RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: Rowan Tree on Monday 19 January 26 09:02 GMT (UK)
-
Hi All,
I'm wondering if there's any significance to who registers a babies birth.
I'm looking at my great-grandmother who had eight children. Six with her first husband and two after her first husband died during WWI.
Seven of the eight births are registered by the mother, Edith Annie MOORE nee MADDOCKS.
Sadly, the third born baby died at 1 month old and the fifth born baby died at 6 months old. Both deaths are registered by the mother.
What stands out is the one birth that ISN'T registered by the mother, and that birth just happens to be my grandad.
My grandad, Arthur Robert MOORE, was the sixth and final child of his parents. My grandad was born after his dad had been conscripted and sent to fight in WWI.
My great-grandad, also named Arthur Robert MOORE, was recorded on my grandad's birth certificate as Sapper no. 178150 no. 1 company Royal Engineers. Journeyman Stone Mason.
I don't know the date when my great-grandad was conscripted and thus, can't confirm he was present when my grandad was conceived. It seems certain that he'd been sent to fight in WWI by the time my grandad was born on the 13th December 1916.
By grandad's birth was registered on the 19th December by Florence E. Wells, present at the birth, 17 Brookfield Street, Newton. I've no idea who this person is. The name and address isn't connected to anyone else in my family tree.
My grandad was born at 7 School Street, Newton.
This is all particularly curious to me because DNA has shown that my mum, myself and my cousin aren't biological MOOREs. We're biologically descended from my grandad's mum, Edith Annie nee MADDOCKS, but we're not descended from the MOORE family.
Either Arthur Robert MOORE senior wasn't a biological MOORE himself, or he is a biological MOORE and he wasn't my grandad's real father.
Any theories or thoughts would gratefully be appreciated.
Many thanks in advance,
Rowan Tree :)
-
NOTE: The "Newton" on the birth certificate is present day Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside.
It was in Lancashire when my grandad was born.
It was sometimes referred to as Newton-in-Makerfield.
And just to confuse matters, my grandad's birth address of School Street is actually in Earlestown.
-
Florence E Wells 'present at the birth' may have been a midwife?
Have you found her in the 1911 and 1921 Censues?
-
I wouldn't read too much into it.
She had just given birth (it may have been difficult, we don't know); she was caring for a large number of other children; she was running a household without the help of her husband who was away. She was probably exhausted.
A kind and helpful neighbour or the mid-wife registered the birth for her.
-
I was thinking the same. Florence is at same address in 1921 and 1939.
-
That's a really interesting concept. I would guess that in most households it's done purely out of convenience. Perhaps the mother is still suffering the after effects of birth, perhaps one member of the family routinely does administrative tasks, perhaps a member of the family was passing the register office on the way to work. My uncle registered a new family member after a visit to the pub. He unfortunately got his new son's two carefully-chosen names the wrong way round.
Zaph
-
Florence Elizabeth Wells was the wife of Wilfred Wells. Her former name was Pearson. Might not be her maiden name but a previous married name.
Added
Her maiden name was Cave and she was born in Ipswich Suffolk. So doesn't look like she's any relation of the Moore family
-
Thank you all for your replies. It's much appreciated :)
I wouldn't even be querying this if it wasn't for the fact that Arthur Robert Moore senior had several siblings (he was the eleventh of twelve children) and out the siblings who have descendants who've submitted their DNA to Ancestry, I'm not a match to any of them. Neither is my mum or my Moore cousin.
I've considered Florence E. Wells may have been a midwife or a friend. Women had both midwives and friends in 1916, obviously. I just don't know how often midwives or friends registered births. This is the only time I've encountered a birth in my tree where I don't know who the person is who registered the birth and the only time the person doing the registering isn't a relative.
When my great-grandmother had her final two children (1919 and 1921), after her husband had died, she was single and financially struggling but still registered the births of those children.
There might not be anything to discover or learn here. Florence may have simply been a friend, midwife, member of a local church helping women whose husband's were away at war and so on... It's just with the DNA (or lack thereof) and not knowing when exactly Arthur Robert senior was conscripted, it makes me particularly curious.
If anyone thinks of anything else, please don't hesitate to post. If I turn anything else up, I'll add it here.
Kind regards,
Rowan Tree :)
-
In the absence of a date of attestation I recall efforts in previous threads made to calculate a possible date or time period from the soldier number. But it is not an exact science.
For example, No 178019 appears against Sapper Robert W Gathergood attesting for the Royal Engineers, 6 June 1916, Regt or Corps 2nd R.B.R.E, place Norwich. I understand Nos. weren't allocated consecutively because of scattered recruitment depots? Nos. were possibly allocated in blocks so it is not possible to say with confidence that 178150 was issued after 178019.
Can someone confirm?
-
This undoubtedly falls into the catergory of coincidence but...
I've been going through the local paper for Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown and learned that in June 1970 there was a Florence Wells living in the same nursing home that my great-grandmother died in, in January 1973.
-
In the absence of a date of attestation I recall efforts in previous threads made to calculate a possible date or time period from the soldier number. But it is not an exact science.
For example, No 178019 appears against Sapper Robert W Gathergood attesting for the Royal Engineers, 6 June 1916, Regt or Corps 2nd R.B.R.E, place Norwich. I understand Nos. weren't allocated consecutively because of scattered recruitment depots? Nos. were possibly allocated in blocks so it is not possible to say with confidence that 178150 was issued after 178019.
Can someone confirm?
I've found a couple of soldiers with similar numbers who enlisted in Feb 1916
eg John Barrow Wyrill 178319 enlisted at Manchester on 22 Feb 1916
-
That's very interesting. Thank you.
I'm wondering what exactly happened to soldiers who were conscripted in 1916. What barracks would Arthur have first been sent to? There's an old barracks in Warrington that's got a WWI connection to the Royal Engineers. Could Arthur have initially been sent to this barracks? Warrington boarders Newton-le-Willows and at the time, both towns were in the same county. At various points in history, Warrington has been the registration district for Newton-le-Willows.
In October 1915 Arthur Robert Moore senior was living in Newton-le-Willows. His address at the time was 107 Crow Lane West. This is where the MOORE family where living when their baby died.
At this time, Arthur was employed by a local stone mason on Glover Street, off Wargrave Road, Newton-le-Willows. The monumental stone mason was named F. Plumbly.
Mr. Plumbly was close in age to Arthur. When conscription began, Mr. Plumbly appealed to the local tribunal who decided which men from the town would have to leave and become soldiers. In June 1916 Mr. Plumbly states that he is now the only mason left in the town and uses this fact to argue that he should not be sent to war. Mr. Plumbly found himself before the local tribunal several times and each time he successfully argued that he should remain.
I've read through all of 1916 (it's possibly one of the most bleak and heart rending things I've ever read) and I didn't spot my great-grandad. It doesn't look like he spoke to the tribunal, or if he did, it wasn't recorded.
-
Thanks for the response. Looking at JBW's docs
Page 2 Casualty Form
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 Service Reckons From (a) 22.2.16
Page 4 Casualty Form - amendments to Page 2
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 to 6.6.16 Service Reckons From (a)22.2.16 to 6.6.16
Page 7 Medical History
"Enlisted - Woolwich, 6 Jun 1916 Corps - Royal Engineers Regt'l No. 178319
Doc 2 appears to have been drawn up thru 1917. Struggling to determine when Regt'l No allocated.
-
Another possibility for registration. Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration. However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies ....
Pheno
-
Another possibility for registration. Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration. However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies ....
Pheno
I had a similar one a few years ago. The baby was registered 41 days after the date of birth which is a bit suspicious anyway. Informant was (like in this case) an unrelated woman living some distance away who claimed she was present at birth. The mother was a single woman but on the birth certificate appears to be the wife of a man who was probably the father. I also suspected that she didn't feel she could lie to the registrar and got a friend to do it. Or she could have lied to the friend who gave the registrar the information in good faith.
-
Thanks for the response. Looking at JBW's docs
Page 2 Casualty Form
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 Service Reckons From (a) 22.2.16
Page 4 Casualty Form - amendments to Page 2
Enlisted (a) 22.2.16 to 6.6.16 Service Reckons From (a)22.2.16 to 6.6.16
Page 7 Medical History
"Enlisted - Woolwich, 6 Jun 1916 Corps - Royal Engineers Regt'l No. 178319
Doc 2 appears to have been drawn up thru 1917. Struggling to determine when Regt'l No allocated.
Hello hanes teulu,
Thank you for your post. I'm apologising in advance because I'm not sure I understand what I'm reading.
What are "JBW's docs" and what do the dates relate to?
I should know more about researching WWI than I do. I'm not completely hopeless but I think I need pointing in the right direction with this one.
Many thanks, Rowan Tree :)
-
From AI:
"Making a false declaration on a 1916 birth registration in the UK would fall under the Perjury Act 1911, specifically Section 4, which addressed false statements related to births or deaths. This was a criminal offence classified as a misdemeanour.
Penalties on Indictment
Conviction on indictment could result in penal servitude for up to seven years, imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine. These were the maximum penalties outlined in the Act for wilfully making false declarations or certificates concerning birth registrations.
Penalties on Summary Conviction
On summary conviction, the penalty was limited to a fine not exceeding £100. This lighter option applied to less severe cases handled in magistrates' courts."
£100 could be getting on for 2 years' salary!
Zaph
-
Another possibility for registration. Maybe, knowing it wasn't her husband's baby Edith Annie didn't want to make a false statement at the time of registration. However a friend, when asked concerning the parentage could easily say who the mother was and who the mother's husband was without telling any porkies...
Pheno,
This is very interesting. Thank you :)
Yes. I can easily understand this scenario. In what feels like it was a more honest age, perhaps, I can imagine a mother feeling like she couldn't lie face to face with a registrar and wanting a friend to register a birth.
I believe Edith was a woman of faith and quite a principled person. She perhaps felt she simply could not tell a lie and was desperately hoping that her husband would return from war and she'd have a birth certificate that legitimised her son.
I wanted to add that I don't suspect my great-grandmother of having an affair (not all pregnancies are created consensually). I know she was very much in love with her husband and it was incredibly difficult for her when he died. She wrote to the local newspaper to share the news of her husband's death. When I accidentally came across what had been published in the paper, I found myself sat in Newton-le-Willows library crying in front of a microfilm machine.
Rowan Tree :)
-
I had a similar one a few years ago. The baby was registered 41 days after the date of birth which is a bit suspicious anyway. Informant was (like in this case) an unrelated woman living some distance away who claimed she was present at birth. The mother was a single woman but on the birth certificate appears to be the wife of a man who was probably the father. I also suspected that she didn't feel she could lie to the registrar and got a friend to do it. Or she could have lied to the friend who gave the registrar the information in good faith.
Hi LizzieL,
Thanks for this. I was hoping I'd read another person's experience of a birth registered by someone outside the family. As I've only experienced this once, I just haven't got anything to compare with.
I do have some death certificates where the certificate was produced after an inquest and signed by the coroner, but that's quite a different set of circumstances. And I think everyone has multiple, multiple marriage certificates with many a creative fib on them ;)
All these interesting comments are really helping me.
Rowan Tree :)
-
"Making a false declaration on a 1916 birth registration in the UK would fall under the Perjury Act 1911, specifically Section 4, which addressed false statements related to births or deaths. This was a criminal offence classified as a misdemeanour.
Penalties on Indictment
Conviction on indictment could result in penal servitude for up to seven years, imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine. These were the maximum penalties outlined in the Act for wilfully making false declarations or certificates concerning birth registrations.
Penalties on Summary Conviction
On summary conviction, the penalty was limited to a fine not exceeding £100. This lighter option applied to less severe cases handled in magistrates' courts."
£100 could be getting on for 2 years' salary!
.
Hi Zaph,
Thanks for this. I'd not even considered what the legal ramifications could be for lying on a birth certificate.
£100!!! There would have been absolutely no way that Edith could even begin to raise such a sum.
Edith eventually, and perhaps against the odds, remarried in July 1924. She had four sons from her first marriage and after her husband's death had two daughters who had been born with no father on the scene. She was literally penniless. My grandad said things were very hard. He spoke of being barefoot and of pinching food from nearby Earlestown Market to survive.
Rowan Tree :)
-
In the absence of a date of attestation I recall efforts in previous threads made to calculate a possible date or time period from the soldier number. But it is not an exact science.
For example, No 178019 appears against Sapper Robert W Gathergood attesting for the Royal Engineers, 6 June 1916, Regt or Corps 2nd R.B.R.E, place Norwich. I understand Nos. weren't allocated consecutively because of scattered recruitment depots? Nos. were possibly allocated in blocks so it is not possible to say with confidence that 178150 was issued after 178019.
Can someone confirm?
I've found a couple of soldiers with similar numbers who enlisted in Feb 1916
eg John Barrow Wyrill 178319 enlisted at Manchester on 22 Feb 1916
I was responding to LizzieL's reply. Using Regt'l No. to determine/estimate date of attesting/joining in the absence of a recorded date eg. your Arthur's situation. Only a medal record exists.
JBW is the John Barrow Wyrill above - LizzieL's find. His Regt'l No., 178319, is greater than Robert W Gathergood's Regt'l No., 178019 (my find), yet he appears to have attested/joined the Royal Engineers before Robert. However, checking JBW's record he enlisted 6 Jun 1916 not 22.2.16 which, oddly, is the same date as Robert W.
Regt'l numbers were not necessarily issued consecutively. They may also have been reissued? Therefore, it isn't safe to say the higher the no. in a regiment the later the date of enlisting. I've been casting around for army records with date of attestation and Regt'l Nos. close to your Arthur's and for the same regiment. Sadly, they do not exist.
As I said, an exact science it ain't but I've seen it used successfully in other cases.
Apologies for the confusion and an interesting post.
regards.j
-
One thing's been puzzling me - why couldn't I find a record on the Nat Archives or Anc* medal roll under 178150.
Seems his No. on these records is 148150. FindMyPast has him under both.
-
Florence E Wells 'present at the birth' may have been a midwife?
Have you found her in the 1911 and 1921 Censuses?
Hi gildie61,
Thanks for your comment and suggestion.
I've been looking into Florence Elizabeth WELLS' life to see if any clues jump out to me. If nothing else, I'm quite enjoying looking at her immediate family tree.
Florence was born Florence Elizabeth CAVE in Ipswich, Suffolk. DOB 04/11/1883.
I've not come across an Ipswich connection in either the MOORE or MADDOCKS families.
It looks like Florence is on the 1911 census as Florence Pierson, boarder, age 28, married 3years, 2 children, born Ipswich, Suffolk.
Also in the household are two Pierson children (but no Mr. Pierson), Winifred Edith and Arthur Edward.
Florence Elizabeth CAVE marries William David PEARSON in Liverpool, Lancs in 1911 (quarter 4).
17/05/1914 - A widowed Florence Elizabeth PEARSON marries Wilfred WELLS at St. Dunstan, Edge Hill. She lists her father as deceased but I think I've found him on the 1921 census.
1921 Census - Florence Elizabeth WELLS, wife, age 37 years and 8 months, married, born Ipswich, Suffolk, occupation home duties.
There are numbers in the employment box for Florence but the numbers could be relating to the box above (Florence's husband) or it could be the enumerator working something out. I don't know what the numbers mean because it's got 4 digits (followed by a dash and two more numbers), not 3.
The number is 3510 - 04.
Also on the 21 census is Florence's husband and two children:
Wilfred WELLS
Arthur Edward PEARSON
Wilfred Alexander WELLS
The family are living at 17 Brookfield Street, Newton-le-Willows.
1939 Register - The family are still living at 17 Brookfield Street, Newton-le-Willows.
There are 5 people in the household with the 4th person redacted.
Wilfred WELLS 19/03/1883
Florence Elizabeth WELLS
Nora WELLS born 27/08/1917
Redaction
Wilfred Alexander WELLS 28/02/1920
Wilfred WELLS died 12/06/1958 and is buried (or ashes interred) at Newton-le-Willows Cemetery.
The National Probate Calendar shows his address of 19 Wargrave Road, Newton-le-Willows.
BTW Wilfred was born in Seaton, Cumberland.
The MADDOCKS have a slight connection to Cumberland.
At some point soon after Edith Annie was born, Edith Annie's parents went to live in Workington, Cumberland. The family, with new children who were born, lived in Workington at least between 1887 and 1890. By the 1891 census the MADDOCKS' are living in Tranmere, Cheshire. Mr. and Mrs. MADDOCKS remain in Tranmere for the whole of their lives. I believe Edith Annie became estranged from her parents and by at least 1906 she's living in Ardwick, Manchester.
Florence died 02/06/1974 and is buried (or ashes interred) at Newton-le-Willows Cemetery.
Rowan Tree :)
-
I was responding to LizzieL's reply. Using Regt'l No. to determine/estimate date of attesting/joining in the absence of a recorded date eg. your Arthur's situation. Only a medal record exists.
JBW is the John Barrow Wyrill above - LizzieL's find. His Regt'l No., 178319, is greater than Robert W Gathergood's Regt'l No., 178019 (my find), yet he appears to have attested/joined the Royal Engineers before Robert. However, checking JBW's record he enlisted 6 Jun 1916 not 22.2.16 which, oddly, is the same date as Robert W.
Regt'l numbers were not necessarily issued consecutively. They may also have been reissued? Therefore, it isn't safe to say the higher the no. in a regiment the later the date of enlisting. I've been casting around for army records with date of attestation and Regt'l Nos. close to your Arthur's and for the same regiment. Sadly, they do not exist.
As I said, an exact science it ain't but I've seen it used successfully in other cases.
Apologies for the confusion and an interesting post.
regards.j
No apologies needed. I'm with you now.
Thanks for explaining. And many thanks for all your effort and help. It's much appreciated.
Rowan Tree :)
-
There's a fold 3 record on Anc* which I can't access - no 178150.
Looking at his medal card the 2nd character looks suspiciously like a 7 that is easily read as a 4?
-
One thing's been puzzling me - why couldn't I find a record on the Nat Archives or Anc* medal roll under 178150.
Seems his No. on these records is 148150. FindMyPast has him under both.
I don't understand this either ???
I found Arthur's medal index card on Ancestry under 148150
Army Registers of Soldiers' Effects on Ancestry under 178150
Soldiers Died in the Great War on Ancestry under 178150
It says enlistment place "Earlestown"
World War I Pension Card on Ancestry under 178150
World War I Pension and Ledgers and Index Cards on Ancestry under 178150
World War I Service Medal and Award Rolls on Ancestry under 178150
Arthur is on the CWCG under 178150. If I enter the 148150 number I don't get any results.
His headstone also has the 178150 number.
I'm not sure what the 148150 number is all about, unless it was wrote by mistake on the MIC..?
-
There's a fold 3 record on Anc* which I can't access - no 178150.
Looking at his medal card the 2nd character looks suspiciously like a 7 that is easily read as a 4?
I agree re. the 7 and 4.
I think I've got the fold 3 record. I'm just trying to work out what it was. It's been a while since I got the information.
If I remember correctly, Edith Annie's second husband, who was not a good man, wrote to the army or whoever dealt with pensions. I think he was trying to get money that was allotted to my grandad, his brothers, and mum.
EDIT: His name was Thomas Tither
-
Legally, a child born to a married woman would be deemed to be the child of her husband, no matter what the truth was, and therefore the husband would be recorded as the father on the birth certificate.
It is quite likely that Edith Annie didn't know this - why would she? So she may have sent someone else to avoid making a false statement herself. However, if she had gone and told the truth, the entry in the register would still have had to name her husband as the father.
Depending on whether Florence Wells knew who the baby's father actually was, it's also possible that she went to spare her friend from having to tell the registrar - and then discovered that she didn't need to.
-
Hello again,
I've just found something interesting.
When I was looking at Florence E. WELLS' children earlier, I missed a daughter who was visiting her paternal aunt and uncle in Workington, Cumberland on the 1921 Census.
The daughter is Ada WELLS born 10/12/1915 in Newton-le-Willows.
On the 1939 Register, Ada is still in Workington, living at the same address.
Ada has the occupation of NURSE MIDWIFE recorded!
