Ideas on lost birth registration.

[busyglen]

I am researching my husband's gt. grandfather John Charles PETERS who, according to some information gleaned from a Navy list, by a friend visiting Kew, was born on 11th August 1856 in Devonport, (Stoke Demerel I believe).
I am unable to obtain his Naval records at the moment which would help, as I can't get to London.

I have looked through 1837online for years 1855/56/57 without success. When he died in Sheerness, Kent in 1938 his age was given as 85, so I looked in 1853 for his birth...still nothing! I am `assuming' that for some reason his birth was not registered...would I be correct in my assumption?

I have his marriage certificate dated 14th January 1877 in Stoke Damerel register office, to Ann Murray widow, (nee Ash). His age was given as 22 and Ann's was 25. His father's name was given as John (deceased) who was a bootmaker. I also believe I have found John's mother Mary as a widow and sister Elizabeth on the 1871 Census. I had obtained the 1871 Census CD in the hopes of finding where John Senior, and his wife were born, but as he was deceased, that's out. I shall have to wait for the 1861 to hopefully confirm where he was born.

It would be helpful to obtain John Charles's birth certificate, but I don't know what to do next. One of the pages is I looked at was free because of the quality of the print, but although there was a Stoke Dameral entry for a Peters, I believe it was for a Joseph, which would be incorrect.

Any suggestions would be welcome. :)

Glenys

[AnnB]

Hello Glenys

I've just had a quick look at FreeCen as they have some of the 1861 Devon census. I found a likely candidate for John Charles, so if you take a look and stick John Peters and 1861 in the search thingy, you will find the one I am talking about. (RG9/1455 Folio 7 Page 8 Stoke Damerel). If this is the one, his mum appears to be a widow at the tender age of 26 :(

Hope this proves to be the right one
Best wishes
Ann

[busyglen]

Ann you are brilliant! |hug|

I've checked the Devon Freecen previously for some things, but because I had previously been looking through the 1871, I forgot to check this. Doh!!

Well, as you say that's very sad that Mary lost her husband so young. But, at least I know that he died after or around the time Elizabeth age 3 was born, and 1861. That gives me an area for searching for his death.

Still wish I could find John Charles' birth record, but possibly I never will. I don't need it now that I have his family details, but it would have clarified the situation.

Again, thanks so much for your trouble. :)

Glenys

[AnnB]

Pleased to be of assistance |wave|

Best wishes
Ann

[Mythology]

"Still wish I could find John Charles' birth record, but possibly I never will."

Quite a number of mine up to about 1870 seem to have regarded birth registration as an *alternative* to baptism, so I often find one or the other but not both.

For example, I recently decided to have a long overdue bash at a Blanche Love Holmes. She married my fellow in 1867, and he fell over three years later. From what is shown on the 1871 census, things looked a bit fishy to me and I suspected that we might have yet more jiggery-pokery with names to add to the tree, but in fact this one is perfectly genuine and straightforward. No birth registration, but the baptism, including birth date and the middle name (which I thought might be an invention as a result of a previous entanglement) is in the Fulham All Saints parish register. Now that I know that she was telling the truth on the marriage record, she's a spinster, and deceased father was indeed a surgeon, next time I'm at the SoG, a look at an 1827 Faculty Office licence for a Joseph Holmes and Mary M Love which ties in nicely with the age of Blanche's oldest brother on the 1851 is the fairly obvious next step.

I realise that you can't dash down to Devon and that, as you're satisfied that you know what the score is, it's low priority for you, but if you can, by some means or other, get at the parish register without *too* much trouble, I would do so.

[Mark]

You've checked 1855, 1856 & 1857 ... then 1853 ... guess what

1854 Dec
Peters John Charles Stoke D 5b 284


Mark

[AnnB]

You've checked 1855, 1856 & 1857 ... then 1853 ... guess what

1854 Dec
Peters John Charles Stoke D 5b 284


Mark
Went away - came back - looked for birth registration - found it - then found Mark had beaten me to it :o I should have checked the messages first........

Best wishes
Ann

[busyglen]

Mark....in the words of Victor Meldrew `I don't believe it!'
After I had made the post, I re-read it and thought, `why hadn't I checked 1853?' It was because I did it in two batches at different times, and hadn't realised that I had missed the obvious!! Doh!!

Thank you so much for this Mark, I really appreciate it, and am so pleased that you have solved the mystery....I think it was the case that I couldn't see the wood for the trees!! :(

Glenys

[busyglen]

Thanks anyway for your efforts Ann, I really appreciated you taking the time to look for me. :) Sorry I am such a dimwit :( I could have so easily solved it myself....I guess old age really IS galloping on!

Glenys

[busyglen]

Thanks for your advice Myth, I had been thinking along those lines myself regarding PRs but, as you no doubt have already seen, I have been a complete `wally'. Both Mark and Ann, had spotted the obvious, and found him for me! The strange thing is, I had made a notation on my notes for 1853 but for some reason didn't follow it up. I think this is the problem when jumping from one line to another, which I invariably do. I start something, spot something else relating to another line and go off at a tangent. By the time I retrace my steps I invariably forget what I had done or not done as the case may be!! I have been quite good of late in noting where I am at, but even so things still slip the net...hence this debacle!! I feel SO stupid!! :(

Still....all good fun, and where would I be without my `forum friends' ??

Thanks everyone. :)

Glenys

[AnnB]

Please don't feel stupid Glenys. I do what you have done all the time :o The times I go over the same ground twice (or more) just because I didn't read what I had written in the first place!

I seem to be able to see where other people could be looking, but when it comes to my own.........still, as you say 'all good fun' :p

Best wishes
Ann

[Mythology]

We all make mistakes. I shouldn't have assumed that your "so I looked in 1853" was a typo for 1854, should I?

And if it's any consolation, I once spent over half an hour going through the death index at St Cath's looking for one of my girls and thinking "Blimey, either she's lived to a darned good age or she's emigrated" ....

.... then realised that I hadn't switched my brain on that day, and had been looking her up under her maiden name instead of her married name!
:D

[Ladkyis]

The number of times I have done exactly the same thing just don't bear counting, and the number of times the members of this forum have rescued me would be embarassing if they weren't so wonderful and genuine. I think that anywhere else i would know they were laughing AT me but here I feel they are laughing WITH me because they too will do the same at some point.

OH and you do know that your ancestors and mine deliberately make us do these daft things don't you.

Ann

[Ken Boyce]

.....and how often has one viewed several BMD Index pages before realizing that one had forgotten to click on "Deaths" and had been reviewing "Births" pages

[mary elms]

........... too often to count Ken. As for 1800s and 1900s - the number of times I wind up looking in the wrong century is too embarrassing to mention.

Mary.

[kazrbutler]

I mix up 1700 and 1800 too when entering birth dates for census search, or other dates on IGI. More frustrating (especially when the library is due to close) is stopping to make note of a record of birth, marriage, burial on a parish register fiche - and then forgetting which way I was going.

I have only just worked out that working up and down makes it easier to remember - but unfortunately, I have come across fiches where the records are out of line - making it even harder to work out where I have been and where I am heading.

Then of course, I can start to copy out one record - and skip to another to finish, or switching letters in names or numbers in dates!

Mistakes are easy to make, but it is always easier to spot someone elses than your own.

Karen

[busyglen]

Thanks everyone for your support :) I do know that I am not alone in making mistakes, but I hate to think of someone wasting time and money on my behalf, because of my lack of attention. :(

I have also gone searching for an answer for someone, and excitedly posted my findings, only to find someone else has beaten me to it!! But...I still enjoy the challenge, and sometimes I enjoy looking for someone elses rellies more than my own!

I also know, that I have yet to find another forum with such a band of wonderful, helpful and friendly people...I even enjoy the sparring, which mostly includes a ;) so that you know it's not seriously meant.

Thanks....and here's to the next bloomer I make. |biggrin|

[Mark]

No prob's ... even if two of us post the same "result" from someone's query, at least it means two heads are better than one ... especially if we reach the same conclusion.

I think we all utilise roughly the same techniques for interrogating the available reosurces.

Luckily I took your "history" at face value, so only looked through the four quarters of 1854. The next option would have been 1852 going backwards. It's only when the obvious fails, that I'd then have looked at 1853 in case you had typo'd. But I've been there & done that before, eg missing out a index book cos some other kind soul has misplaced it on the shelves at the FRC or suchlike, then forgetting about the omission.

