, the given names would be the same on both entries.
Ah ok, I didn't realize it would be a timed link. Looks like a non-starter anyway.
There's an image for an Edmonton Q3 1905 marriage/bann of Harry Hooker & Annie Maud Lundy on Ancestry. Would anyone please be able to tell me what age and parents' names/occupations are given?
I'd like to try to rule out Harry if possible. His son Edwin Harry Hooker (b. 1907) died in 1974.
kiterunner
24-05-17, 12:04
He's 25, bachelor, shop assistant, father James Hooker, carpenter, and James Hooker is one of the witnesses.
Thank you, Kate. Another one ruled out, then =/
There's a Q1 1918 marriage in Shoreditch: Edwin and Lylie Hooker.
I can't find any other reference to this Lylie, so curious who the parents are. Is it a mistake they have the same surname, or...?
She was a 25 year-old widow, father's name Samuel Thompson cabinet maker.
Married George Hooker in 1914 in Bethnal Green.
Okay, stab in the dark time again!
I can't find a birth for this chap:
1901 (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/7814/HAMRG13_1088_1091-0204?pid=1254796&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc%3DElW434%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource %26usePUBJs%3Dtrue%26gss%3Dangs-c%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26gsln%3DHooker%26gsln_x%3D 0%26msbdy%3D1883%26msbpn__ftp%3DEgham,%2520Surrey, %2520England%26msbpn%3D82105%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%2 57C5286%257C82105%257C0%257C0%257C%26_83004003-n_xcl%3Df%26cp%3D0%26catbucket%3Dr%26MSAV%3D1%26ui dh%3Dyke%26pcat%3DCEN_CENTURY1900%26h%3D1254796%26 dbid%3D7814%26indiv%3D1%26ml_rpos%3D51&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=ElW434&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true)
1911 (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/2352/rg14_34976_0231_35?pid=32833130&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss%3Dangs-g%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26msT%3D1%26gsfn%3DHarry%26 gsfn_x%3D0%26gsln%3DHooker%26gsln_x%3D0%26msbdy%3D 1884%26msbpn__ftp%3DHambledon%252c%2BHampshire%252 c%2BEngland%26msbpn%3D84059%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257c0%257c0%257c3257%257c3251%257c0%257c0%257c0%2 57c5266%257c84059%257c0%257c0%257c%26cp%3D0%26catb ucket%3Dr%26MSAV%3D1%26uidh%3Dyke%26pcat%3DROOT_CA TEGORY%26h%3D32833130%26dbid%3D2352%26indiv%3D1%26 ml_rpos%3D30%26hovR%3D1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true)
masonic lodge (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/60620/43971_cl%5Ec%5Eo1%5E191021-00393?pid=597492&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc%3DElW439%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource %26usePUBJs%3Dtrue%26gss%3Dangs-g%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26msT%3D1%26gsfn%3DHarry%25 20Robert%26gsfn_x%3D0%26gsln%3DHooker%26gsln_x%3D0 %26msbdy%3D1884%26msbpn__ftp%3DHambledon,%2520Cosh am,%2520Hampshire,%2520England%26msbpn%3D84022%26m sbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%2 57C5266%257C84022%257C0%257C0%257C%26cp%3D0%26catb ucket%3Dr%26MSAV%3D1%26uidh%3Dyke%26pcat%3DROOT_CA TEGORY%26h%3D597492%26recoff%3D5%25206%25208%26dbi d%3D60620%26indiv%3D1%26ml_rpos%3D2&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=ElW439&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true)
death (WW1) (https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=ElW439&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Harry%20Robert&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Hooker&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1884&msbpn__ftp=Hambledon,%20Cosham,%20Hampshire,%20Eng land&msbpn=84022&msbpn_PInfo=8-%7C0%7C0%7C3257%7C3251%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C5266%7C84022% 7C0%7C0%7C&cp=0&catbucket=r&MSAV=1&uidh=yke&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=455602&recoff=6%207%209&dbid=1543&indiv=1&ml_rpos=31)
There is this:
Births Dec 1897
Hooker Harry Robert G Reigate 2a 188
But obviously it cannot be the same man.
It's probably nothing, but I wondered if anyone could find Harry before 1901, and perhaps a birth or baptism for him?
kiterunner
14-12-17, 14:14
So, he is Harry Hooker who is a servant, age 17, on the 1901 census? Birthplace Hambledon, Hants. Then Harry Robert Hooker, age 26, on the 1911 census, birthplace Hambledon, Cosham, Hampshire. Harry Robert George Hooker, age 27, on the masonic records from 1911. Died 3 Feb 1915 West Africa, with birthplace given as Hambledon, Hants. It would have saved me a lot of time if you had put that in your post. Now to have a look for him before 1901.
kiterunner
14-12-17, 14:26
This could be him in 1891 - Harry A Hilliary, age 6, born Hambledon, Hampshire, nephew to Richard Hooker.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/6598/HAMRG12_941_945-0155/14493773?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.u k%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3f_phsrc%3dCzj11256%26_phstart%3dsuc cessSource%26usePUBJs%3dtrue%26db%3duki1891%26gss% 3dangs-d%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26gsfn%3dh*r *y%26gsfn_x%3d1%26msbdy%3d1884%26msbdy_x%3d1%26msb dp%3d2%26gskw%3dhambled*%26gskw_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%2 6uidh%3dvm5%26gl%3d%26gst%3d%26hc%3d10%26fh%3d40%2 6fsk%3dBEFTMzMIgAAZxgCQtg0-61-&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
kiterunner
14-12-17, 14:33
One of Richard Hooker's children, John James Hooker's birth was registered Jul-Sep 1881 Droxford, MMN Hillary. So Harry A "Hilliary" should be a son of one of Ellen's brothers or sisters.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.