RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: wrighk00 on Thursday 01 October 09 19:51 BST (UK)
-
The supposed birth mother wrote 4 or 5 letters before and after the adoption stating the child was born at Highgate on 2 April 1916 at mid-day. She never mentioned the child by name in the letters. The woman signed her name as A.T. Scott. There is no registration for a child by that last name. The woman gave her address as 13 New Quebec St.; Oxford Street, Marble Arch and seems to have received adoptive parents letters there.
-
This story has pulled on me for some reason...I am not that experienced a researcher, but I'm learning! How sad...I wonder why the "mother" gave up her child....
I have found 13 New Quebec St....it still exists today, right behind Marble Arch....it looks as though it could well be the original building. If you have google earth...zoom in to street view, and click on no. 15....you'll see a place called "The Ritual Rooms"...that is No. 13 New Quebec St.
(You can read about the place here: http://www.londontown.com/LondonInformation/Leisure/The_Ritual_Rooms/8fac/ )
There are a few options to try and find out the history of this place...you can right to the occupier now...and see how long they've owned it, and what they can tell you about what it was before etc...You can look up the Electoral Roll for this address, and see what it is. I did this for an address in Bromley, and found it to be my great grandfather's barber shop, which I never knew he had!
If the mother really did name her Mona Julia, and registered her birth...the only London registration for a Mona J in 1916, was a Mona J Purdey OND, St Geo H Sq, MMN: MOY. This of course could be a completely different person...AND, the mother may not even have given birth in London to the child!
I will continue digging :) Hopefully more experinced people that are better than I will come on board :)
-
and I am very sorry! Welcome to Rootschat....
Daisy Loo
-
Daisy Loo,
Thank you for your answer!
-
Daisy,
One other thing the mother said was that circumstances were difficult; her business was not doing well; but that she would keep the child with her even through difficulties if the right home were not found for her. She indicated she had received a number of answers to her ad for a home, but this seemed the right one.
-
Okay...before I delve into your other posts...I have found the address on the 1911 census...and there are several "households". Bear with me, while I quickly typw up names and occupations etc...
The names don't match at all...but does give some idea of the occupations and the set up...
-
Now bear in mind, that I only viewed the transcript, and not the original images!
There were 7 seperate Household Transcripts...I am not sure how this was worked out...if they were renting rooms...I can't tell either, who owned the building...
So :
1. Annie Varney Aged 69 Occ: Housekeeper in Lodging House
2. John Ball (Head) Aged: 38 Scool teacher
Josiah Ball (Lodger) 35 Shorthand Clerk
3. Francis Vaysse (Head) 38 Cafe & Confectioner (this man was born in France....)
4. Alice Smith (Head) 54 Assistant secretary
5. Martha Cullen (Head) 32 Barmaid
Ada Cullen (Lodger) 23 Barmaid
6. Rhoda Lily Sheaf (Head) 22 Barmaid
7. George William White (Head) 39 Domestic Butler (listed as married, but living alone??)
And that's who was living there in 1911.
Could it have been a cafe/confectioners then?
-
Do you have a copy of the advert?
Is it known that the adoptive parents really wrote to the mother? and that she received the letters?
Does that mean to say then that this child never had a birth certificate? Just a few more things...!
I think it will be very hard to prove who the mother was on so little evidence...were the adoptive parents good to the child?
-
They seem to have had an ongoing correspondance for a month or more after the child was placed.
-
I've been through much the same process - the only thing I can add is that the middle initial "T" seems to be unusual for a girl's name!
Flight of fancy maybe, but the one that came to mind was Theresa, which made me think of an Irish girl ...
Possible scenarios include an affair - maybe with fiance or husband away fighting in WWI and returning to find he was a "father"?
I looked for any SCOTT births or marriages, the latter to a woman with names beginning with A&T - nothing too promising.
Too many results on Historical Directories to wade through.
I'm inclined to move this to the London board, so the experts can help!
Kind regards, Arranroots ;)
-
ok
-
I've done it for you! :)
Do the letters give any indication of whether the mother is married?
The 1911 census has only one female SCOTT of around the right age (guessing) with a first name "A" and a middle name "T" (or vice versa)
Fourteen year old Amelia Tresia SCOTT who is living in St Pancras
This girl is the daughter of a gas fitter in St Pancras in 1901. Not sure that she fits the profile of a businesswoman - depending on whether she was a woman of means or not!
-
The child would surely have been registered somewhere. I tend to lean that her name really was Mona (Julia) as at 3, she would have been sure of her own name as well. So...
I think Highgate was under EDMONTON registration district (incidently...it seems to be quite an affluent area)
There are only 2 Mona's registered in Edmonton, in 1916
Mona K Murphy AMJ mothers maiden name: Jones
Mona E Seelly JAS mothers maiden name: Berryman
Interestingly, there is a Mona registered in 1917, JAS, in Uxbridge (not really near!) as Mona E Marshall, mothers maiden name Marshall. A red herring I'm sure...
The thing is, the address in Marble Arch, I think could be misleading. The mother could have just come up to London (from anywhere really) and was lodging there until she had found a home for her child.
-
There's a marriage for Amelia T Scott in 1918, in Willesden, Middlesex to Eggleton?
-
No births for EGGLETON (or similar) mmn SCOTT after 1918.
There's a Thirza SCOTT around, who is older and therefore perhaps more likely - don't know what became of her.
I'm becoming tired however - will catch up tomorrow - good luck!
-
Again - unlikely if this is the same woman:
Marriage
March 1918
SCOTT Thirza M J to FILLMORE
Pancras 1b 228
Thirza Mary J born Pancras March 1899
Seems she wouldn't have another initial "A"!!
-
lol...
if it's just a signature...could it be A J ? Just to confuse things a little more! ;D
Seen copies of the letters....would say definately A T Scott...
Kathy, you might want to transcribe some of those letters onto here...it may help.
