Hello Rosie,
What a beautiful photo.
And what a difficult puzzle - or puzzles as there are two.
Were Fred TALBOT and Frederick John BUTLER one and the same person?
Who was Fred TALBOT?
It appears that, unless you are prepared to spend a great deal of money, you really need to search the Poor Law records yourself.
Of course we must be very careful about making assumptions but it does seem very likely that Fred TALBOT and Frederick John BUTLER are one and the same.
If they are not, then two birth records are missing. If they are the same, then it is only one birth record which is missing - and good suggestions have been made re possible reasons.
Excellent advice has been given but mainly concentrating on using the Poor Law records to try to find Fred TALBOT before 1901.
I know nothing about Poor Law records so these thoughts might be way off the mark - if so, I apologise in advance.
I am wondering whether it might be worth searching the Poor Law records up until 1906. It seems likely that Walter would have tried to keep himself and Fred out of the Workhouse - and therefore he might have been an applicant for relief at any stage between 1901 and 1906, but perhaps particularly after Jane's death in 1904 when (it seems) he would have been left with the care of a 6 year old. And this would have been particularly difficult given Walter's occupation (noting that, in 1901, Walter was a comedian in what seems to have been a travelling group of performers - all six listed as Visitors in a household in Leicester, and five of them born in London).
If any documentation can be found (and I note from the leaflet recommended by Valda that there are few surviving records of out relief), there just might be some clues to show whether Fred TALBOT and Frederick John BUTLER are one and the same.
If the 'nurse child' status of Fred TALBOT in 1901 was a formal one, I wonder if there might be ongoing records (i.e. after 1901) relating to Jane's continuing status as a 'foster' parent - and then transferring to Walter after her death. Or were such children normally taken back into care i.e. into the Workhouse, once they had reached a certain age? Unless the 'fostering' family, having grown to regard the child as their own by then, was willing to take over the financial responsibility?
I am also wondering (perhaps Valda can advise) whether Walter might have needed to present Fred as his son (and thus give Fred's surname as BUTLER) so that they could be admitted together to the Workhouse?
Or it might just be chance i.e. by then Walter possibly regarded Fred TALBOT as his son and said 'this is my son Fred' and the admitting officer automatically entered BUTLER for Fred's surname.
Just some thoughts ...
JAP