Mark

[Ken Boyce]

I use a spreadsheet to record the images browsed in the BMD Index and whilst browsing I record all entries for the Surname of interest for the locale of interest eg all PERRIS in London

Source, FreeBMD, Image checked (Y/N), PRO Index - Type (B,M or D) - Search Range, Start date, Finish Date - Surname - Forenames - Qtr, yr - Reg District, Vol, Page - Mothers Maiden Name - Spouse Surname

This a bit of a chore but has often saved me the price of going back to the commercial online sites

[AnnB]

Very commendable Ken, and I always have such good intentions, but when it comes to the crunch my good intentions seem to get forgotten |oopsredfa

And Glenys, if we all got it right all the time - what would the rest of us have to do........ :cool:

Best wishes
Ann

[Mythology]

"I use a spreadsheet"

I reach for the waste paper basket and use the back of an old envelope.

I am not a secretary, I am not an accountant - I hate spreadsheets and unless it's something vital to my own research refuse to even look at them. I have upset a couple of people who sent me things by sending a message back on the lines of "If you want me to read it, give me something where I don't have to keep scrolling left and right."

[busyglen]

Ken, I'm nowhere near as organised as you! Like Mythology, my jottings are on sheets of paper, and occasionally in a notebook. I do periodically go back over the information, discarding the things that I know are not relevant or important, and I do try to keep each line separate. I have a ring-binder folder for each of my `families' and keep the notes in a film pocket, but occasionally I do end up with a pile of jottings in my `in tray' as well, with `things to be dealt with'!!

Ann, you are so right....part of the fun is trying to solve someone else's mystery ;)

Glenys

[Ladkyis]

"but when it comes to the crunch my good intentions seem to get forgotten |oopsredfa "



yeah my good intentions are crunchy too, I started with "one notebook on Family" and it worked for a while - right up to the moment when I was supposed to be looking for NATHAN and found BELLEW and then discovered a GUILFOYLE. All went into the MACEY notebook because I was away from home and the system went up the swanee.

[Mythology]

What you need is a *system*. ;)

(Ken - don't look, I know you're getting on a bit and I wouldn't want to be responsible for finishing you off. ;) )

May I present for your study the ultimate filing system - a section of the Mythology sofa, extended forwards slightly by removing the cushions and replacing them by old cupboard doors.

After all, there's still a bit of floor space that I haven't used up if visitors want to sit down - and I can probably find those cushions that I removed if they're posh visitors.

Don't just look - learn from it!

[AnnB]

Myth, you've cheered me up no end. My chaos now looks quite a lot more organised :D

I trust the shoe laces (?) aren't for hanging yourself when you finally run out of space :confused:

Best wishes
Ann

[Mythology]

Fear not - they're bootlaces, not shoelaces - going out tomorrow I hope, so waxed my boots in readiness and removed the laces while doing so. :)

I see that a couple of other genealogically irrelevant items have crept in too - phone bill and bank statement bottom left, plus a length of nice heavy duty electric cable that was left over when I wired up the shower about three years ago, not sure how that ended up there - must have been tidying up the spare armchair I guess!

[Geoffers]

I am researching my husband's gt. grandfather John Charles PETERS who, according to some information gleaned from a Navy list, by a friend visiting Kew, was born on 11th August 1856 in Devonport, (Stoke Demerel I believe).
I am unable to obtain his Naval records at the moment which would help, as I can't get to London.
Well you can obtain at least part of it from the comfort of your own home by clicking on http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/
then the link 'Royal Naval Seamen'
Search on his full name, there's one hit, the date of birth is the same you've given.

It isn't much, but at least you'll have a record of his (early) career.

Geoffers

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

What you need is a *system*. ;)

(Ken - don't look, I know you're getting on a bit and I wouldn't want to be responsible for finishing you off. ;) )

May I present for your study the ultimate filing system - a section of the Mythology sofa, extended forwards slightly by removing the cushions and replacing them by old cupboard doors.

After all, there's still a bit of floor space that I haven't used up if visitors want to sit down - and I can probably find those cushions that I removed if they're posh visitors.

