RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: harewood on Monday 09 November 20 22:38 GMT (UK)
-
hi,
I know for certain my great grandfather Isaac Reades/Rhead/,Read was born in the Leek /Horton area of Staffordshire on 18th January 1840.
i can find baptism records of all his brothers and sisters but not him
Neither does the GRO have a birth certificate.
All subsequent records ( censuses, wedding certificate point to his being born then and in that location.
he might have been christened a Methodist but I cant find any non conformist records for that are or period?
All suggestions welcome!
regards
Harewood
-
Start with his siblings, who, when, where and the mother's maiden name.
When and where did the parents wed?
Pauline
-
How do you know his birth date for certain without his birth certificate - where is it from please?
-
This may be him, not named yet?
Births Mar 1840
Reade Male Leek 17 68
Annie
-
to answer these two questions
1. My grandfather meticulously kept records and they include the date of his father's birth on 18 January 1840. I have looked at the 1841 census records onwards and each one confirms his year of birth, his parents, his brothers and his sisters. I also know his mother's maiden name. Martha Findler. I have his parents wedding certificate. I have everything but his birth certificate and a copy of his baptism record. There is also ne record in the BMD register which was set up three years before his birth.
-
hi Rosinish. i found that about a couple of years ago and got a certificate. it has an entry described 'Baby Reade' but with a different set of parents .I know he and I are related because we have a DNA match
-
I have the same problem relating to my 2 x g.grandfather although he was born in 1834 so there won't be a birth certificate. I found the baptisms (I actually visited the archives and saw the actual parish registers) of his older siblings - including 2 older sisters I didn't know about - and also his younger brother, but nothing for my 2 x g.grandfather. My feeling is that his eldest "sister" was his mother and also the mother of his youngest brother. Unfortunately, she died soon after the youngest child was born and the youngest one was baptised as though my 3 x g.grandparents were his parents. However, on the 1851 census, he was living with his surviving "sister" but listed as nephew!!
Perhaps something similar happened with your g.grandfather
-
Have you found him in all census' to determine anything which may seem odd?
What Lizzie describes is a possibility.
Annie
-
hi Annie,
No I have checked every census and all his siblings up until his death in 1900. everyone gets an extra ten years and no absences or extras until they got married.
The only thing I wondered was as BMD was in its infancy maybe it was sporadic in the wilds of places like rural Staffordshire?
-
In the early days of registration it was the responsibility of the Registrar to go out and register Births, quite a lot went unregistered.
I have a whole family in the 1850s and 1860s who were unregistered, as well as quite a few others.
It was only after 1875 that the onus was on the parents to register the births.
-
Is he the oldest child? If so, could he have been born before his parents' marriage and registered under his mother's maiden name?
-
When I was looking last night, before knowing mother’s name, I’m sure there was a James born right time right place with mothers name Findler.
Have you got a James or might that be Isaac? Worth checking out if only to eliminate.
-
no . He wasn't the oldest child but I think Jebba has the answer!
Thanks all
Harewood
-
The original 1836 Birth & Death Registration Act was poorly worded, it said it was the registrar's duty "to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District". This has caused endless debate amongst researchers ever since.
I don't think there was ever an intention (or requirement) that the registrar go out and walk the streets of the district seeking out babies or bodies - in fact the only specific requirements were that he should live in his district, have a name plate placed in a prominent position near his front door and advertise where he was to be found.
Reading the Act in conjunction with the correspondence files of the Registrar General of the time does make it very clear that the intention was that registration was compulsory, but there was some confusion (and some resistance to it) in the early years.
Studies show that in those early years the rate of non-registration of births was about 6-8% (but some say higher/some lower and it does vary quite widely in different districts ) but that rate fell quickly reaching about 1-2% by the time of the 1874 Act, which clarified the various responsibilities and put the onus clearly on the parents. But that does still mean a significant number of births, and some deaths, did go un-registered, and I have seen a number of examples where some births in a family have been registered whilst one or two not, and for no discernible reason.
There are recorded cases of prosecutions for failing to register right from the early days - one I use as an example in a talk I give is from a Quarter Sessions case in 1839. The mother is convicted, but interestingly the court doesn't know what to give as a penalty because the Act doesn't specify what it should be (it only talks about payments & fees due to the Supt Registrar).