I have a 3 year old daughter, and it doesn't bear thinking about how hard this whole story would have been :(
-
I'm left scratching my head on this one...have read most of the letters...which leave you with a thousand more questions...the handwriting is very need and articulate...the 'mother' never refers to the child by name...only as the little one, and once or twice as my little girl.
I have added her signature, and also how she writes Dear Mrs Wright, to compare what she calls herself. There are very few registered births for a Mona in London, you could go through all the certs, but will this really help?
The way the 'mother' writes in the letter, gives me a feeling that she knows London well...she refers to Kings Cross as Kings x, tells the adoptive mother to stay on the platform, and that she has a room arranged for her...not really language of a country girl...
Arranroots, do you think it worthwhile putting some of the letters up here?
I don't know what else to suggest, or where to look next!
-
Thanks for posting those Daisyloo. I'm certainly curious about the letters, but not sure how much they would help in finding Mrs SCOTT.
Maybe transcribe any relevant clues?
I can't help thinking the initial T looks like a P - is there any other capital T to compare with?
I agree that the writing is fluent - quite artistic in fact. It really is a mystery. And I suppose we only have her word for it that she was using her real name!
:-\
Edit: looking again - the name SCOTT is almost printed! I'm suspicious about that!
-
Just seeing if this works...this is the first letter, I think...
Edit: It does work...will re-check if it's okay with Kathy to post these....
-
Hi
The area the letter was written in would be very close to the St George Hanover Square registration district if not in it. There is only one birth registration in 1916 in the London area for a Mona J
Births Dec 1916
Purdy Mona J Moy St.Geo.H.Sq. 1a 619
It is possible it is a late registration (or one where the birth was adjusted). Have you eliminated this child?
There doesn't seem to be a Purd(e)Y/Moy marriage, or any other children with this parentage and no marriage or early death registration for a Mona Purd(e)y
There is this later marriage in the same registration district.
Marriages Sep 1918 Moy Mona Ripley St.Geo.H.Sq. 1a 1223
I can't find Mona Moy on censuses or in the civil registration. There are children from this marriage including one called Mona.
If it has not been done already, I think it is important that the one possible London area candidate is eliminated if that is possible, and/or the birth is examined further particularly since it so close to the letter address.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi All
Kathy, following Daisyloo's suggestion on the history of the address. The whole area was/is leased by the Portman Estate offices, www.portmanestate.co.uk/contact/index.html They would be the best starting place to try and find out what 13 New Quebec Street was used for at that time. Voters roll would be the next search but given the end of the war, not a great year to search for. Likely mother was renting a room there for a period of time and may have moved after the adoption you would think but worth checking out anyway.
Can I ask, from her signature on the letter, is A.T Scott signed off as Mrs or Miss?
Monica :)
-
Hi
The 1918 Representation of the People Act only gave limited voting rights to women and then only to some but not all over the age of 30. Women who were not married and did not own property (as in renting) were excluded.
Regards
Valda
-
Thanks Valda :) That may limit that type of search.
Monica
-
I have sent off an inquiry to the e-mail address of the Portman Estate,
-
Hi Kathy
Daisyloo has been working hard on this one :) The Dowling birth was one I did see and wondered about.
I think from what you have said, Mona is now deceased. Maybe including her photo may help. Can I ask you, did the mother ever refer to her child by name in her letters. I've been wondering whether the name Mona was a birth name or that given to her by her adoptive family. Although, given your searches, I have assumed it is understood by the family that this was her birth name.
Monica :)
-
Hi, Monica,
The adoptive mother wrote to the registers office in 1932 asking for a birth certificate of Mona Julia Scott, born 2 April 1916 at Highgate. I am sure that's what she thought the child's name was. The answer, of course, was that they could find no birth registration by that name and suggested at that time that they legally adopt which I guess they hadn't before. Then a new birth certificate was supplied in the adoptive name.
-
If Mrs Scott was in business, at that sort of date it is possible that her business would be listed in directories under her own name.
I don't suppose there's any indication of the type of business?
-
Thinking aloud - Scott is one of the names the Dukes of Portland used ...
-
Kathy, if the adoptive parents went down this route with the GRO then I would imagine they would have made numerous checks for her entry, more than we can do on index searches. So, as I'm sure the family realised, the name, the date and the place has a question mark for Mona's birth :-\
Monica
-
For the record
1914 Post Office Directory
FUNNELL John bootmaker 13 New Quebec St, Portman Square
-
Couple more of the signatures:
-
This story is haunting, and it has been plaguing me for the last 2 days...
I have read most of the letters, and they are extremely confusing, one minute you get the feeling that this can't be a birth mother talking of her own child, the next, you aren't so sure. She NEVER refers to the child by name only as 'the little one', or 'little girl' - when describing her she says 'she has refined little ways, brown eyes and fair hair' nothing more personal. A T Scott sends the adoptive parents money to buy her a toy. There is an issue raised regarding a 'little chair' and a 'ration book' both of which cannot be found. For sure, the child spent most of her time in another building away from her 'mother' anyway.
"Dear Mrs. Wright,
Let me start by saying is the little one happy and well which I feel sure she is, did you receive my letter safe?
I was ever so delighted with your letter. I did fancy it all it must have been good to see her so happy. I do so hope she will continue so, well now I must say I am sorry about ration book, I have been to her nurse twice first time she was out and second time she could not put her hand on it, I don't want to say anything that I shoul be sorry for but It looks as if she as lost it, but I don't think it's so bad now is it, besides you can start with a new one in your district. tell them the circumstances and I'm sure they'll put you right, now I spoke about her little chair, well I am sorry to say that too seems gone, she as got another little girl now and seems not to want to part of course I did not want a fuss so let her keep it you have forgot her age. well it is 3 and 3 months, she was born on the 2nd of April, that was on a Sunday by the way, at 2 o'clock midday, 1916. now wishing you all to be very very happy I will close.
Yours Very Sincerely
Mrs AT Scott"
Altogether, you definitely have the impression that this woman is not being completely straight. Legalities are also obviously discussed in the letters, as A T Scott does a kind of formal statement, signing her name to the fact that she will never lay claim to the child in the future etc. Then things switch, and in one letter, she said she would struggle on with the child until the end of her life, if she couldn't find a loving home. In another, When she has handed the child over, she writes after, and says 'the first thing I remember the moment you were out of sight, was I did not say goodbye, but the excitement done that, I was so anxious to leave her while smiling, so slipped away while she was so happy. well I am not sad as I expected I should be, that is simply because I am so sure she is in good hands, excuse me not saying more now for I am still a little confused....'etc and you feel a bit of her pain, watching as her child goes with this other woman....and wanting only the childs happiness...
The name Mona Julia seems to be as sure a thing as it could be under the circumstances...(the child was 3 , and would surely know her own name?)
I looked again at that Mona J Purdy, b.1916 in St Geo H Sq...MMN Moy.... a possible scenario is that A T Scott had an affair with a married man, and named the child Purdy after the father, and Moy could have been a fake name, to hide her own identity...or even her real name, but not that much help...there were no A T Moy's on the births on FreeBMD.
Thing is...there is a death reg, for a Mona Joyce Purdy in 1999, and her birth date is Oct 1916. (no other Mona J Purdy registered in 1916)
There is only one Purdy marriege that I found, also in St.Geo.H.Sq in 1913 an Arthur J Purdy, occ: milkman (!!!) to a Catherine R Yaxley. Both of them were living in St Geo H Sq in 1911. Kathy, you say you have ordered the Purdy cert...I, like Valda, do think that is crucial to rule that one out.
So that's where I'm at...lots of loose ends...
Kathy you have said you are going to try and find out more...do post here as well...the more people looking at these things the better...especially as most here are far better at this game than I!!!!
-
I've just seen this post and would love to help, though I'm not sure I have the ability or knowledge to do so.
But just a few thoughts, although probably not very constructive.
The letter posted by Daisy written by AT Scott seems to be a bit inconsistent and written in an odd fashion. Punctuation is not very good and I it doesn't look like it was written by a 'businesswoman' in the sense that we may think of one today.
Similarly the transcription of another letter - odd phrasing.
-
Certainly you do get the feeling that if A T Scott WAS the birth mother, she had not bonded with her child...but she did care enough to look for a loving mother....love being more important than money...(this was mentioned in another letter)
Did A T Scott require means then, as her daughter was looked after by another lady, the nurse, in another house?
The thing is, if the child was illigitimate, how straight would a mother be anyway? There would be a certain amount of dodging the truth perhaps?
Yes, the language doesn't imply a well educated lady....but then, it doesn't sound like a country lass either...she also doesn't seem to be a young woman.
Whatever else comes to light, Mrs A T Scott cared enough about the child to look for a suitable couple, that would love the little girl as their own.
-
Not necessary to thread
-
Hi
I think we have moved from family history into 'speculate' and the dictionary definition of speculate is to make theories or guesses.
Regards
Valda
co-moderator London and Middlesex
-
I also want to add, that Mrs. A.T. Scott was willing to have the adoptive mother spend the day with her and the child so the child would have a chance to know adoptive mother and more willing to go with her and seems to be quite relieved to know that the child seems happy. If not the birth mother, this woman at least had a close connection to the child. She also wasn't afraid to let the adoptive mother be with her for a day. I wonder if that happened?
-
Not necessary to the thread
-
Hi
Mrs Scott could also have been paid to be the person handling the overseeing of the handing over the child, a relative of the birth mother or an intermediary. There really is no evidence either way from the letters - her expressed concern in the circumstances could merely be the sort of expression of emotion you might wish to write to show you are a genuinely caring person.
From the letters I see the time and date of the child's birth, but not the place which I believe was Highgate? Is this the only evidence that the child was born in England? Does it state a place in England in the letters?
Regards
Valda
-
On a subsequent letter to the registration office in London, the adoptive mother in 1932 is writing to ask for a birth certificate of Mona Julia Scott, born 2 April 1916 in Highgate, so she is definitely thinking those are the "facts" surrounding Mona's birth. I think the search began after she was told there was no registration for a child of that name.
-
Intriguing and emotional story this one. It's a hard period this to research in as so much is not available on line.
One of the main problems from what I understand on adoption cases, having worked on a few, even those that were not formally arranged through solicitors, is that birth parents could and did change around the information so the real facts woud be harder to trace. Names can be the other way around, dates near but slightly out etc.
I spent some time on this yesterday and found one potential family where so much could have fitted (this is the one I sent you details on yesterday Marty) but this morning I found an 1938 marriage for the potential daughter I thought might be Mona, so I think I can draw a big line on that group :'(
So where are we now? Kathy, you have emailed the Portman Estate on background on 13 New Quebec Street for that period, so lets see what comes back on that. You have also ordered a couple of certificates as potential entries. Again, let's see what is on them and how we can move from there.
I agree with all the comments on the letters. I do not think that Mrs A T Scott was a business woman more likely an employee, from her letters: “ I find that I can find more time than I expected” and “you see, I shall have to lose time from business”. She is sounding to me more like she was employed rather than in charge and arranging time off work unexpectedly but worried about taking any more time off.
Hopefully some new clue may be revealed.
Monica
-
Not necessary to thread.
-
On the case ;)
Monica
-
Not many A T Scott (male) marriages. The obvious one in the right area for Highgate looks to have gone on to have a number of children after the marriage date...
Monica
-
I thought I would post this letter, as it is the statement, where she signs over the child....maybe not a person hired to do the job then?
-
Hi
So other than the foster parents thinking it was Highgate from something that was said at the time of the meeting which they might have inferred, or been given some deliberate misinformation, or even Mrs Scott (who may herself be a foster parent of some sort) not actually knowing for sure, there is no evidence from the letters that Mona Julia was born in England -
for example there was a Mona J who arrived into the country with an age given as 2 and a half on 31st May 1919 - incoming from Canada.
The 2nd April 1916 was indeed a Sunday so that knowledge in the letter is very specific.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi
How old was Mrs Scott when the foster parents me her - young, middle aged? What physical descriptions have been passed down of her? Did she for instance have the same colouring as Mona?