Don't just look - learn from it!

http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/LaughCrackingupDog.gif

[Linda]

Well I don't have a fancy gif like Diane, but I laughed just the same!:D


Thank goodness you sent off a package to me some time ago Myth, you would never have found those things now. Or would you? Perhaps this is tidy compared to back then.:eek:

Linda

[Mythology]

That's the tidy part, just the stuff I'm currently working on, hence the Hansons of Eastcheap and William Fuller Gooch books being at the top - if I'd left your Thomas Hyam's marriage record in that bit instead of "filing" it in the other room, it wouldn't have taken me three and a half days to find it! :)

[busyglen]

And.....I bet you can put your hand on the thing you are looking for straight away?!!

I must admit Myth, my desk `used' to look like that, but as my office is the spare bedroom, which has recently had some use, I've had to get my act together. All of my family folders are in two large drawers, and all loose papers in two filing trays. So....I feel a `bit' tidier at present. As to whether it will stay like that.......?? :cool:

Glenys

[busyglen]

Thanks for that Geoffers! I do have his number and that coincides as well with the info I have. I must admit, I hadn't thought to do a search to see if I could find find any docs available to purchase. I must try to remember for future reference.....see I'm learning all the time! :)

Glenys

[busyglen]

Oops! Didn't spot the other replies before I wrote the above. Certainly shows how we can get confused, trying to answer one post, and then finding it's already been done! :rolleyes:

Glenys

[busyglen]

Geoffers.....I have just spotted another strange thing that really has me confused now! :confused:

I stated that John's birth was given as 11.8.1856 which my cousin found when she went to Kew and looked for him originally. I thought she had written it down wrong as (up to the other day) I couldn't find him on 1837online for this year, or even either side. But, thanks to my friends here, he was discovered in the December quarter of 1853. I have now sent for this certificate. So....do you think for some reason he gave the wrong age? I could understand him putting on a few years to get into the Navy, but not taking them off!! In actual fact, it looks as if he was the only man in the house, as his father appears to have died when he was about 3 years old.

That apart, I shall get that record and see what it says.

Glenys

[Geoffers]

I stated that John's birth was given as 11.8.1856....But, thanks to my friends here, he was discovered in the December quarter of 1853. I have now sent for this certificate. So....do you think for some reason he gave the wrong age?
Two obvious possibilities:

1) The date of birth in the RN is incorrect

2) The chap bn 1853 died as an infant and chap No.2 was named after him
I suppose parents might have been distraught, maybe out of superstition they then didn't register second birth in case it brought bad luck.

Who knows what might have happened? The certificate and parish registers may help to clarify things.

Fingers-crossed of Charlbury

[Mythology]

"The certificate and parish registers may help to clarify things."

Yes - get both if you can. It could be like one I had, threw me a bit at first, because it wasn't the *number* of years that was out, it was the *time* of year - a September birth date in the Navy record didn't add up with a February birth date on the certificate. OK, people lose track of their age - but you'd think he'd know what day of the year his birthday was, wouldn't you?

The supposed birth date in the Navy record was his *baptism* date. :)

[busyglen]

Two obvious possibilities:

1) The date of birth in the RN is incorrect

2) The chap bn 1853 died as an infant and chap No.2 was named after him
I suppose parents might have been distraught, maybe out of superstition they then didn't register second birth in case it brought bad luck.

Who knows what might have happened? The certificate and parish registers may help to clarify things.

Fingers-crossed of Charlbury

Thanks for the observations. Again I've made a boo boo!! I quoted 1853, when I should have said 1854...I've got 1853 on the brain for some reason!!
Anyway....I obtained the naval record you kindly found for me and guess what? It showed his complete record including all the ships he was on and when he transferred to the Coastguards etc. Thank you so much for spotting that |hug|

Regarding the question of date...I am awaiting the certificate, which I believe to be the correct one for 1854. As John's father was deceased in 1861 and John had a sister aged 3 (if correct) at that time, his father could possibly not have been alive in 1856. No that's not right is it? The sister would have been born around 1858! Now I'm even more confused! :confused:

I shall await the certificate, as a thorough search on 1837online didn't reveal another birth for 1855/56/57. I will try and check it out further by the PRs if I can, but at this stage, I can only assume that the date he gave when he joined up, was not the correct one.

