So what next????

[wrinkly]

|banghead| So where do I go from here? Back to Eliza Jane Budd from Deal, Kent who married George WIlliam Beecham, was widowed October 1899. Remarried(?) Edwin Smith sometime later......... TO recap, first child by Edwin Smith (?) was Edwin Thomas Smith in 1902 born in Edmonton.... had four children altogether - Edwin Thomas, William Francis, Alice Ellen (all born in Edmonton) and Louisa Kate who was born in Deal in 1913.

Are you still with me?

Have three of the above certificates. Edwin Thomas's father is given as Edward Smith as is his marriage certificate......... William Francis' father is given as Edward Smith but his marriage certificate says Edwin Smith...... Louisa Kate has Edwin Smith on both............ So are the Edwards spelling mistakes, mis-heard/interpreted by who ever wrote them down or ???????
Don't have Alice Ellen's birth certiifcate yet but her marrriage certificate gives her father as Edwin Smith..........

Edwin/Edward was born about 1882 according to the age on his death certificate............ I can find no record of his marriage to Eliza Jane Beecham nee Budd.......... I have tried to find a record of his birth, but as I have noo idea where he was born or who his parents are and there is not exactly a shortage of Smiths (Edwin or Edward) I have no idea what I'm looking for! I don't even know where he was born - I assume Deal but it could be anywhere in Kent or Edmonton or elsewhere.................

Does anyone have any bright ideas of where I can go next or ... is it too much to hope for that someone out there is actually a descendent of Edwin's???????????????????????????

Wrinkly |banghead|

[pipsqueak]

You have my sympathy... I've spent the past ten minutes trying to help you out but so far no good. I'll keep looking until I can't think how or where to llok any more!

[MarkJ]

Like pipsqueak, I have been looking but with no success :(

Mark

[pipsqueak]

Another hour of looking and I can find nothing at all. You really have a tough one here.

I did confirm the marriage and death of Mr Beecham, and the birth of the last child - not that that's any help!

[ChristineR]

So are the Edwards spelling mistakes, mis-heard/interpreted by who ever wrote them down or ???????

Most likely he had a nickname like Ed or Eddie, and the kids were unsure which was the correct name. Also, they were probably confused by their brother being called Edwin, thinking he was named exactly after their father. I would go with what is on Edwin's birth certificate, where both names appear.
:)

[wrinkly]

Another hour of looking and I can find nothing at all. You really have a tough one here.

I did confirm the marriage and death of Mr Beecham, and the birth of the last child - not that that's any help!

Thanks, Pipsqueak, for looking! It's hopeless isn't it?

but I refuse to give up..... someone somewhere must have the answer.....

[wrinkly]

Like pipsqueak, I have been looking but with no success :(

Mark

thanks Mark..... at least you tried! One day it will all fall into place... won't it??????????

[wrinkly]

Most likely he had a nickname like Ed or Eddie, and the kids were unsure which was the correct name. Also, they were probably confused by their brother being called Edwin, thinking he was named exactly after their father. I would go with what is on Edwin's birth certificate, where both names appear.
:)

Hi Christine...... don't know about Edwin/Edward but the child Edwin/Edward Thomas was nicknamed Ted...... or so I have been told...... The only problem with going with what is on Edwin's birth certificate is that his birth certificate calls both him and his father Edward, whereas his marriage certificate doesn't....... And his confused siblings weren't responsible for their father's name on their birth certificates.... if I wasn't so xminded I would give up but I refuse to be beaten!

But I do appreciate the fact that everyone is trying to help me!

[SBSFamilyhistory]

|banghead| So where do I go from here? Back to Eliza Jane Budd from Deal, Kent who married George WIlliam Beecham, was widowed October 1899. Remarried(?) Edwin Smith sometime later......... TO recap, first child by Edwin Smith (?) was Edwin Thomas Smith in 1902 born in Edmonton.... had four children altogether - Edwin Thomas, William Francis, Alice Ellen (all born in Edmonton) and Louisa Kate who was born in Deal in 1913.

Are you still with me?

Have three of the above certificates. Edwin Thomas's father is given as Edward Smith as is his marriage certificate......... William Francis' father is given as Edward Smith but his marriage certificate says Edwin Smith...... Louisa Kate has Edwin Smith on both............ So are the Edwards spelling mistakes, mis-heard/interpreted by who ever wrote them down or ???????
Don't have Alice Ellen's birth certiifcate yet but her marrriage certificate gives her father as Edwin Smith..........

Edwin/Edward was born about 1882 according to the age on his death certificate............ I can find no record of his marriage to Eliza Jane Beecham nee Budd.......... I have tried to find a record of his birth, but as I have noo idea where he was born or who his parents are and there is not exactly a shortage of Smiths (Edwin or Edward) I have no idea what I'm looking for! I don't even know where he was born - I assume Deal but it could be anywhere in Kent or Edmonton or elsewhere.................

Does anyone have any bright ideas of where I can go next or ... is it too much to hope for that someone out there is actually a descendent of Edwin's???????????????????????????

Wrinkly |banghead|


oh yes I remember this... glad to see that it would appear that I was correct and they were all born in edmonton.|jumphappy

I am in the middle of something that cannot wait right now, but I will try and have a look later to see what I can find, but I do not promise anything. |idea|

Sue

[LittleMissP]

I've tried very hard but haven't cracked this yet, but I thought I'd post up some interesting related findings that might give you some new clues...

