RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Lancashire => Topic started by: planehome on Friday 11 September 15 12:09 BST (UK)
-
On a birth certificate for my mother-in-law, the address of the mother (May Schofield) is given as 89 Drake Street, Rochdale and she would love to know more as she approaches her 90th birthday.
I am confused as this is a shop! Any information/pictures would be gratefully received relating to these premises in or around 1925.
The birth, which actually took place in Birmingham, resulted in adoption - leading me to assume that the address was not May Schofield's home.
Thank you for any help/guidance.
Pete Lane
-
It might be worth doing a separate post headed 'electoral register lookup' if you don't have details of those registered at this property around 1924 -1926.
Rosie
-
Maybe she worked there and lived in.
-
Can I throw a new name in the mix as the possible mother?
Ida May Schofield born 1895, living in Rochdale in 1911?
-
Can I throw a new name in the mix as the possible mother?
Ida May Schofield born 1895, living in Rochdale in 1911?
Possible marriage before 1925 when child was born
Marriage Sep qtr 1916
James A Butterworth
Ida M Schofield
Rochdale 8e 106
death confirmed by probate entry with husband James Arthur Butterworth
Ida M Butterworth
Death Registration Sep 1955
Age at Death 60
Reg district Bury
-
I had considered a 'May' with June 1909 qtr birth ( I know she would only have been around 16 but not impossible) I think she married in 1933 and died in 1984.
I think that we need to know the occupants or owners of 89 Drake Street in 1925
-
In the birth cert of my MiL, May Schofield is declared as 'of no occupation', so it is unlikely she was working at the shop at 89 Drake Street, although not impossible.
Does this shop actually have accommodation above or behind it ? I am not local.
I am still trying to understand what type of family would send/be able to send their daughter to Birmingham from Rochdale to have a baby. She quite clearly stayed down their at least 12 days (birth was 10 October and letter of transfer was dated 22 October) which means the people in Birmingham were either friends or the stay was paid for - not an inconsiderable expense covering travel, a two week stay plus any medical care.
-
The mother's name on the birth cert is written as May Schofield - no indication of marital status. I have assumed that this is a maiden name and therefore she was unmarried prior to October 1925.
Of course, she could have been married and reverted to her maiden name if the baby was not actually the husband's.
I also considered May Schofields born up to 1910 - but this would have been a scary trip to Birmingham for a 15 year old and then to give birth away from her family.
-
We have not looked at May Schofield bn 1903 Rochdale RD. :-\ None of the Rochdale marriages look likely.
-
In the birth cert of my MiL, May Schofield is declared as 'of no occupation', so it is unlikely she was working at the shop at 89 Drake Street, although not impossible.
Does this shop actually have accommodation above or behind it ? I am not local.
I am still trying to understand what type of family would send/be able to send their daughter to Birmingham from Rochdale to have a baby. She quite clearly stayed down their at least 12 days (birth was 10 October and letter of transfer was dated 22 October) which means the people in Birmingham were either friends or the stay was paid for - not an inconsiderable expense covering travel, a two week stay plus any medical care.
Hello,
I have posted some relevant info on your other thread http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730509.0
Heywood
-
Most of the shops on Drake Street at the time would have had accommodation above the retail premises, as some had a third story as well, if you see photos of them. A lot have changed, but I see no reason why a family could not live "above the shop" in reasonable comfort. Many did.
Some of my family caused me some confusion at one time, as there seemed to be a trend for them to go back to their Mum for the birth of the first child especially, which meant until I realised that, I was a bit perplexed why the child was born in a different county to where the family lived.
In one case it wasn't made easier by Mum having re-married - so the surname of Mum was different from the maiden name of daughter. Always think round the problem - it often seems so obvious when you've actually solved it!
I'm sure you'll solve it. Good luck.
-
Just a note to say that the electoral registers for the relevant time are missing :'(
Heywood
-
Typical ::)
Thanks Heywood :)
Rosie
-
Thanks for checking on that, Heywood.
Obviously that would have made things too simple .... Ha !
-
I read a bit more about Mrs Crozier's case. It looks as though the mother was handing over the money to the adoptive mother and the Croziers may not be as I was judging them!
However, the bit re the absence from that Rotherham address may be a hint that there could be the odd lie.
I was thinking, as has been suggested that May was an employee, lodging above the shop but sadly no evidence.