Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
No birth records found - do I have the right perso
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:06 |
I have a Matthew Smith Gaunt born around 1861. He does not appear in the birth records at the FRC for several years around then, nor have I found baptism details. I can't find him on the 1861 census (but maybe he wasn't born yet). I have his marriage certificate, death certificate and photos of him, so I know he existed!! On his marriage certificate he gives his father as 'Thomas Gaunt deceased - miner'. Do you think that I am safe in assuming that the Thomas Gaunt and wife Margaret (no marriage details either!) who are described as his parents on the 1871 and 1881 censuses were actually his parents? |
|||
|
Guinevere | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:16 |
Hi Angela, My instinct would be to see when the possible parents married. I would also look for a possible birth of a Matthew Smith. Thomas may have been his natural father but the child born before the marriage or Thomas could be his step father. Gwynne |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:22 |
Hi Guinevere - There is a birth record for a Matthew Smith born illegitimately to a Sarah Smith but neither appear on the 1861 census (and from Matthew's baptism date they should be there) and they are some way from where Thomas Gaunt was at the time. Maybe Thomas was Matthew's father but Margaret was not his mother? Thomas and Margaret are on the 1861 but living alone. Margaret is described as his wife. |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:32 |
Angela I think I've found them in 1861. Matthew isn't born yet, Thomas is a coal miner, born Armley and Margaret is a coal miner's wife, born Scotland. (the same as the details given in the 1871 census). RG9/3308 ED 5 Folio 77 Pg 12. I'm still looking for his birth, etc. Rachel |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:35 |
Hi Rachel - Yes, that's the one. I just wish I could find a marriage for Thomas and Margaret. It is possible that Matthew may have been the illegitimate son of one of Thomas's sisters and that Thomas and Margaret took him in and brought him up as their own child. The family seem to have specialised in that sort of thing!! |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:40 |
Have you tried finding the birth certs of their other children? That should give you Margaret's previous names, if she's been married before, etc and might help you to find the marriage. I know it'll cost a bit more sometimes you have to go the long way around! Rachel |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:44 |
I bought the birth certificate for one of Matthew's brothers which showed Margaret as being Gaunt formerly Dailey. Unfortunately this hasn't helped either!!! She was born in Scotland and I haven't been able to find her birth details. I think that I found her aged 8 working as a servant at an inn in County Durham!! The family moved up to County Durham when Matthew was a few years old, so maybe Thomas had been up there looking for work when he met Margaret. She was only 19 in 1861. On the 1871 census the people next door to Margaret and Thomas were called Dailey so perhaps they were her parents. |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 7 Jan 2006 08:58 |
I don't know what else to suggest Angela, sorry! I think you're better off waiting for the clever people to wake up & help! Good luck with it Rachel |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 09:25 |
Thanks, Rachel. I have been trying to find inspiration on this one for ages!! I am afraid that my brain just isn't big enough to work it out!! Thanks for your help anyway. |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 7 Jan 2006 10:36 |
Hi Angela Although civil registration started on 1 July 1837, less than a third of births, marriages and deaths were recorded in this was. The government realised this and tightened the laws surrounding civil registrattion around about 1870. Unfortunatly you are looking for a birth before 1871 so are less likly to frind it. You could look for a christening, but again there are no gaurentees. Lunar |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 7 Jan 2006 13:02 |
Hi Lunar - I think that you are right and that he was quite simply not registered. I will have to wait until I can get to the records office (which is rather a long way away!) to see if I can find a baptism. Thanks for your help. Angela |