I'm getting a little tangled up here...!
I have a family called Kellett (or Kellit or Killit) from Yorkshire, (Wyke / Wike /Low Moor / Bradford area).
From 1871 Census returns I put the children as:
Mary Ann Dawson Kellett (fits with a marriage between John Kellett and Elizabeth Ann Dawson as parents)
Harriett
Charlotte
Lavinia
Fanny (b 30 January 1860)
Caroline
Edith
Dan
Mary Ann seems to be born close to the 1849 marriage of her parents. She doesn't appear in the 1861 census with them, but there is a Mary Ann listed directly above them with another Kellett family (maybe a coincidence).
I searched the GRO from 1847 to 1870 with Kellett and Dawson (maiden name) and find all the children except Mary Ann and Fanny (the one I am actually interested in) in the Bradford district, along with two other names, a Florence and a Catherine. Cross referencing with West Yorkshire baptisms on Ancestry.com, I find all except Charlotte, Catherine and Dan. I'll assume Catherine died soon after birth, before baptism in her parish.
I'm wondering why I can't find Mary Ann and Fanny in the GRO register? Is this common? Is there another way to search for them?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Nikki
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Thread: Missing GRO reference?
-
30-11-2018, 9:43 AM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 33
Missing GRO reference?
-
30-11-2018, 10:20 AM #2
Does the 1861 census show a relationship between that Mary Anne and the Head of Household she's been enumerated with?
Do the people she's living with have fewer children than the other couple?
-
30-11-2018, 10:21 AM #3
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 819
According to FreeBmd John Kellett and Elizabeth Dawson married September Q 1849. The GRO site has a birth for a Mary Ann Dawson June 1849 Bradford and North Bierley 23 240 with no mmn. Could this be your Mary Ann?
Emeltom
-
30-11-2018, 11:19 AM #4
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- West Yorkshire
- Posts
- 1,736
Hi Nikki
I was very interested to read this, as the John Kellett who married Elizabeth Ann Dawson was brother of my 2x great grandmother Eden Kellett. I'm afraid I can't answer all your questions, and much of my research on this family was done before parish registers were put online and the GRO introduced its own index with mothers' maiden names, so there's quite a bit that needs to be revisited, but I'll answer what I can.
First, my findings about Mary Ann Dawson are the same as Emeltom has come up with: her birth was registered in the quarter before her parents married, and she appears as Dawson.
Second - Mary Ann in 1861: I have an alternative census entry for her as a servant in the household of Dan and Mary Best at 186 North Street, Low Moor (RG9/3312 fo25 p2). I can't remember now why I thought that one was more likely, and I'm writing this quickly without going back to the returns, but it's certainly one to consider.
As my research had mainly been based on census returns and I hadn't checked parish registers, or the GRO's own index, I hadn't come across Florence and Catherine, so thanks for mentioning them.
I can't help at present with Fanny's birth registration, but I'm giving it a bit more thought and I'll report back if I find anything.
Finally, you can see some of my research online - click my name alongside this post and in the dropdown select Visit Homepage. However, as the site is based on my ancestral lines, your John and Elizabeth Ann only get a brief mention, and I haven't included any of their children.
Arthur
-
30-11-2018, 11:45 AM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- West Yorkshire
- Posts
- 1,736
Still no joy on Fanny's birth, but I've found another possible daughter: Ann, born Sep qtr 1861 Manchester (8d 211), died Dec qtr 1861 Manchester (8d 158). I've come across other Yorkshire families with a similar background going to live in the Manchester area - some stayed there, and some came back, so this one might be worth looking into.
I know the date is quite close to Florence in Mar qtr 1862, but that Ann could have been born as early as May 1861, and Florence could have been premature and born towards the end of March 1862.
I did wonder if Fanny's birth might be over there too, but didn't find anything in the GRO index, nor did I find anything obvious by searching at FreeBMD for Fanny or Frances (no surname) in Bradford.
-
30-11-2018, 8:30 PM #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- West Yorkshire
- Posts
- 1,736
I think this one is a red herring. There's a baptism in St Andrew Ancoats (Manchester) on 13 Oct 1861 of Ann d of David and Emma Kellett, and a David Kellett and Emma Dawson married in Prestbury, Cheshire in 1860.
So it's back to Yorkshire to look for Fanny. I see her date of birth (30 Jan 1860) comes from her baptism entry (18 Mar 1860), and as that would make her only about 6 weeks old it's hard to imagine that it could be significantly wrong. But I still can't find a registration.
-
30-11-2018, 11:00 PM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- England
- Posts
- 9,636
Don't forget that prior to 1874 there are a lot of births that weren't registered.
I can't remember the exact reason, but it's something along the lines of the original civil registration Act didn't actually say that the parents were responsible for registering the birth. The law was amended in 1874.
Pam
(waiting for Peter G or Ant[h]ony to correct her )Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”
-
30-11-2018, 11:50 PM #8
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Parbold, Lancashire
- Posts
- 822
Cribbed from Wiki:
'In the early days of the system, it was up to each local registrar to find out what births, marriages and deaths had taken place in his sub-district. It has therefore been estimated that only about 50–60% of births, both legitimate and illegitimate, were registered as parents were not legally obliged to inform the registrar. It has been estimated that in some parts of England up to 15% of births were not registered between 1837 and 1875. As a result of the Births and Deaths Act 1874, registration was made compulsory from 1875 and the onus was now on parents to inform the registrar when they had a child and penalties were imposed on those who failed to register'
Having said that, why would the parents not register Fanny's birth when they had clearly registered siblings before and after her?
Peter
-
01-12-2018, 12:34 AM #9
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- England
- Posts
- 9,636
One Peter's as good as another in this instance. Thanks, Peter.
Probably the reason for Fanny not being registered was because the parents though it was the job of the registrar to do, and therefore if he didn't go to them they saw no reason to go to him. (No different to today when, if we can 'escape' the clutches of officialdom, we do.)
PamVulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”
-
01-12-2018, 3:19 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 33
Thanks Emeltom,
I think that is the Mary Ann I'm looking for! If she was registered under her mother's name I guess that is why she kept it as part of her name when she added her father's name (she appears as Mary Ann Dawson Kellett in the census). I wonder why they didn't get married immediately when the mother was pregnant. I would assume that was expected...
I struggled to find her on the GRO site as I was putting in "Mary Ann" as the first name, whereas I should have only used "Mary". The FreeBMD site is more forgiving!
Nikki
Helping you trace your British Family History & British Genealogy.
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5
Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmarks