Scott/Adoption/1919..need help!

[wrighk00]

 The supposed birth mother wrote 4 or 5 letters before and after the adoption stating the child was born at Highgate on 2 April 1916 at mid-day.  She never mentioned the child by name in the letters.  The woman signed her name as A.T. Scott.  There is no registration for a child by that last name.  The woman gave her address as 13 New Quebec St.; Oxford Street, Marble Arch and seems to have received adoptive parents letters there. 

[Daisy Loo]

This story has pulled on me for some reason...I am not that experienced a researcher, but I'm learning!  How sad...I wonder why the "mother" gave up her child....

I have found 13 New Quebec St....it still exists today, right behind Marble Arch....it looks as though it could well be the original building.  If you have google earth...zoom in to street view, and click on no. 15....you'll see a place called "The Ritual Rooms"...that is No. 13 New Quebec St.   

(You can read about the place here: http://www.londontown.com/LondonInformation/Leisure/The_Ritual_Rooms/8fac/ )

There are a few options to try and find out the history of this place...you can right to the occupier now...and see how long they've owned it, and what they can tell you about what it was before etc...You can look up the Electoral Roll for this address, and see what it is.  I did this for an address in Bromley, and found it to be my great grandfather's barber shop, which I never knew he had!

If the mother really did name her Mona Julia, and registered her birth...the only London registration for a Mona J in 1916, was a Mona J Purdey OND, St Geo H Sq, MMN: MOY.  This of course could be a completely different person...AND, the mother may not even have given birth in London to the child!

I will continue digging   Hopefully more experinced people that are better than I will come on board

[Daisy Loo]

and I am very sorry!   Welcome to Rootschat....

Daisy Loo

[wrighk00]

Daisy Loo,
Thank you for your answer! 

[wrighk00]

Daisy,
One other thing the mother said was that circumstances were difficult; her business was not doing well; but that she would keep the child with her even through difficulties if the right home were not found for her.  She indicated she had received a number of answers to her ad for a home, but this seemed the right one. 

[Daisy Loo]

Okay...before I delve into your other posts...I have found the address on the 1911 census...and there are several "households".  Bear with me, while I quickly typw up names and occupations etc...

The names don't match at all...but does give some idea of the occupations and the set up...

[Daisy Loo]

Now bear in mind, that I only viewed the transcript, and not the original images!

There were 7 seperate Household Transcripts...I am not sure how this was worked out...if they were renting rooms...I can't tell either, who owned the building...

So :
1. Annie Varney    Aged 69 Occ: Housekeeper in Lodging House

2. John Ball  (Head)  Aged: 38 Scool teacher
    Josiah Ball (Lodger) 35 Shorthand Clerk

3. Francis Vaysse (Head) 38 Cafe & Confectioner   (this man was born in France....)

4. Alice Smith (Head)  54 Assistant secretary

5. Martha Cullen (Head) 32 Barmaid
    Ada Cullen (Lodger) 23 Barmaid

6. Rhoda Lily Sheaf (Head) 22 Barmaid

7. George William White (Head) 39 Domestic Butler (listed as married, but living alone??)

And that's who was living there in 1911.
Could it have been a cafe/confectioners then?

[Daisy Loo]

Do you have a copy of the advert? 
Is it known that the adoptive parents really wrote to the mother?  and that she received the letters?

Does that mean to say then that this child never had a birth certificate?  Just a few more things...!

I think it will be very hard to prove who the mother was on so little evidence...were the adoptive parents good to the child?

[wrighk00]

They seem to have had an ongoing correspondance for a month or more after the child was placed.