I've currently got two separate examples of mother/daughter midwife duos in my family tree. I'm wondering if Ada WELLS' mother, Florence E. WELLS was also a midwife.
It is by no means certain that Florence was a midwife, but it's very interesting to know her daughter was.
It's also interesting to know that Florence's husband, Wilfred WELLS, once live in WORKINGTON, Cumberland as a child with his parents and siblings at roughly the same time as Edith Annie MADDOCKS was living in Workington with her parents and siblings. It's worth noting that the MADDOCKS family were in Workington for approximately 3 years only.
It could all be just a coincidence. But it's an intriguing one.
-
Legally, a child born to a married woman would be deemed to be the child of her husband, no matter what the truth was, and therefore the husband would be recorded as the father on the birth certificate.
It is quite likely that Edith Annie didn't know this - why would she? So she may have sent someone else to avoid making a false statement herself. However, if she had gone and told the truth, the entry in the register would still have had to name her husband as the father.
Depending on whether Florence Wells knew who the baby's father actually was, it's also possible that she went to spare her friend from having to tell the registrar - and then discovered that she didn't need to.
That a good point! I hadn't considered that.
Thank you :)
-
Hello again,
I've just found something interesting.
When I was looking at Florence E. WELLS' children earlier, I missed a daughter who was visiting her paternal aunt and uncle in Workington, Cumberland on the 1921 Census.
The daughter is Ada WELLS born 10/12/1915 in Newton-le-Willows.
On the 1939 Register, Ada is still in Workington, living at the same address.
Ada has the occupation of NURSE MIDWIFE recorded!
I've currently got two separate examples of mother/daughter midwife duos in my family tree. I'm wondering if Ada WELLS' mother, Florence E. WELLS was also a midwife.
It is by no means certain that Florence was a midwife, but it's very interesting to know her daughter was.
It could all be just a coincidence. But it's an intriguing one.
How very interesting Rowan Tree!
The hairs went up on the neck of my neck when I read this!
Of course it could just have been a co-incidence, but very intriguing as you say.
Funny where this family history research takes us isn't it? :)
-
Legally, a child born to a married woman would be deemed to be the child of her husband, no matter what the truth was, and therefore the husband would be recorded as the father on the birth certificate.
For registration purposes, not exactly. Under common law there is a presumption of paternity within a marriage so that is what allows a married woman to register her child and have her husband entered as the father on the entry without him having to be present to agree ( as an unmarried father would).
If a married woman does name her husband as the father knowing that to be false, or impossible, then she would be committing perjury.
-
My grandad, Arthur Robert MOORE, was the sixth and final child of his parents. My grandad was born after his dad had been conscripted and sent to fight in WWI.
My great-grandad, also named Arthur Robert MOORE, was recorded on my grandad's birth certificate as Sapper no. 178150 no. 1 company Royal Engineers. Journeyman Stone Mason.
I don't know the date when my great-grandad was conscripted and thus, can't confirm he was present when my grandad was conceived. It seems certain that he'd been sent to fight in WWI by the time my grandad was born on the 13th December 1916.
The 126th Field Company went to France in Sep 1915. ARM Snr doesn't appear to have been awarded the 1914-15 star so that implies he hadn't served overseas before 31 Dec 1915 and joined up with them sometime after. As conscription only began early 1916, I don't think you can be certain he was conscripted, maybe he joined voluntarily.
Have you considered that Florence Cave may be related to the father of ARM Jnr somehow and not just a friend/midwife etc? She has an older brother who is proving to be elusive post 1901 census.
-
How very interesting Rowan Tree!
The hairs went up on the neck of my neck when I read this!
Of course it could just have been a coincidence, but very intriguing as you say.
Funny where this family history research takes us isn't it? :)
I know, right!
I've now realised that although the MADDOCKS family were in Tranmere, Cheshire by the April 1891 census, Jonathan MADDOCKDS, Edith Annie's dad, visited Workington, Cumberland after the move.
On the 14th August 1891, The Workington Star reported that Mr. J Maddock, Birkenhead, delivered "a capital address." I think Maddock was a misspelling of Maddocks and I believe it says Birkenhead, rather than Tranmere because Birkenhead was where Jonathan Maddocks worked.
