Ethel EMERY born c. 1885 - 1900

[neilby]

Hello and this is a long shot.  I'm looking for any information at all on my wife's grandmother, Ethel Emery.  All I have is my wife's mother's birth certificate (January 1916), which gives her mother as Ethel Emery but no details of the father.  Ethel was a general servant at 10 Frederick Place, Clifton, Bristol although she had her baby at 39 Ambra Vale East, Bristol.  Birth registered in the Clifton district of Bristol.

I've already tried the Bristol board, but no luck.  I've tried the 1911 Census for the addresses above and she is not listed at the Frederick Place address (which was a boarding house).  There was a servant there, aged 18, from Timsbury in Somerset.  Now Ethel must have started as a servant by 1915, probably earlier, and a possible theory is that she may have known the previous servant, if she also was from Somerset.  Hence my posting to this board.

A bit of a shot in the dark, I know, but I'm absolutely stumped with this.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Neil

[Willow 4873]

Hiya Neil

Welcome to Rootschat!

There is only one Ethel Emery listed on the 1901 census in Gloucestershire could this be her?

6 Brighton Terrace Easton Bristol

Fanny Emery head 47 widow b Tockington Gloucs
Ethel L Emery 19 dau b Bristol general servant
Edith M Emery 19 dau b Bristol cigar maker
Alfred L Emery 12 son b Bristol
James Stoneham 81 M b Old Sdodbury Gloucs disabled farm labourer

RG13/2388 Folio 31 Page 15

Ethel is also on the 1911 census in Bristol but unfortunately I havent any spare credits

Willow x

[Evie]

Hi Neil

Did your wife's Grandmother marry at all. If she did her marriage certificate would state her age and then it might be easier to trace her back on the census.

I could only see the one Willow found for you unless of course there is an entry which is transcribed wrong, but very difficult to trace when we haven't got any other info.

Evie

[stannarp]

Hi Neil,

Looked in the PR transcripts for Timsbury, no Ethel Emery born there between 1871 & 1901 which is a viable time frame if your wife's mother was born in 1916...

Looked on ancestry (as a matter of interest) for Ethel Emery b 5 years either side of 1890, found 24 for 1891 and 37 for 1901 - can't transcribe theme here as they are from Ancestry (sorry, that is all I have a subscription to in terms of census returns)...

Your best bet is to try to find her in 1911 (sorry, see you have tried that already!)...but that will only work if you have any more info...I've found that the buying 20 or 50 (can't remember what the minimum is) goes quite a long way if you've got specific questions!  Also, if you have any record of when or where her grandmother died or married, getting those certificates may give you a clue or two.

Regards,

Patricia

[neilby]

Thanks for all your comments.

In reply:- Willow, yes that could be the Ethel Emery, but it would mean that Ethel was 34 when she had her baby in 1916.  My instinct is that she would be younger - and the baby's father i.e. my wife's grandfather, was 21 when the baby was born.  But it just may be the one!!

Evie, the lack of info is the key here.  My wife's grandfather took his daughter to Scotland, when the baby was 6 weeks / months old - unsure when but very young.  Nothing is known about Ethel apart from the info on her daughter's birth certificate.

So, I'm just stuck, I feel.

Thanks again all.

Neil

[Evie]

Hi Neil

So Ethel never married? Do you know when she died or did the family just lose touch with her? Sorry to keep asking questions?

Evie

[Willow 4873]

Hiya Neil

Have you looked at this Ethel on the 1911 census?

Also what was the fathers name? and have you found him on the 1901 census - does it offer any clues?

Willow x

[neilby]

Evie and Willow, in answer to your questions, I don't know if Ethel ever married.  As far as I know, my wife's grandfather fathered Ethel's baby, but Ethel's family didn't wish her to keep it, so he took the baby back to Scotland, as that is where he and his family were from.  So apart from Ethel's name, I know nothing.

It would be good to think that the Ethel mentioned in the 1901 Census was the right one, but she would have been 34 when she had the baby - quite possible I know but I had always thought she would have been 18/19 when she had the baby?  I haven't looked at the 1911 Census yet for Ethel - only the houses mentioned in Bristol.  But I will need to do that.

Thanks again for your comments.

Neil

[Willow 4873]

Hiya Neil

Let us know what the 1911 says when you get round to it

Willow x