PDA

View Full Version : Missing Field births

Terri
12-09-17, 12:04
In a bit of a mess with this family.

Parents: (probably!)
William Field born 1825 Wickham Market, Suffolk
Ann Last born 1830 Butley, Suffolk, died 1903
(Can't find a marriage, which is making me anxious, but on census, William is married to an Ann born 1830 Butley and Butley was a small village.)

Children, as found on census:

1. Maria Field born 1852 Wickham Market
On GRO site - no birth found. Appears only on 1861 census, can't find her after that, no death found though possibly married by 1871

2 William Field born 1857 Ipswich
On GRO site - no birth found

3. Harriet Field born 1858 Ipswich
On GRO site - birth found, mother LAST

4. Kate Field born 1860 Ipswich
On GRO site - birth found, mother LAST

5. Maria Field born 1862 Ipswich
On GRO site - birth found, mother LAST, but she doesn't appear on census, no death found.

6. Laura Field born 1864 Ipswich
On GRO site - birth found, mother LAST

7. Emily Field born 1869 Ipswich
On GRO site, no birth found. There is a birth and death for an Emily Ann Field in Ipswich in 1869, but my Emily is on 1871 census

8. Alice Field born 1874 Ipswich
On GRO site, no birth found.

Because of the age gap between Maria and William, I'm guessing the first Maria may either be the illegitmate child of Ann (who was working in Wickham Market in 1851) though I can find no evidence of that, or maybe more likely a child from a previous marriage of William Field's. But despite his being consistently born in Wickham Market in later censuses, I can't find him in 1851 to get a clue. Even if that is the case, surely you wouldn't name a future child Maria unless the first one had died.

So after the block of girls in the middle, all neatly 2 years apart and with an appropriate mother named on the birth registrations, there is another age gap and two more mysteries.

The family are living in Ipswich in all censuses.
Merry
12-09-17, 12:22
Can't find a marriage, which is making me anxious, but on census, William is married to an Ann born 1830 Butley and Butley was a small village.)


And Ann was in Wickham Market in 1851 where Maria was born.
Terri
12-09-17, 12:24
Yes, in 1851, still single at that point
Merry
12-09-17, 12:25
You could check the age at death of this one whilst I eat my lunch :o

Deaths Sep 1863
FIELD*Maria Ipswich 4a 417
Terri
12-09-17, 12:31
You're a star Merry, that's Maria number 2 presumably accounted for then.

And please - go and eat your lunch, this isn't urgent! lol lol
Merry
12-09-17, 13:07
Did you see a few of the children were bap together in 1865? I wondered if that was because the couple had finally got married, but that doesn't seem to have been the case.
Terri
12-09-17, 13:08
No I didn't. Are the baptisms on Ancestry?
Merry
12-09-17, 13:15
It seems quite reasonable that William was not registered as the onus was on the registrar to track down births and get the paperwork completed. Maria is more interesting as there is a gap between her birth and William's. I wondered if she was an illegitimate dau of Ann's and was also not registered. That doesn't account for her not being registered for death though (presume she died 1861-2 as after the 1861 census and before the birth of the other Maria). Some deaths (particularly children) didn't get registered in the early years, but I think for every five cases I've found where that appears to be the case in the end it's been proven the death WAS registered, just not in the expected name.
kiterunner
12-09-17, 13:18
There is an Anna Maria Last birth registered Jan-Mar 1852 Plomesgate, no mother's maiden name shown on the GRO site, which supposedly means illegitimate.
Terri
12-09-17, 13:18
I was wondering if any or all of the children for whom births cant be found were registered in different names, but they should still have "Last" as a mother.
Merry
12-09-17, 13:20
There is an Anna Maria Last birth registered Jan-Mar 1852 Plomesgate, no mother's maiden name shown on the GRO site, which supposedly means illegitimate.

And a death Q2 1861. I haven't checked the age yet though.
Merry
12-09-17, 13:22
Aged 9 :D
Terri
12-09-17, 13:23
There is an Anna Maria Last birth registered Jan-Mar 1852 Plomesgate, no mother's maiden name shown on the GRO site, which supposedly means illegitimate.

That sounds very promising, Plomesgate would be the registration district for Wickham Market, and a perfect fit with her age too.
kiterunner
12-09-17, 13:24
And a death Q2 1861. I haven't checked the age yet though.

Ann Maria Last, death in Ipswich, age 9.
Edit - I see you had the age by the time I posted that, Merry!
Merry
12-09-17, 13:25
No I didn't. Are the baptisms on Ancestry?

Yes, only transcripts though.

16 Nov 1865

William Harriet Kate and Laura

On 8 Mar 1867 there's a bap for a Henry/Harry. May have died before 1871 perhaps?
kiterunner
12-09-17, 13:29
Harry's birth is registered Oct-Dec 1866 and then there is a Henry birth Apr-Jun 1868.
kiterunner
12-09-17, 13:33
Harry's death registered Apr-Jun 1867, age 0 (age 7 on the GRO site, presumably 7 months.)
kiterunner
12-09-17, 13:37
So could Henry be Emily on the 1871 census? I have come across an Arthur who was Bertha on the census in the past, or maybe it was the other way round.
Terri
12-09-17, 13:40
Brilliant. I saw them yesterday but was so confused over 2nd Maria, I had convinced myself that maybe there was another Field man married to a Last lady in Ipswich - being very common surnames in Suffolk and in a very large town!
Terri
12-09-17, 13:42
So could Henry be Emily on the 1871 census? I have come across an Arthur who was Bertha on the census in the past, or maybe it was the other way round.

She's Emily, daughter, on both 1871 and 1881 censuses.

(I've had 2 Henrys that were Marys!)
Terri
12-09-17, 14:04
Can't pin down Henry. Doesn't seem to have died in Ipswich and can't see him in 1891.
Emily is not at home in 1891. If she married between 1881 and 1891, it wasn't in Ipswich. There are a lot of "Emily" wives in Ipswich of the right age. This could take a while. lol
kiterunner
12-09-17, 14:14
There's a public tree on ancestry which has Emily marrying a Robert John Kearns 26 May 1890 in London and then travelling all over the place (he was a soldier). This is the Kearns family in 1901:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/7814/WORRG13_2809_2810-0460/16001887?backurl=https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/28200331/person/12467553764/facts

The marriage doesn't come up on FreeBMD, I assume because one of the page numbers has been mistranscribed - Emily's is shown as 613 and Robert's as 643.
kiterunner
12-09-17, 14:18
I've found a transcription for the marriage: Robert John Kearns / Emily Fields 26 May 1890 St Mark's, Kennington, Surrey, which says Emily was 22, single, and her father's name was William. But I would have thought the actual image would be on ancestry; not found that yet. Still, the transcription plus her birthplace on the 1901 census fit with your Emily.
kiterunner
12-09-17, 14:21
I wonder whether Emily's birth could have been accidentally registered as Henry, a boy? nd then never corrected.
Terri
12-09-17, 14:23
Thankyou! At least that discounts the Fields have a very early Transgender and Emily/Henry having thrown off his skirts in 1891 and joined the Navy :d

So ......... fixed 2 Marias and and Emily, but gained a Henry.

I hate this family.
Terri
12-09-17, 14:24
I wonder whether Emily's birth could have been accidentally registered as Henry, a boy? nd then never corrected.

That is very possible! I'm not that worried about not finding a birth now that I knew she actually existed outside of the immediate family, if that makes sense.