Thanks again for you help, my lord. |bowdown|

Glenys

[busyglen]

"you'd think he'd know what day of the year his birthday was, wouldn't you?"

Well Myth, even in this day and age strange things happen! Even in my case which has been mentioned on another thread some time ago.

I believe, (and so did my mother) that I was born on 17th January, however when my father registered the birth, he either gave the wrong day, or the registrar was having an off day, and I ended up being born on the 7th January according to official records!
I didn't even know this until I left school and needed my birth certificate to apply for a job. So....now I have to remember to give my `official' birth date for everything, whilst celebrating my `correct' birthday.

You would think that with this problem, I should understand how errors occurred in earlier years, but I still find it hard to get it into my thick skull!! :(

Going back to John Peters, possibly he wasn't baptised until 1856 which is the date he gave???? More delving I think.

Thanks for the ideas Myth. |wave|

Glenys

[Ken Boyce]

Hi Myth - far from being aghast at your record keeping system I’m in awe of how well you have organised your chaos compared to mine.

To date my genealogical filing system has had to share the floor with the dog, pieces of old computers and other sundry hardware and software going back to the Commadore 64 and the Amiga, and a huge vinyl and music collection. This system has served me and the dog faithfully for a number of years but I think I’ve reached the point where I need to make some improvement. The dog is growing more territorial and I’m having trouble moving him off of stuff that I sometimes need to look at. Also because of deteriorating eyesight (mine not the dogs) I now have difficulty seeing the titles of the books, cds and other ref material scattered beyond a few feet from my chair – this is of particular concern as I have recently purchased some long forgotten material that I already have because it was out of sight across the room or was being slept on by the dog. Also the cat is slowly ripping up the plastic bags that I keep important papers in but at least she keeps the mice at bay.

I for one appreciate the posting of the photo so that we can all look and learn. In particular the concept of utilising a genealogical chaise for storing stuff is masterful and something I admit to have been lacking in. I have therefore rectified this by commandeering the dog’s sofa that he sleeps on at night. However I will improve on your layout by utilizing an old shed door instead of cabinet ones (my wife is resisting removal of the doors from the cabinets) – however I may have to replace the wood door panels with glass so as to maintain that line-of-sight which is so important in any decent chaotic system.

Regards

[Ken Boyce]

PS
Thought you might like to pin this dedication to perfect chaos on the back of your sofa

http://i30www.ira.uka.de/~ukrueger/fractals/Welcome.gif

[Mythology]

:)

Thanks, Ken - I've saved it and will do that very thing ...
... but I doubt if I'll be able to see it by this time next week. ;)

[Lynda Cunningham]

Dear Myth

So glad to see that the same old filing system is in place, and works for you.
I was quite happy with my system, but Rick decided I needed to organise myself so he bought me an electronic notepad.

I can't seem to locate it............... ;) have you got it there by any chance?

Lynda

[Ken Boyce]

:)

... but I doubt if I'll be able to see it by this time next week. ;)

I believe the technical term for that is "Dynamic Chaos".

I assume yours is of the linear form which means you can find find stuff within a non-random time period. Whereas in a non-linear system like mine the search period is in itself chaotic and requires the use of "fuzzy logic" to locate stuff within an acceptable time period.

Regards

PS I tried your method of wiring up to the shower but the only advantage that I can perceive is that the dog moves his butt a lot faster - must have something to do with the difference in voltage and frequency - we are on 120v 60~

[Ron Leech]

I used to have a filing system like Myth's but over the years I found it did not work so well as firstly mother and later on wife tidied up. Result lost documnetation.

[Mythology]

Fatal !!!

Never let *anybody* tidy up - you won't be able to find anything for at least a year even if it is still there. Banish them to the kitchen, banish them to the garden shed if you're using the kitchen for much more important things than food and drink, such as all those photocopies that you took which are nothing to do with your family but had amusing or puzzling entries, and you thought that a few extra bits of paper wouldn't make much difference and 30p was nothing so why the heck not?

But do *not* let them tidy up! :eek:

[Mark]

I though it was the "stack filing system" ...

Mark