Regards
Valda
-
Not needed
-
Not needed for thread
-
Valda,
-
Hi
It was Muir. No reason to suspect it is her as she is also a little too young, but it was an example to illustrate the possibility that Mona Julia may not have had an English birth which would account for the lack of registration.
Regards
Valda
-
Just to let you know I've checked the electoral rolls for 13 New Quebec Street.
In 1918 and 1919, the eligible voter is John Funnell, the address is listed as a business property.
However in 1920 he is joined by
Funnell, Harriet
Henry, Thomas William
Scott, Samuel William
Samuel William Scott is listed there until 1922, he is not listed in 1923.
Dawn
-
I think Highgate was under EDMONTON registration district (incidently...it seems to be quite an affluent area)
Coming into this poignant story rather late on...
Are you sure Highgate was still registering in Edmonton by the relevant time? I don't have details to hand but I certainly recall that my Highgate ancestors were registering their BMD in St Pancras by the turn of the 20th century.
(I know this doesn't solve the problem in any event :()
Anna
-
Below is a copy of the answer I received this morning from the archivist at the Portman Estate which owns this and surrounding properties. Funnell was the man who had a business on the ground floor and seems to have leased the building later on.
Thank you for your enquiry. The estate’s records show only the names of lessees, not occupiers or sub-tenants so I regret we cannot be of direct help to you on this. In 1919 13 New Quebec Street was still subject to a 56 year lease granted in 1870 to Edward S Jones and assigned in 1883 to another member of his family. A new lease was issued in 1928 to a John Funnell.
If you have not already contacted them you would be able to find more details about the occupiers of this property from the City of Westminster Archives Centre, a collection which is fully open to the public. Their website is www.westminster.gov.uk/archives The best sources to try would probably be street directories, the St Marylebone rate books and possibly the electoral registers for 1919, all of which you would find there.
-
Hi Kathy...did any of those certs arrive yet? Any luck?
-
Nothing. I'm getting concerned as my sister-in-law ordered one two weeks after me and she was told she would get it this week. I'm not sure how to go about contacting them to see.
I also learned that Mona had not realized she was adopted until she was 12 and an older cousin told her. This seems a bit surprising that she has no memory for something that would have been such a big transition, but not entirely impossible for her to have had memories she had not associated with before the switch. But that means that there is very little first person record.
Thanks for checking in.
-
I have read somewhere that there is a delay in certs, as the volume of ordering is very high.
Wow, in some ways then, it could mean that she was a happy child, and that parting from her birth mother wasn't too traumatic, if she couldn't remember. Mind you, how much does one really remember from the age of 3? So the letters were kept by her new mother, and obviously passed on to her.
I do hope something turns up! I'll keep checking in though :)
-
Fern says that she had a very happy childhood.
-
Having only just read this extremely poignant thread I hope you don't mind if I put down my thoughts. My initial reaction on reading the first letter was that it hadn't been written by the mother. I thought perhaps a Governess but then on reading more & seeing the last letter & the signature which looks very much like Mr A T Scott, could it possibly be the father who has given up his little girl. Particularly as she would be going to a loving mother.
Is it possible that he has returned from the Great War to find that his wife has died & he is not able to care for his daughter. Because of the mention of the Ration Book & the fact that the Nurse had lost it it does sound as though the parent wasn't there to supervise.
I'm probably completely wrong about this & I do wish you all the luck in the world & hope you have a happy & successful conclusion.
Best wishes
Maddie
-
This is sad story. As I was reading it I felt it was a woman who organised 'hidden' adoptions for illegitimate children it doesn't sound like the mother to me. A baby broker? Or maybe it could be the father and he would have had to have had a nurse or some such if he was in employment. And it seems to me she was cared for elswhere. Also the father would possibly write in that form caring but more restrained than a mother?
Good luck everyone,
Regards,
Abiam
-
I have received the Mona Dowling birth registration and
-
Certainly sounds intriguing...
Does the mother actually sign the birth register or is it the registrar only with the parent(s) names as informant?
On the issue of signatures and comparing for similarities in writing, I wonder if Annie Teresa's marriage entry which would be signed by her would reveal anything?
Monica
-
Hi Monica,
COuld you tell me how to find the certificate? It was suggested that if they were married in a church, then she most certainly would have signed it, but I don't know how to find out where they were married.
Do you know how to find out who was living at the 6 High Street where Annie Dowlilng was a servant?
Trying to make a connection with the New Quebec Street and/or Scott.
-
Wherever people marry, they sign the register or leave a mark 'X'.
The General Register Office Indexes are just that, an index. They point the way for you to order the cert either from a local register office or the GRO at Southport.
If they married in a register office, you won't get to see the signatures, only a transcription made by the registrar on the copy that is supplied.
If they married in church, again you get a transcription but you may get to see the actual signatures if the registers have been deposited in a local archives for safekeeping.
The London & Middlesex Anglican parish registers deposited at the London Metropolitan Archives have been digitised and transcribed onto the Ancestry web-site.
There isn't a match for Annie Teresa Dowling & Edward Harry Houchin at Marylebone. Which means they married in a register office, or they married in a Catholic church, Quaker meeting house or synagogue or the registers haven't been deposited for safekeeping.
The only way to know for sure where they married is to purchase the cert from the GRO at Southport (www.gro.gov.uk) and then follow up from there.
If you can get access to the 1911 census, you can search on the adress to see who was there for 1911, but that might be too early for you.
In 1916 women weren't eligible to vote and the registers weren't published because of the war, so there won't be an entry for her on the electoral registers.
Kelly's or other street directories don't give detailed lists of who was residing at a premises, generally only the 'head' of the household.
Sorry I can't help you take your request any further forward at this time.
Dawn
-
Thanks, Dawn. I've ordered the marriage registration.
-
Hi Kathy....sorry I haven't replied to your email...
Just had a little look on the 1911 census...
You gave another address on the email: 6 Fairmead Road...
In the 1911 census, this address had as head of house: Louisa Caroline Watts M (11yrs) Age 42 Occ: Midwife Nursing home. She has her 4 children living with her, and 3 patients, one of which is a single girl, aged 25 who is a barmaid. So this place looks like a private place where Annie Teresa Dowling would have had her baby. (Other patients include an army pensioner and an elderly widow). The set up makes me think that Annie would have had to have had a certain amount of money.
The other address had 2 possibles on the 1911 census....although as already said, this may be too early to be relevant. But the households were as follows:
6 High st, St Pancras - Tremlett Family - Head, (Occ: Accountant) wife & 2 kids (17 & 18, and both employed) but no servants.
also
6 High St, St Pancras - Crump - Head - Harriet Crump, widow aged 60, Occ: Confectionery living with single 19 year old daughter - but no servants.
-
Or the father would have had the money or an employer who made arrangements.
-
Just found this and got sucked in....
Quick question - are we now fairly confident the child that is described in the letters is probably Mona Julia Dowling? ie. does the birth date match on the birth cert? Is a place of birth given?
best wishes
dilly
-
Hello...yes although there is another child born about 6 months later that we haven't ruled out.but can't find that one later or the parents. I feel quite certain, though, that this might be the right child. I am just waiting now for confirmation.
-
Just found this and got sucked in....
Quick question - are we now fairly confident the child that is described in the letters is probably Mona Julia Dowling? ie. does the birth date match on the birth cert? Is a place of birth given?
best wishes
dilly
the child was Mona Julia, but Mona Dowling was just Mona Dowling, no Julia. Just to clarify :)
From what I have understood, by word of mouth, the birthplace was Highgate, but the real Mona Julia never had a birth cert, so her date and place of birth has never been totally certain.
-
We, of course, might never know how the Julia got attached to her name .. whether from birth mother..or adoptive mother.
-
Hi Kathie
Just picking up on Dilly's question again. Does the birth cert that you now have show Mona Dowling as born on 2nd April in 1916?
Monica
-
On the certificate it shows 7 April 1916..could it be a misreading or not having heard 2nd and 7th (not good at Irish/Brit accents!)..And to other comment.."the real Mona Julia"...there is definitely a real one and might be the same as Mona Dowling..we are waiting for some verification.
-
Also...an addition on the certificate..signed A.T. Dowling. , but as yet, no proof.
-
There certainly is a lot of circumstancial evidence at this point which is great as it gives the searches some substance.
I asked the question earlier some posts ago - I do not know the answer. In 1916 birth certs, does the informant sign the entry for the birth registration I wonder or the registrar? Seems odd for the registrar to write A. T Dowling. I assume you have compared the writing of the name with the letters that you have.
Monica
-
It does not
-
not necessary to search
-
Didn't receive anything Kathy - it's gone into cyberworld ;D
-
Does anyone know if it's possible to get the certificate with the signature on it? I'm sure after almost 100 years it's packed in some dark dungeon!
-
Just had a look at the Telephone Directory refs that you mentioned. I can only see one entry with an Annie Teresa Houchin. Looks to be more a business entry rather than a personal entry (which could explain why it is there):
1922: Annie Teresa Houchin, New Registry Off., 150 Queens Road, W2
Queens Road, W2, is the old name for what is now called Queensway in the Bayswater area of todays' London.
Can't find any reference to it on line and intrigued by the 'New Registry Off.' bit!
There is then multiple entries for a Mrs Annie Houchin from 1928-58 in the area of Paddington, which borders Bayswater, at a number of addresses.
-
changed
-
That's the ones I was referrring to (from 1928-58) at multiple Paddington area addresses. The interesting one is the 1922 entry that I posted earlier.
-
I sent you another e-mail with the same question but I think you would have responded. Do you think since there are living relatives that could be traced that some names should be removed now?
-
okay
-
Not sure, at a guess I would say business address, but hard to say with just these Ancestry phone directories. You would probably have to check other business directories to verify. Edward shows on that tree you found as having died in the Paddington area in 1957.
-
I'm losing it! I didn't know I found a "tree"!
-
lol ;D ;D ;D this reminds me of one of my threads a while ago! I lost it several times! :o :o
-
Ha!
-
Sorry, an intermission as I run home children's friends!
Sorry Kathy, you mentioned that you had found on Ancestry that James Dowling had married a Houchin girl and that Annie T Dowling had married a Houchin boy from the same family. The Ancestry member tree is there, if you do a parent search of Henry Houchin and Elizabeth Cook.
Added: Reply #65: On an ancestry family site the two are linked, both having married into the Houchin family
-
That phonebook entry is not connected for an Edward, Paperhanger, 8 Evangelist Rd N.W.5. From what I can see, the Houchin family look to have had a number of the men showing as paperhangers. There are militiary papers for WW1 showing for an Edward Houchin b. 1895 and living at 8 Evagelist Rd. Likely 1901 census ref for him and also another Houchin family RG13; Piece: 132; Folio: 170; Page: 58
But all of this is digressing and moving away from the main focus of the post ::)
-
Monica,
-
The rules of Rootschat, as I understand Kathy, are that no details of any living members of families be posted.
Since Annie Teresa Dowling & Edward Houchin have long passed, I don't think there is anything wrong in posting the details of their marriage.
-
As Marty has said, no problem regarding the period we are talking about for Annie T and Edward. We have all, as you have, stopped from mentioning any descendents for them given the period of their births.
I haven't received any PMs from you Kathy. I'll send you one now for test- not sure why and where they are going.
Monica
-
Does anyone know if it's possible to get the certificate with the signature on it? I'm sure after almost 100 years it's packed in some dark dungeon!
The only copy certificate with an actual signature on it will be on a marriage entry from the church, if the register has been deposited at a local archives.
It's highly unlikely you'll get a photocopy from a register office of a birth, death or register office marriage, they are only obliged to give you certified copies (or transcriptions in other words).
