RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Hertfordshire => Topic started by: Bartonin NZ on Friday 15 November 19 09:47 GMT (UK)
-
I have two birth registrations that have confused me and would like another opinion please.
Birth Reg 1/ District Cheshunt, Edmonton 3A/188
13 Dec 1864 Charles William Pearson Cockle to John and Annie (formerly Barker) Cockle
Born at Hatton Road. Registered 16 Jan 1865.
Birth Reg 2/ District All Souls, Marylebone 1A/415
25 Mar 1865 Charles William Pearson Cockle to Elizabeth Cockle.
MA Rhodes present at the birth at 45 Newmans St, Marylebone. Reg 23 Sept 1865 (6mths after birth)
Then Elizabeth Cockle married a William Charles Pearson at St James Westminster 19 Jan 1870.
1871 Census William and Elizabeth and 6 year old Charles W live on the London Rd Sussex.
Charles William Pearson never appears again with John and Annie Cockle.
John Cockle and Elizabeth Cockle are siblings.
Did Annie give birth and then Elizabeth adopt the baby? If so how did MA Rhodes witness the birth at 45 Newmans St? Or maybe another explanation lurks around the corner....
-
Order the two certificates from the GRO to get clarification.
-
Order the two certificates from the GRO to get clarification.
The information given appears to have come from the birth certificates
-
Correct. I Have both PDFs from GRO.
-
Birth Reg 2/ District All Souls, Marylebone 1A/415
25 Mar 1865 Charles William Pearson Cockle to Elizabeth Cockle.
MA Rhodes present at the birth at 45 Newmans St, Marylebone. Reg 23 Sept 1865 (6mths after birth)
Is 45 Newmans Street entered as place of birth or address of informant
-
Address of birth and where the informant MA Rhodes was present at the birth.
-
The use of Pearson as a forename, and Elizabeth's later marriage to William Charles Pearson, might suggest that Elizabeth was the mother, but that initially her brother registered the birth as if one of his own. But I don't know how you'd prove this.
I note that the 1871 census shows Charles as born in Cheshunt, which was in the Edmonton district, and that Elizabeth was born there too.
However, a few more questions might help...
Who was the informant for the Jan 1865 (Edmonton) registration?
Do you have a baptism for Charles, which might give useful information?
Are there any later records with Charles's date of birth, eg school admissions registers, 1939 register?
Did John and Annie have any children, and if so, would any pregnancies exclude Annie from giving birth to Charles in Dec 1864?
Any idea who MA Rhodes was (from censuses etc)?
-
Mary Ann Rhodes is at 45 Newman St, Marylebone, in 1861 (no occupation). She is the 40yr old wife of William Rhodes, a cabinet maker. They are one of three households at the address. Ref is RG9/66/48/20.
Still at the address in 1871: RG10/148/55/40.
Perhaps she was prepared for a bob or two to say she had been present at a fictitious birth?
For what it's worth I'd think the most likely explanation - in light of the child's given names - is that he was the biological son of Elizabeth and William, falsely registered as a child of John & Annie in the first instance for respectability's sake.
-
This looks like a baptism....
Charles William Pearson
Born 25 March 1865
Bapt 26 Nov 1873
Father William Charles Pearson
Mother Elizabeth
St James Westminster London (where the couple were apparently married)
PB
Added: transcription from FHL film 1042313 on "Anc", no image apparently available
-
Not relevant but looks like William Charles Pearson was at Eton School/College in 1851 aged 16.
HO107; Piece: 1718; Folio: 490; Page: 31
& in 1871 is late captain in the army. I cannot find an army record. He may be the W Pearson aged 24 born Lincolnshire in 1861 in Aldershot
RG09; 431; 194; 22
Who was the informant for the Jan 1865 (Edmonton) registration?
Are there any later records with Charles's date of birth, eg school admissions registers, 1939 register?
Did John and Annie have any children, and if so, would any pregnancies exclude Annie from giving birth to Charles in Dec 1864?
Looking forward to hearing answers to these questions.....also had William left the army by the time of his marriage in 1870?
ADDED: I was interested in this thread because an ancestor's birth was registered twice but for a different reason - once by hospital & once by mother
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=759201.0
-
Apologies for the silence but needed sleep (NZ time).
The informant on the first birth registration Jan 1865 was Annie herself.
Charles William Pearson died 1929 - so not alive for 1939 register.
John and Annie had a space of 5 years between child born 1862 and 1867 and the next six births were spaced 2-3 years apart.
I think avm228 that your assumption sounds the most likely.
-
Altho thinking about another option:
On the 1861 census Elizabeth was living at home with mother and stated she was an engineers wife, she was 29 years of age at this time. At the earliest birth registration of 1864 Elizabeth was 32.
Elizabeth and William had no other children. Maybe Elizabeth couldn't have children so John and Annie gave Elizabeth their second born. Why would Elizabeth register the birth 6 months after the birth date which was still prior to her marriage in 1870? William died in 1874.
I thought avm228 had the most plausible explanation and then I couldn't forget about the other option.
-
Hmm that's plausible too; but why would John & Annie have called their own son Charles Pearson? Unless the plan was already hatched & Elizabeth already involved with William. Separately, why would Elizabeth say she was married in 1861?
-
If William was an Old Etonian Army officer then perhaps it was an inequality in socioeconomic status which meant he didn’t marry her at first.
I see that Elizabeth’s mother Lydia was widowed by 1851 and (with her 7 children) was living with her “pauper” parents. Elizabeth and two of her sisters were servants. This modest or even impoverished background would not have been unusual, but it wouldn’t normally place Elizabeth in a position to be courted by somebody of William’s apparent social status.
Perhaps they were in a covert relationship and Elizabeth did not expect him to acknowledge or support the child - hence the lies about his parentage on first registration (albeit with very pertinent given names to send a message to William) but things changed and he was later registered with the correct parentage, the marriage following a few years later.
-
Did any of John and Annie Cockle, and William and Elizabeth Pearson, leave a will? Or, indeed, any of their parents? If so, there might possibly have been a bequest to Charles, along with an explanation of the relationship if it wasn't entirely as it appeared.
For example, since Charles wasn't a legitimate son of William, the only way he would have been able to inherit from him would have been if he was explicitly mentioned in a will. And since there was no formal adoption in those days, then if, say, he'd been informally adopted by Elizabeth he wouldn't have inherited from her unless similarly mentioned. A will that named someone like that wouldn't necessarily explain the relationship, but it might.
-
Thank you for those suggestions arthurk. I will look to see if any did leave a will, although am not convinced I have the correct death for William. At this very moment I am checking his details.
Have read John Cockles Will and there is nothing relating to Charles Pearson.