William SPINKS c 1873

[Jiffie]

Could someone please help me, before I go 'completely round the bend'

I'm trying to find William SPINKS b1873 Warwick Birmingham, in particular where he is in 1881 and 1891

Mother Sarah Spinks nee WATKINS b1860 Birmingham (birth correct as I have documents which provide proof)
Father (allegedly) Charles SPINKS b1846 Birmingham Warwickshire
Siblings include - Louisa b1884 Birmingham, Rose Hannah b1886 Birmingham, Florence Ruth b1891 Alfreton Derbyshire, Bertha Ruth b1898 Alfreton, Lily b1893 Alfreton and Charles Henry (my Grandad) b1896 Alfreton.

Sarah WATKINS and Charles SPINKS m 1890 Birmingham

Charles was previously married to Mary Ann NEWMAN in 1869 and had a child Esther in 1870. By 1881 census Mary was in the workhouse and Charles was lodging elsewhere

Now it is feasible that Charles did father all the children, and once Mary found out, he was 'out on his ear' so to speak, leaving him free to marry Sarah. But I cannot find any trace of William, I only have his date of birth from age given on 1901 census. If is it correct, it means Sarah was about 13 when she gave birth?

I have a feeling that I'm going to have to send for his birth cert. but it's driving me mad not being able to find him! Please help!


Thanks in anticipation
Jiffie

[viva1angel]

The only William Spinks i can see anywhere near Birmingham is this One. There is another Spinks there too. an 8 year old Named Thomas
William Spinks, 6, pauper inmate b. West Bromwich

Resident at the Parish of Birmingham Workhouse" Western Road, Birmingham

[Pamelawagster]

Possible 1891
2260 19 31
West Bromwich

William Spinks
1873 West Bromwich
Visitor

[Pam Downes]

Could someone please help me, before I go 'completely round the bend'

I'm trying to find William SPINKS b1873 Warwick Birmingham, in particular where he is in 1881 and 1891

Mother Sarah Spinks nee WATKINS b1860 Birmingham (birth correct as I have documents which provide proof)
Father (allegedly) Charles SPINKS b1846 Birmingham Warwickshire

Jiffie

Until you have William's birth certificate you have no proof that Sarah is his mother. And I suspect that she isn't.

If Mary (Charles' first wife) is in the workhouse in 1881, then I think that it's an even chance that William is too. RG11/3011 folio 94 page: 26 Aged 6, with a possible brother Thomas, aged 8, on the next line.
Which confirms what Pamela has found. As does the 1891 entry

RG12/2260 f 19 p 31 William Spinks, aged 18, visitor, living with Joshua and Ellen Rollings. Joshua Rollings married
Ellen Newman December quarter 1871.

And does this 1861 census entry mean anything:
RG9/2030 f 11 p 15
West Bromwich
Esther Newman, widow
Thomas, Richard, Hannah
Mary A, 12
Ellen, 9,
Benjamin, and Esther 4
All children born West Bromwich

(Census in care of TNA & crown copyright)

Pam

[Peter Goodey]

Until you have William's birth certificate you have no proof that Sarah is his mother. And I suspect that she isn't.

I echo that thought!

[Jiffie]

Thanks for your suggestions everyone.

I don't think William is likely to be in the workhouse with Mary as she wasn't his mother. She was Charles' first wife in 1869 and their daughter was Esther.

Sarah is recorded as William's mother on both the 1911 and 1901 census' with his age being recorded as 37 and 28 respectively, hers 51 and 41. This is how I worked out William's approx. DoB. his place of birth is recorded as Birmingham or Birmingham, Warick. I have Sarah on every census except 1871, before Williams birth.

I have now found a baptism for ' an illegitimate male named William Watkins baptized 23.04.1870 Birmingham - a male child privately baptized in the care of Mrs Clarke in Packmores' and Packmores was the workhouse. Mothers name Watkins.


I will order the birth cert. and see what that shows. Thanks again all
Jiffie

[Pam Downes]

Thanks for your suggestions everyone.

I don't think William is likely to be in the workhouse with Mary as she wasn't his mother. She was Charles' first wife in 1869 and their daughter was Esther.

Once again, I have to repeat that you currently have no proof that Mary wasn't his mother.

Sarah is recorded as William's mother on both the 1911 and 1901 census' with his age being recorded as 37 and 28 respectively, hers 51 and 41. This is how I worked out William's approx. DoB. his place of birth is recorded as Birmingham or Birmingham, Warick. I have Sarah on every census except 1871, before Williams birth.

I have now found a baptism for ' an illegitimate male named William Watkins baptized 23.04.1870 Birmingham - a male child privately baptized in the care of Mrs Clarke in Packmores' and Packmores was the workhouse. Mothers name Watkins.

I will order the birth cert. and see what that shows. Thanks again all
Jiffie

Further proof that William is highly unlikely to be Sarah's own son.
Firstly, the ages of them both on the census which would indicate that if Sarah is his mother then she would have been about 13 years old when she gave birth. Not an impossibility, if Sarah was born in 1860 and William was born in 1873, but doubtful.
However, you are now citing

a baptism for 'an illegitimate male named William Watkins baptized 23.04.1870

as proof that William was Sarah's son. Which would mean that Sarah was only 10 when she gave birth. Extremely unlikely. And if no mother's name is given in that baptism record, then you have no proof at all that the child was Sarah's.

The bad news is that I think you are unlikely to find a birth certificate for William. I've checked FreeBMD http://
freebmd.rootsweb.com/ for both Spinks and Spink, and I can only see a couple of William Henrys born c1873. One in West Bromwich registration district, and the other in Aston registration district. There is William Henry,born West Bromwich, clearly detailed on the 1881 and 1891 census with a family so I think he's the one whose birth was registered.

Sadly, sometimes we just have to accept the fact that we will never know for certain exactly who someone's mother or father is.
In the 1901 census Sarah is listed as 'wife' to the head of the household even though the head of the household isn't listed. If William is Charles' son, (and assuming that Charles is the missing head of the household!) then William is correctly listed as son.
In the 1911 census, if William isn't Sarah's son, then strictly speaking he should be listed as step-son but in those days precise relationships weren't always given. (For example, I've seen households were the daughter and her husband were described as lodgers.)

Pam

(with apologies to Brit-Gen for making such a massive boo-boo about the link to the FreeBMD site earlier.)

[Jiffie]

Thanks again Pam for taking the time to look at this. I hope it didn't appear that I wasn't listening to your advice, I'm just so frustrated that I can't find William where I expected him to be! I've been going round in circles on it for 2 days now lol

Jiffie

[Pam Downes]

No problem, Jiffie.
I just wanted to point out to you that certain things you were claiming almost as fact were actually either unproven or almost impossible to be true..
As well as not always being able to prove the relationship between people, sometimes it proves impossible to find them on the census as well.

You seem to have done what you can for the moment, so I would suggest that you perhaps leave William for a while; it's surprising what you might find if you go back to him in a year's time. So many new records are being added online for a start. Plus you might find that you can visit Birmingham/relevant record office and check out any existing workhouse records or the parish registers for example.

Pam
(who's been there many times, and has many T-shirts to prove it )