The wording at the bottom of a copy cert issued by a register office is 'Certified to be a true copy of an entry in a register in my custody'
The wording at the bottom of a copy issued by the GRO is 'Certified to be a true copy of an entry in the certified copy of a register of Births, Still-births, or deaths (or Register of marriages) in the district above mentioned. Given at the General Register Office under the seal of the said office on (date entered here)
Dawn
-
It seems
-
Hi Kathy
How have you established that Annie and Edward were Catholic? Also, how do you know that Annie T's future family were told that a child had died?
Monica
-
From a niece in the family. She had heard that a child had "died." She also said the Houchins were Catholic.
-
Have been reading this fascinating thread from the beginning but can't remembered if this was mentioned again and, if not, whether or not it might give another line to persue-
... The woman signed her name as A.T. Scott. ...She indicated after Letter #4 it would be her last letter as she was leaving the country."
-
Have you now made contact with the Houchin family Kathy ???
-
From a niece in the family. She had heard that a child had "died." She also said the Houchins were Catholic.
Keeping you straight :o ;D ;D....niece in whose family?... have you yet the copy of the Dowling/Houchin marriage cert.?
Added: Like minded thinking Monica!
-
Explain ....
-
In answer to question about leaving the country...we have checked immigration records from about that time 1919-1920, but have not come up with any A.T. Scott. There was a Samuel Scott leaving England in 1929 which was 10 years later.
-
Suppose 'leaving the country', if true, could mean going to Ireland or the Continent and she wouldn't appear in passenger lists of people leaving U.K.
-
Any way to research that then?
-
Small, and probably inconsequential point, but the writing in the letters is unlike any Irish writing of the period that I have ever seen.
-
Kathy...it appears I may have offended you. If I have I am sorry.
From a niece in the family. She had heard that a child had "died." She also said the Houchins were Catholic.
Keeping you straight :o ;D ;D....niece in whose family?... have you yet the copy of the Dowling/Houchin marriage cert.?
Added: Like minded thinking Monica!
You asked for an explanation...I'll give you one. The reason I put in whose niece is that you have given more information without explaining where/how it came about. If you want people to help, everything needs to be explained and verified. I thought I was teasing in manner, it appears not, and I have offended you in some way.
My comment "like minded thinking Monica" was because me and monica posted at the same time, with the same thought...(new information...where from...)
I wish you the very best of luck...and truly hope that your search brings peace to this poignant and sad story.
-
I and I am sure other Rootschatters have been following this story with great interest. We just hope that there will be a happy and conclusive outcome and that the family will be happy for their story to be told. :)
Judy
-
Thanks, Judy. .
-
no needed for thread
-
Oh dear!
This is unfortunately the trouble with "chatting" over the internet - one of the drawbacks is that we can't hear a tone of voice, and it's easy for a gentle enquiry to be misinterpreted.
The smiley faces are there to help with this proble, but sometimes they cause problems too!
The one - ??? - just means that someone is a little puzzled.
It is best, as mentioned, to keep correspondents up to date with enquiries, especially if they have gone to lots of trouble to help - that way misunderstandings can be minimised.
Like Ankerdine, I hope this story will be continued - after trying so hard to help it would be lovely for us all to hear of any resolution.
Kind regards, Arranroots ;)
-
Hi Kathy
It was me who asked the question regarding contact with the Houchin family - not Marty :) As Arranroots has put so well, it was a simple question given you had said somethings that could only have come about through personal contact. I wasn't aware that you had managed to make contact in recent days with the family, so your comments now make sense in that context.
One of the very positive things about RootsChat, which I have seen happen very rarely in other forums, is that people here actually fully engage their minds (and sometimes emotions) on some problems and difficult research. People care about the verification of information so that the original poster really does get answers to questions that they raise, or gets as close as we can possibly manage. People here willingly spend a long time helping out (and in some cases, their own money to look at paid-for resources) to try and get the right information. Marty, as you know, has really been involved with you trying to help you find some answers :)
Mona's story has caught at all our hearts. We all sincerely hope you might be able to find some conclusive proof for her children and descendents that this is her mother and family. I am not so sure you will find all the answers to some of your questions, no one ever does really, but the closer you get the stronger the possibility that you will be able to make some conclusions.
Let us know if we can help further in any area :)
Monica
-
I truly appreciate all the help and obvious interest and care from this website. It has been amazing. Yes, I did make contact (that's why I so eagerly wanted to connect with you off-line). I felt extremely nervous about it as Marty knows, not wanting ever to spring a previously unknown child into anyone's family tree and it is obvious Mona Dowling was unknown to some members of the family. However, she is the older half-sibling to someone still living and so I was especially concerned about the contact; hence perhaps read too much into your ???
-
Here
-
Here are pictures of Mona as a 3 year old and as a young woman.
Kathy I have emailed you.
-
Small, and probably inconsequential point, but the writing in the letters is unlike any Irish writing of the period that I have ever seen.
Could it be as already suggested, that the letters were not written by Annie Dowling herself, perhaps either by a "baby broker" or by a friend who could read and write?
I must say, having trawled through a load of 1911 Irish censuses today, many many people could not read/write...so I don't think the above point is that small at all.
-
Would disagree with these two statements-
Small, and probably inconsequential point, but the writing in the letters is unlike any Irish writing of the period that I have ever seen.
Don't think nationality can be deduced by the handwriting in this case.
I must say, having trawled through a load of 1911 Irish censuses today, many many people could not read/write...so I don't think the above point is that small at all.
Suspect just as large a proportion of English people couldn't read/write. Illiteracy probably more do do with economic situation in an area rather than the actual country- i.e. in slums more illiterate, etc.
-
was it the handwriting, or the language of the letter that was being referred to, Aghadowey?
My grandmother was born in 1916, we weren't a wealthy family, but she could read and write. My partner's Irish grandmother, born roughly same time, could not read or right. (She was from a rural area)
I suppose, I was following along the lines, that Annie Dowling possibley comes from Ireland, seemingly from Kildare, and her father appears to have been a farmer. The letters, although not the best grammar etc, are quite well written, or am I way off base?
-
I have found a census record for Denis Dowling living with his second wife (not mother of Annie) and a 24 year old son. He and his son Richard are listed as Farriers (I misread as farmers); on both James Joseph Dowling and Annie Teresa Dowling's marriage registrations, their father is listed as 1) ferrier and 2) blacksmith. My guess is that it's the right Denis Dowling although on the marriage registrations there are two n's Dennis...
-
I'm posting these for Kathy...and I do feel honoured. Seeing her picture for the first time, bought a lump to my throat...the little Mona is so so gorgeous!!!
-
and Mona as a young woman....(stunning! Thanks Kathy for sharing these...)
-
Thank you, Marty.
-
it's easy for a gentle enquiry to be misinterpreted.
Kind regards, Arranroots ;)
"Blessed are the Peacemakers for They shall inherit the Earth"......
Not too sure about the above as I haven't checked my Bible for some time now.
Nevertheless, it's nice of see that folk are aware of what's going on on this site.
Are you coming to the Bham Meet Arranroots?
Judy
-
Daisy- ot was the handwriting in the letters I referred to. The language might seem a bit 'stiff' to us but taking into account the period and the fact that the writer was probably anxious it's not surprising.
As I mentioned earlier, literacy was probably more due to economics than anything. As a rough estimate about 90-95% of the adults I'm searching for in 1911 Irish census are able to read and write but I do know that they would have access to local schools. Having said that, I knew several people born before WWI that were not educated, mainly because they missed so much school when they were young due to family circumstances.
-
This photo I undestand is after the adoption. She looks happy and well taken of...and as you say Marty, absolutely gorgeous :)
....and the other one is there too now!
-
We
-
does that not clash with the letter...where she says there's an old woman in the photo, and that she (the birth mother) only had the one?
I keep looking at the photo...I think it must speak to me so much, as my little girl is just turning 4 in December! :)
-
1911 Census for Denis Dowling in Ballytore Co Kildare Ireland states that he can read and write as can his wife and 24 year old son Richard. ????
-
Yes, it does
-
It is a lovely photograph of the wee girl Mona- perhaps taken in photgrapher's studio and furniture and teddy bear were props?
-
For a discussion on the aesthetics of the photo itself, it might be worth posting just the photo on the Photograph Restoration & Dating Board here on RC: www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/board,298.0.html where people knowledgable in this area of photography could perhaps comment.
Added: might be worthwhile waiting Kathy for you to hear back whether there are any photographer's details on the back, if any, before posting the photo on the other board.
-
lol at the ??? You're a fast learner Kathy!
yes, it's a very good point, and one that I had missed as I had seen that 1911 record. (Can you believe that the Irish 1911 census is FREE to view???)
Kathy...I am going to play devils advocate.
The one main point that makes you believe that Mona Dowling is Mona Scott, is because we can't find a marriage, or a death, right? (Apart from all the other little extra's!, which I have to admit, make a reasonable arguement)
What if she DID stay with her newly wed mother, (Which can only be proven by the 1921 census! :( ) grew up, then left home and emigrated? I have found a few records for a Miss M Dowling travelling in between New Zealand/Sydney/UK. The only detail on the UK incoming list, is that she was born in 1916. It gives a London address, but that doesn't help much either. (She is 30 at this the time of the record I looked at) There are more records, incoming to Sydney/New South Wales, which might offer more details, but I don't have the subscription to look at them in more detail.
If anyone has a world sub to A******y, it might be worth a little peek, if only to rule that scenario out.
Anyway, I think you have done really well, and I suppose we need to wait and see what comes from your new connections. Please keep us updated. That little girl has me haunted...
Edited: Annie went on to have 2 more children, who apparently know nothing of Mona...excuse my muddled, tired brain!
-
Do you think it's worth changing the topic heading at this point to Scott/Dowling Adoption or is that getting too personal?
-
In my obsession with finding the answer to this puzzle, I have subscribed to Ancestry World FOR A YEAR!!! So if I can help anyone out, let me know!! However, I don't know much about using it. What should I look for, Marty?
-
lol...oh dear...you HAVE got it bad!...
Search: All catergories - Immigration & Emigration - Passenger List
I had in the seach boxes, Mona Dowling, b. 1916, and these hits popped up.
Now, It's apparoaching midnight, and I'm off to bed :) G'nite all!
-
Oh...
-
Kathy, I'd leave your post title as is - you're working from fact and that, at the moment, is the surname Scott which is the only one we have as fact. The possible Dowling link is still unproved and to be confirmed :)
-
Do you think it's worth changing the topic heading at this point to Scott/Dowling Adoption or is that getting too personal?
In my opinion, you should leave it as is...you haven't yet proved conclusively that Mona Scott IS Mona Dowling. But others may disagree....
-
oh dear, me and Mona are at it again! Why have the red warnings that someone has posted disappeared? It's annoying! Now I'm really going to bed!
-
What
-
Oh...and how do we know that Annie Scott's mother was newly wed? we do know that Annie Teresa DOWLING who had Mona Dowling DID get married, don't we? WEll, we do know that Annie Teresa Dowling did get married to Edward Houchin..are you saying that Mona Dowling born in 1916 might not be daughter of THIS Annie Teresa..? But she IS..it has it on her certificate.. I'm confused where you're going with this idea!
Okay...you are assuming that Annie Teresa Dowling, once she married, gave up Mona Dowling for adoption, because Mona Dowling disappears, right? Oh! Forget me! Never mind....I am losing the plot....because Annie Teresa had 2 more children, and they didn't know about her...so where did she go...Ignore that prior post of mine. I really need to go to bed, obviously!
-
Just wondering about the title because we're trying to prove the connection and if people just access it because it has the name Scott, those interested in Dowlings won't access it and we might miss some connections that Dowling searchers might know about.
-
Red warnings = little notices that used to appear, warning someone that a post had just been made on a Rootschat thread, and would they like to reconsider before posting themselves - a sort of pop-up message that appeared when you hit POST.
They have temporarily been disabled while work is done on the website and sometimes that means that two posts by different authors are made at the same time, which don't take account of each other.
So if I try to post the same information as (for example) Daisy Loo at virtually the same time, it will just let me, whereas it used to flash up a warning.
This is tricky to explain! When they come back, all will become clear!
:D
-
Just wondering about the title because we're trying to prove the connection and if people just access it because it has the name Scott, those interested in Dowlings won't access it and we might miss some connections that Dowling searchers might know about.
Kathy....anyone doing a "google" search on Mona Dowling, will come across this thread. I have just tested it, and it was the third hit! But at the the end of the day, it's your thread, so your decision. :)
Arranroots, I think you explained better than I! (I sent an email)
-
Hi Kathy
Usually we don't change the title of a thread after so many pages. In fact, we usually lock them after 20 pages, unless there's an ongoing investigation.
Maybe you shoudl start a new thread, with a new title and cross refer this thread by cutting and pasting the URL into the new one?
If you decide this is what you'd like to do and need any help to set it up, don't hesitate to ask.
Kind regards, Arranroots ;)
-
I I suppose only DNA can prove.Thank you ALL for your ideas, suggestions. I know several of you have spent many, many hours,
-
Thanks you so much for sharing that with us. Although the child, Mona, never found out about her birth mother it's comforting to know she was loved by the family who raised her.
-
Someone kindly looked at the Electoral Rolls by address a time ago. Is this something time consuming to do or would it be possible to see who was living at 8 Dawson Place London W2? perhaps in 1940 or thereabouts?
There are several very consistent addresses for Annie Dowling over the years, but then this one crept in as a possibility but we can't prove if the letter with this address was from Annie Dowling Houchin or for someone else.
If there was a way for me to check the Electoral Rolls, I would do that, but I don't know how. Still on the learning curve.
Thanks again,
Kathy
-
Hi Kathy
I did the previous electoral register look-up.
I can try to check 1938 and 1946 but not during WW2 as they weren't produced then.
Dawn
-
That would be wonderful. Thank you. There is a letter signed Aunt Nan, but the handwriting is so different from the letters we have posted here from A.T. Scott..but the address is within a 5 minute walk from the one she used.
-
I have just seen this photo of Mona aged 3. To me she looks just as my mother looked when she was a little girl. My mother is Annie Dowling's daughter with Edward Houchin.
Annie Houchin did live in Dawson Place, London W.2 from 1961 or 2 until she died.
Do you have any photos of Mona as an adult?
My mother has never mentioned a half sister and my brother is not sure whether it is a good idea to tell her now. She is 86. We are still discussing what to do.
Janina
-
Janina,
How lovely of you to contact us. Fern (whose mother would be your first cousin) is here visiting at the moment; returns to Ireland tomorrow.
Could you please write us at
Moderator comment: e-mail address removed to prevent spamming and other abuse. Please use the personal message system to exchange e-mail addresses. Thank you
Janina will have to make three posts for before she can send and receive pms
-
Janina,
.
Thanks so much
-
Hi Janina
Welcome to RootsChat :)
Monica
-
I notice the pictures have been removed...just this afternoon..does anyone know how that happened?
Thanks,
Kathy
-
And the letters with the signatures. This is good, but I was wondering how that happened? Thanks
-
I can see image in replies 17, 19, 31, 45, 119 and 120
A copyrighted image has been removed from reply 84, might be due to it being an image from Ancestry.
Dawn
-
Dawn, I can't see any of the images either, and when I click the little link to the image, it says that an error has occurred etc...
-
None of the photos are there (119, and 120) nor any of the letters with the signatures..which at this point is fine but was curious about who did the editing!
-
Hi
Like Dawn, my co London and Middlesex moderator, I've checked back through the postings. There are two images on page 2, another on page 3 of signatures and on page 4 there is a letter. An image has been removed from a posting on page 6 by the Rootschat copyrighters and they have left a message as I did when I removed the email address. There is a photograph on page 8 and a photograph on page 9.
When moderators remove images/edit posts they leave behind a notice to say what they have done and why. The posters themselves can of course edit their own posts but not anybody else's.
Regards
Valda
-
Valda, this is odd :-\ Both you and Dawn are able to see the original posts on the thread that we can no longer see. All that is to be seen is an attachement link at the bottom of the relevant posts that when you click on take you to the error message (I've checked all of them and they are all the same). The copyright correction is clear and shows for all of us.
I did wonder whether this particular board was one of those where attachments were not allowed? Perhaps you and Dawn can see the attachments as normal with your Mod Hats on!
Monica
-
This is the specific message that come up when you click on the attachment links, if it helps:
An Error Has Occurred!
It seems that you are not allowed to download or view attachments on this board.
-
Hi
There is no restriction on images apart from if they are to big or for copyright reasons (or if they are problematic of course) on the county boards. There have been some temporary changes to the site recently as the whole of Rootchat has been subject to some necessary maintenance to speed up it all up, so this may be just a temporary blip.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda, Dawn, Monica!
I'm actually rather relieved that the pictures and letters are gone. I thought someone might have done an editing job and I thought they had done a great job!!
-
PM sent.
You can 'chat' with Fern on the personal message system if they become a member and make 3 posts.
Alternatively, use the personal message system to exchange your email addresses and chat away from here.
Dawn
-
solved problem
-
Hi, Monica,
The adoptive mother wrote to the registers office in 1932 asking for a birth certificate of Mona Julia Scott, born 2 April 1916 at Highgate. I am sure that's what she thought the child's name was. The answer, of course, was that they could find no birth registration by that name and suggested at that time that they legally adopt which I guess they hadn't before. Then a new birth certificate was supplied in the adoptive name.
hi kathy just reading through i was just wondering born in highgate i bet she was born at number 30 stanhope gardens where James and Alice lived if so maybe local GP/midwifes may have a record
-
Hi..Thanks, Paul...we've got the address where she was born..just have to make sure the two Monas are the same!