Carrie Cox born 1901 in West Ham

[RobinC]

I have come across a Carrie Cox who was born as a result of the second marriage of Harriet Crouch, however I cannot find any trace of Carrie being born in 1901 in West Ham.

These are the only births for Carrie Cox between 1900 & 1902:

Births Mar 1901
Cox Carrie Wolverhampton 6b 673

Births Dec 1901
COX Carrie Nottingham 7b 418

Births Dec 1902
Cox Carrie Lydia Marylebone 1a 549

These don't fit the location of birth and I've looked at other Cox children born between 1900 & 1902 and cannot see anyone that might be called "Carrie".

I've got the family in 1901 without Carrie present:

Class: RG13; Piece: 1584; Folio: 86; Page: 55

(courtesy of TNA)

[Peter Goodey]

Perhaps try...

Births Jun 1900 Crouch Caroline Lilian W. Ham 4a 338

[RobinC]

Perhaps try...

Births Jun 1900 Crouch Caroline Lilian W. Ham 4a 338

Her birth would fit but Carrie's surname is Cox so I'll have to rule her out.

[RobinC]

However, there is a marriage for a Caroline L Cox in 1919 in Kingston which might fit in somewhere.

[pattenwalsh]

Caroline Florence Cox.June 1901 Camberwell 1d 865.Dad could be working around the docks and registered the birth in that area?

[Peter Goodey]

Her birth would fit but Carrie's surname is Cox so I'll have to rule her out.

Hold on there! There may be other grounds to rule her out but you can't rule her out on those grounds!

The Cox-Crouch marriage appears to have been at the end of 1900 so it would be quite in order for a child born before the nuptials to be registered under the name of Crouch and later simply become known as Cox. Unlike the situation today, people back in those days could be free and easy about the surnames they used.

[RobinC]

Hold on there! There may be other grounds to rule her out but you can't rule her out on those grounds!

The Cox-Crouch marriage appears to have been at the end of 1900 so it would be quite in order for a child born before the nuptials to be registered under the name of Crouch and later simply become known as Cox. Unlike the situation today, people back in those days could be free and easy about the surnames they used.

A good point there, Peter. I haven't managed to find her in 1901 as of yet.

[Pam Downes]

Perhaps try...

Births Jun 1900 Crouch Caroline Lilian W. Ham 4a 338

Her birth would fit but Carrie's surname is Cox so I'll have to rule her out.

I would have bet you a you a fiver Peter has found the correct birth registration.
The death of Henry, Harriet's first hubby, was registered in March quarter 1900.
Harriet's marriage to John Cox was registered in December quarter 1900.
Therefore if Carrie was born between those two events then her surname would/should be Crouch.
Perhaps she was the true daughter of John, and so in the 1911 census she's listed as Cox. Could be that John adopted her, therefore in 1911 legally her surname was Cox.

The big snag is that Carrie/Caroline isn't listed in the Cox household in 1901. However, it wouldn't be the first time that the enumerator has missed off a family member. There is no death registration for a Caroline Lilian Crouch between June quarter 1900 and December quarter 1911.
I can't remember how closely connected Carrie is to you, and therefore how much you want to spend your cash on a birth rtificate. But you can now specify to the GRO that the mother's name must be Harriet(t), and if it isn't then they won't send you the certifcate, but nor will they charge you four quid for checking the registration for you.
Pam

I see Peter has already defended his suggestion while I have been slowly typing and checking other details.

[RobinC]

Hi Pam, thanks for your reply. Alfred Robert & Lily Harriet were cousins of my grandfather (first cousin twice removed for me), they were also either the half siblings or siblings of Carrie so not that distantly related but I am trying to only purchase bmd certificates for the direct relatives (grandparents, great grandparents, e.t.c.) at the moment.

[olliecat]

In the 1911 census John and Harriet Cox do state how many children they have had. My impression is that they are referring to the current marriage.

RG14PN9503 RG78PN508 RD188 SD4 ED33 SN122