I firstly looked up Eliza and George Beecham in the 1891 census to see whether they had children- they had Annie A (c1890) and George W (c1887), and the birth indexes show these children as Ann Ada (1889 Q4) and George William. At first I tried to find the children with their mother in 1901 but couldn't. Then I looked up the husband George's death record and found that it seems that their son George died Q3 1899 and father a quarter later (could be an interesting story there?). If you then have a look for Annie in 1901 she is listed as an 'inmate' and on the actual record is recorded as an orphan! Interestingly Annie is in Colchester in Essex- i.e. not London or Kent. BTW, these children are on the 1891 census as born in Walmer and on a search this now seems to be a suburb of Deal.

For the life of me I can't find Eliza under any name/ variation of name or birth, anything else I can think of. I've also tried searching under the pretence that they are 'married' in 1901 (I've seen that many times!!) and luckily on anc.. you can do spouse names and just use Edw*, but unfortunately still no definite luck.

I think they must have married for the children to have (all!) been given the father's surname but a wider search of the marriage records hasn't thrown anything up to me, as you say, Smith is hardly an unusual name, and nor for that matter is Eliza. Whether she would have married under the name Budd or Beecham is open to debate, rules may be rules but I have similar scenarios in my tree where the woman has seemingly chosen which name to use, and it may also be down to the registrar marrying them in the questions they asked.

Ooh, something else to say is that when I found the family in the 1891 census on anc.. there was a potential alternative name for Eliza- surname Pearson! Might be a total red herring but perhaps rings a bell or vital new clue, I don't know...

I'm not sure that any of that will help but I hope so! Good luck, I know how much hard work it is- I have Jones' in my family... |doh|

Paula

[wrinkly]

I've tried very hard but haven't cracked this yet, but I thought I'd post up some interesting related findings that might give you some new clues...

I firstly looked up Eliza and George Beecham in the 1891 census to see whether they had children- they had Annie A (c1890) and George W (c1887), and the birth indexes show these children as Ann Ada (1889 Q4) and George William. At first I tried to find the children with their mother in 1901 but couldn't. Then I looked up the husband George's death record and found that it seems that their son George died Q3 1899 and father a quarter later (could be an interesting story there?). If you then have a look for Annie in 1901 she is listed as an 'inmate' and on the actual record is recorded as an orphan! Interestingly Annie is in Colchester in Essex- i.e. not London or Kent. BTW, these children are on the 1891 census as born in Walmer and on a search this now seems to be a suburb of Deal.

For the life of me I can't find Eliza under any name/ variation of name or birth, anything else I can think of. I've also tried searching under the pretence that they are 'married' in 1901 (I've seen that many times!!) and luckily on anc.. you can do spouse names and just use Edw*, but unfortunately still no definite luck.

I think they must have married for the children to have (all!) been given the father's surname but a wider search of the marriage records hasn't thrown anything up to me, as you say, Smith is hardly an unusual name, and nor for that matter is Eliza. Whether she would have married under the name Budd or Beecham is open to debate, rules may be rules but I have similar scenarios in my tree where the woman has seemingly chosen which name to use, and it may also be down to the registrar marrying them in the questions they asked.

Ooh, something else to say is that when I found the family in the 1891 census on anc.. there was a potential alternative name for Eliza- surname Pearson! Might be a total red herring but perhaps rings a bell or vital new clue, I don't know...

I'm not sure that any of that will help but I hope so! Good luck, I know how much hard work it is- I have Jones' in my family... |doh|

Paula

Paula you have worked hard! I had no idea anyone would go to so much trouble and I do appreciate it..... The reason you can't find Eliza and children on the 1901 census is cos the one for Deal was lost..... which has caused me (and no doubt countless others) hours of frustration!

As you say, George William Jnr died just before his father. Like you, I thought there would be a story there but the deaths are unrelated. George Jnr was drowned while bathing..... George William senior was also drowned, but he was one of five boatmen going to the assistance of a barque that was showing distress signals.. all five were drowned........

Ann Ada was in an orphange in Colchester in 1901 and my grandmother, Ada Alice, was also in an orphange, but in Hampstead.......... the two boys, Edward and William can't be found..... whether they were still in Walmer, Deal with their mother at tht time I don't know. There is a story that one of them at least, i.e. William, was sent to Canada but no idea when or where....
Edward - who knows............... One of the most touching things for me is that Eliza named her first two children by Edwin/Edward Edwin or Edward, and William.............. The thought of this woman losing her husband and all her children haunts me to this day......... life sure was tough and I can't understand why it happened........... but no doubt that is another story.......
Newspaper articles I obtained regarding the tragedy (cos that's what it was for families of all five boatmen) make no mention of what happened next.... apart from the fact that there was a collection for the families.

Pearson on the 1891 census is an error, i.e. it refers to the next household....

As I say, I do appreciate all the effort you have put into this... I didn't know you could do a search for spouse with just Edw**

Another interesting fact is that in the register of the Cemetery where Eliza was buried she is listed as "W of George"........ so I wonder if that means that she and Edwin/Edward did not actually marry even though she is called Smith....otherwise I am flumoxed...... If they didn't I have no chance of finding out anything about his background. His death certificate only has him as a widower.

I guess all this is what makes family history so addictive...............:confused: