RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Lancashire => Topic started by: Ouse who on Monday 02 November 09 20:29 GMT (UK)
-
In the course of trying to find where a Cockney settled, I have established that by 1891 George Bowler and his wife Emily were living at Ince in Makerfield (see earlier request).
The Lancashire BMD site lists 10 Bowler children born in Hindley sub-district between 1885 and 1898, seven of whom died as infants:
George Edward b1885 d1885 age 0
Annie b1886 d1888 age 2
Thomas Edward b1889 d1889 age 0
William Capel b1889 d1891 age 2
Rhoemena b1890
Elizabeth Jane b1891
Florence Bethada b1893 d1893 age 0
George Wilfrid b1894 d1896 age 2
George b1894
Annie b1898 d1898 age 0
I would dearly like to know if any of them belonged to George and Emily and I would appreciate someone with access to local records to check; there are rather a lot of certificates to order if they are not the family I am looking for :-\
Kind regards, O.
-
Hi,
George Edward b1885 d1885 age 0
Annie b1886 d1888 age 2
Family Search - parents George Edward and Emily
Thomas Edward b1889 d1889 age 0
William Capel b1889 d1891 age 2
There is a William with George and Emily in 1891- would this one be in census?
Rhoemena b1890
In census with parents Thomas and Mary (there is also a Glendora)
Elizabeth Jane b1891
Florence Bethada b1893 d1893 age 0
George Wilfrid b1894 d1896 age 2
George b1894
Annie b1898 d1898 age 0
so that's a few less
heywood
-
If you look at Wignworld they have records for INce cemetery.
George Wilfred's death is listed 1896 aged 2 yrs living at 65 Ingram St.
Does this address ring any bells? If not probably another one to eliminate?
Unfortunately there are not many Bowlers listed only 3 in fact!
Hope this has helped somewhat
Cheers
Jen
-
Hi Heywood and Jen,
Thank you for the advice.
I don't know enough about the family yet to know about the address Jen, although I have found that it is in Pemberton, where in fact there were a further 3 infant Bowler deaths between 1888 and 1889, Alice (0), Fred (0), and George (0). :(
I don't yet know how many families are involved here, but it strikes me as very high mortality rate in a short space of time.
George snr died age 39 in 1900. Any additional information would be much appreciated - I am new to these parts, and am just getting my bearings! :)
Kind regards, O.
-
Me again,
might be a silly question...
Have you got the 1901 census? If you look up Ada (Ellen) Bowler she is aged 18 born barrow (fits with 1891 return) you can probably see who she is living with.
I find this useful sometimes to eliminate infant deaths where a name appears as 'living'. Eg. if there is a child named George in 1901 who was born during the 1890's then you can eliminate the other Georges that were born and died during the 1890's. Does that make sense? Perhaps not ::)
Do you know when Emily the mother died? If so and it was after 1911 you can see how many children she had. Isn't the 1911 census suppose to record how many children dead or alive a woman had?
Cheers
Jen
-
Aha!
It works :) it seems Emily is living with Ada Ellen aged 18, then theres a jump down to Elizabeth Jane aged 9 (that would be the one born 1891 - so she survived), then theres George aged 6 (born 1894) and John born 1900 aged 0.
Which means you can most likely rule out George Wilfred born 1894.
So, so far looks like the family is:
Ada Ellen - 1882
George Edward - 1885
Annie - 1886
William - 1889
Elizabeth Jane -1891
George - 1894
John - 1900
The ones we can eliminate are:
Rhoemena - 1890
George Wilfred -1894
George - 1885
George - 1899
And the outstanding ones:
Thomas Edward - 1889
John - 1892 (found another!)
Florence Batheda - 1893
Annie - 1898
Alice -1898
Fred - 1899
Annie and Alice were born in different quarters so at the very least one of them is not yours!
Thomas E is probably not yours either as he was also registered in September quarter as Will C BUT listed on completely different page numbers - and no not pages that would appear next to each other which eliminates twins (my assumption anyway)
Fred is a ? he was registered Dec qtr 1899 which makes it a close call considering John who is alive in the 1901 census was registered Sep Qtr 1900, doesn't leave much time really... but it is possible I suppose!
And the same goes for John 1892. He is listed Sep Qtr but Elizabeth listed Dec Qtr 1891 - again a close call but it can be possible.
Hope this has helped somewhat!
Cheers
Jen :)
-
Jen your a star,
I had just got back from National Archives (just up the road) where my wife and I had been looking at the 1901 census (and Old Bailey records*), to find your very nice post. I think you (and Heywood) between you have all the ducks in a row there, many thanks. ;D
George's mother Rhoda was was killed in 1861, when he was just one year old, so we have been trying to piece together what happened to the him after her death.
Kind regards, O.
* See my posting today on Middlesex.
-
Glad it was of some use!
And just to add something further if you don't already know...
1911 census seems to indicate Emily Bowler listed as EMMA
Emma seems to share a household with at the very least:
George aged 16
John aged 10
Albert aged 4
Obviously George and John are hers, Albert could be a grandson? The girls are no longer there but could be married.. You'll have to access the transcript for more info.
I got this from a basic search of the 1911 and they are living in Ince, Wigan Lancashire
kindest regards
Jen :)
-
Hi Jen,
Thank you very much for that 1911 census entry - I didn't have it.
Lots to get my teeth into now. Having learnt the circumstances of his mother's death last night, I think it is highly likely that George (d 1900) had survived a terrible rail crash in London in which his mother died. :(
Kind regards, O.