-
The 126th Field Company went to France in Sep 1915. ARM Snr doesn't appear to have been awarded the 1915-15 star so that implies he hadn't served overseas before 31 Dec 1915 and joined up with them sometime after. As conscription only began early 1916, I don't think you can be certain he was conscripted, maybe he joined voluntarily.
Have you considered that Florence Cave may be related to the father of ARM Jnr somehow and not just a friend/midwife etc? She has an older brother who is proving to be elusive post 1901 census.
Thank you for this. It's very helpful.
I can't see any evidence of ARM snr receiving the 1914 - 1915 Star. So, I think we have to assume he didn't become a soldier until 1916.
I've thought a great deal about conscription verses volunteering. I don't like to think he would have willingly left his family but I don't know for certain either way.
There are several things that make me think he was less likely to volunteer.
** He turned 34 in January 1916.
** He had three young children and a wife at home who were dependant on him.
** The family didn't have any extended family in Newton-le-Willows and didn't have a local family unit to fall back on. The family had left Manchester and the extended MOORE family when they went to live/work in Newton.
** Edith Annie was estranged from her family and they weren't local either.
** The family hadn't been in Newton long. The latest I can place the family in Manchester is the 10th December 1912 when their son, Valentine, was born. The earliest I can place the family in Newton is the 26th April 1915 when their daughter, Cecelia, was born.
It's admittedly difficult for me to think he left by choice.
I've been looking at how Florence could be connected to the family. If she is related, I'm yet to work that out.
I think I know who our biological relatives are in place of the MOORE's through DNA matches with living descendants.
I'm think we're descended from:
Samuel BARNETT b. 28/04/1851 in Hulme, Manchester
d. 16/09/1935 in Oldham, Lancs
Elizabeth Barnett nee ASPEY b. 14/11/1854 in Bidston, Wirral
d. 25/01/1926 in Chadderton, Lancs
That's not to say that Florence doesn't fit in somewhere with the above couple, though. But Florence has Suffolk ancestry and my DNA indicates that I don't. Or at least my mum doesn't and it's my mum who is a MOORE.
I really wish I knew when ARM snr left Newton for war. Not that knowing this would necessarily solve much. I still wouldn't be able to say if he was or wasn't my grandad's dad if he was around when Edith fell pregnant.
I'm still pondering and searching. I feel there is more to discover :)
-
Under common law there is a presumption of paternity within a marriage so that is what allows a married woman to register her child and have her husband entered as the father on the entry without him having to be present to agree ( as an unmarried father would).
If a married woman does name her husband as the father knowing that to be false, or impossible, then she would be committing perjury.
Thanks, Antony, I didn't know that. So if a married woman goes to register the birth of her child, and names a man who is not her husband as the father, what information is entered in the register, if he is not with her?
In 1916 would the index still show her married and maiden names?
-
The Newtown and Earlestown Guardian. 12 Oct 1917 carries a detailed report of his death and a tribute to him - but no clue as to attestation.
The 26 Oct edition carried a photo -
-
Under common law there is a presumption of paternity within a marriage so that is what allows a married woman to register her child and have her husband entered as the father on the entry without him having to be present to agree ( as an unmarried father would).
If a married woman does name her husband as the father knowing that to be false, or impossible, then she would be committing perjury.
Thanks, Antony, I didn't know that. So if a married woman goes to register the birth of her child, and names a man who is not her husband as the father, what information is entered in the register, if he is not with her?
In 1916 would the index still show her married and maiden names?
If the (unmarried) father wasn't present to sign the entry with her as a joint informant, then the father's details would be left blank, whether she named him or not. Her details, if she was truthful, would show her married name and her maiden name which would be reflected in the index.
Many married women having a child by someone else might take the much easier option of just naming their husband - I've seen a number of such examples for women who had been separated, or even widowed, for years. The chance of detection/prosecution would be minimal and it avoided an awkward and embarrassing conversation with the registrar I suppose.
Regarding attestation/enlistment dates you may want to look at the provisions of the Derby Scheme. Many men enlisted under that but then stayed at home waiting to be called for training (my own grandfather was probably one I believe, although his service record hasn't survived).
https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-group-scheme-derby-scheme/