-
I think Jebba might have the answer too as I have a handful of ancestors who just weren't registered.
However, I have one ancestor who was registered under one name (Mother's Father's name) and then they changed his name ( to Father's Father's name) and he never got called by his registered name again. Then the second son was registered with the same name that first son had been registered with.
Missed AntonyMMM's good explanation in the time I was typing.
-
no . He wasn't the oldest child but I think Jebba has the answer!
Thanks all
Harewood
The only problem is that you can't find his baptism either. Even if births went unregistered there was usually a baptism and as you say you have found the baptisms of his siblings. That is my problem with my 2 x g.grandfather. All other siblings baptised but nothing for him. That's why I think his eldest sister could have been his mother, maybe he was born away from the family home if she was working as a domestic and she just didn't get round to baptising him. When the 2nd child was born and she was dying, obviously she came home and then after her death her parents had that child baptised as though they were the parents.
-
That is true, I was able to find baptisms for my unregistered ones too.
I think that is plausible too. I have never been to find a baptism for my Grandmother and it was her 'eldest sister' who was actually her Mother. Thankfully, the truth was on Grandmother's birth cert. Although one of the census would suggest otherwise.
-
That's very true. The only lateral thought I had was that I know my grandfather ( his son) was married in a Methodist church in Leek. it was round about the time that Wesleyan Methodism was taking off in that area. so I wonder if he had been baptised as a Methodist? i don't know if it's possible to get hold of non Conformist baptism records for the Leek area. I've never found any.
-
When I was looking last night, before knowing mother’s name, I’m sure there was a James born right time right place with mothers name Findler.
Was it this one?
READ, JAMES
Mother's Maiden Surname: FINLOW
GRO Reference: 1840 M Quarter in LEEK UNION Volume 17 Page 50
-
FamilySearch says this is "marriage banns", so have to be careful with date
John Read + Martha Finlow, 18 Jan 1831, Horton, Staffs
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL76-CR5P
Isaac Reades, 1, in the 1841 census with John and Martha (though not in Leek RD)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQTW-H72
-
Different person!
FreeREG has a baptism, 8 Nov 1840, Wolstanton
James, son of John and Martha Rhead
Abode Knutton, father a Farmer.
In Knutton in 1851, James Rhead, 10, son of John (a farmer) and Martha.
-
Swings back again!
Knutton James eliminated!
RHEAD, JAMES
Mother's Maiden Surname: BRAYFORD (as per siblings)
GRO Reference: 1840 D Quarter in WOLSTANTON AND BURSLEM UNION Volume 17 Page 280
It does look worthwhile investigating the James Read registration in Leek, March 1840. As flagged up by Millie! :)
-
hi
i have that certificate!
has mother named Sara Jane ( different) has occupation Miller. (same) different father's name( James)
Same Q in BMD
Different mill
No alternatives!
real mystery
-
Sorry to hear that. It looked promising for a while!
Very frustrating for you, I know.
John
-
FamilySearch says this is "marriage banns", so have to be careful with date
John Read + Martha Finlow, 18 Jan 1831, Horton, Staffs
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL76-CR5P
Isaac Reades, 1, in the 1841 census with John and Martha (though not in Leek RD)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQTW-H72
Yes they are the parents. Married in Horton Church a week later. I have the record
-
hi Rosinish. i found that about a couple of years ago and got a certificate. it has an entry described 'Baby Reade' but with a different set of parents .I know he and I are related because we have a DNA match
Have you found then who 'Baby Reade' was through census' with his named parents?
Annie
-
hi Annie
record says James Reade Miller. Wife Sarah James. Born 10th March 1840. Cant find it in BMD records
-
Ok, if we forget the birth date for now, have you found that 'Baby' from his birth through all the census' with the named parents or does he disappear?
I would check this out, his mother/parents may have died & possibly James brought up by your relatives?
That's how I would go about it anyway & if parents haven't died, he's not with them in census' then look for a death, if no death then may be your James?
Annie
-
Is adoption a possibility? I'm pretty sure that so early it could well have been very casual, and so little if any chance of records.
-
hi Threllfall
sadly not.. I've got an DNA connection going back four generations
-
Okay. Just a thought.
-
and thank you for it! I'll get there eventually!