RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Cheshire => England => Cheshire Lookup Requests => Topic started by: edwinblackmore on Friday 05 March 10 12:22 GMT (UK)
-
The 1891 census returns from Netherpool Runcorn show Walter E Blackmore 29 born Somerset , his wife Lucy Ann 28 born Devon and children Walter E 6 and Thomas J 2 both born Swansea - no sign of baby Lucy Ann born 18.1.1891 and registered 20.2.1891 in Ellsemere Port Runcorn.
Despite searching the 1891 census I have drawn a blank for a two and a half month baby. The family are complete and together on the Runcorn 1901 census at Shaw Street, However I cannot find Lucy Ann Blackmore (20) anywhere in the 1911 returns.
I believe her mother Lucy died in Cheshire about 1906 and in 1911 her father Walter and brother Thomas are in Bridgwater with Walter senior`s Grandparents, whilst brother Walter is married in Pontypridd South Wales.
Can fellow rootschatters suggest why a young baby is not with her mother on census day. Also has anyone access to Runcorn school records etc which might provide information on the elusive Lucy Ann
Help will be really appreciated.
Edwin Blackmore
-
Perhaps she was with Gran to give Mum a bit of peace? Baby doesn't have to be living there, only present at the time the census was taken.
-
I see the Blackmore family are not at home in 1891 - they are described as 'visitors', so they need only to have been at that address for that one night and could well hjave left the baby with rellies rather than take her with them.
Having said that I cant see Lucy elsewhere!
What was their home address two and half months earlier on Lucy's bith cert?
-
She could have married before the 1911, or of course she might have died.
regards.
-
If there is any descrepancy in the age at the 1901 census. She could have died and they had another daughter who they called by the same name, quite common practice.
-
Hi Edwin,
you may find an interesting story there.
I was looking at the 1891 to see if perhaps they were staying somewhere near a hospital to be near the baby while undergoing some sort of treatment, but discovered that this was not an ordinary residential area at all.
That page of the census, and at least several pages preceding that, describe the "street" as "Manchester Ship Canal Works" so it looks like it was some large encampment of people working to construct the new canal (finished in 1894).
Perhaps they were only very temporary visitors and had left the baby with another relative or friend or perhaps the baby was elswhere as it was not a safe environment for such a young child.
She may have been a "nurse child", or in hospital, or somewhere similar where her full name / accurate details might not be recorded.
-
Have you checked the address where Lucy was born yet?
-
She did not die as i have found her in 1901 - i'll type the details
-
living shaw st with Charles Shipley (Lucy's brother.)
charles age born 1855 (age 45 in 1901) BORN dERBYSHIRE
Walter age 38 carter
Lucy 43
edwin 17
thomas 13
lucy 11
RG13 3336 FOL 43 PAGE 3
-
Good idea of duckweed's, but as she is stated as age 11 in 1901 it does look like the same Lucy and not a second one.
-
i've looked to see if she was with the Shipleys in 191 but she was not.....
i reckon they hid her under a bush !!
debz
-
theres a "baby not named " with a Blackmore family in Essex bur says baby born in essex also a 50 yr old NURSE sarah Cramphorn born harlow
william Blackmore born devon CLAYHIDON age 41 farmer , wife anna
one of the sons called Walter !
census has them under BLACHMAN living in Willingale Doe
-
ps ...says baby age under 1 /12
-
Looks strong possibility that you've found her
-
Hello everyone,
the Essex family have a 10 yr old Mary Ann Blackmore in 1901 and there is a birth registration for June quarter 1891.
I too have speculated on the situations already outlined but there is also the possibility that Lucy Ann may just have been omitted - too small to think of by whoever filled in census. :-\
heywood