Searching for Lost Children

I wrote on here a plea for help a while back about a similar problem, and Peter and other members gave me some good advice about how to go about my search. It was only when I had looked carefully at the 1911 census at how many children were born, and how many were still alive, that I realised my great grandmother had given birth to more children than I thought. I worked out, by looking at my ggrandparents marriage, that it meant my grandfather had a sibling who had died some time between the 1901 and 1911 census. I can work out the approximate area by looking at the birth places of the other children, which is Poplar (probably Tower Hamlets) and considering the fairly equal amount of time between most of the births I can narrow the time I need to search down to July 1908 at the very earliest and March 1911. It is still means I may have to send away for a fair few certificates which I may have to do bit by bit, but it is feasible. I really hope you manage to find your missing children, and knowing that someone else has a similar 'block' has inspired me to have a go at searching again.

 

I appreciate that Liberty is looking for the most cost effective way but I did wonder if following the excellent example given by Peter the same idea could be applied to narrowing down a search as well in parish records at the Durham County Record Office. On thinking it through it is not likely to be cheaper particularly if you had to pay for research as well as copying. As far as I can see the parish records haven't been completely digitised or copied by Ancestry or FMP to make an on line search viable so the process I am suggesting might be of interest. Certainly if this search develops into an article for the newsletter it would be instructive to mention whether or not a parish record search could be helpful.
Of the twenty or so churches in the South Shields area it would be likely that Liberty's GGM was married and had her children baptised in at least the same denomination and if the banns and record for one surviving child were found it would confirm that likely the right church had been chosen. Unfortunately it doesn't look as if FreeReg would be of any help but there appear to be extensive records of six churches within the ancient parish of St Hildas South Shields in the archives.

 

Friends (cousins?) I am really appreciative of your suggestions. I note especially that Carla has had the same problem and is encouraged by mine. (Shared grief?)
Following Peter's useful ideas I have the list down to about ten 'worth considering' but can't see how to go further at present. The three boys that I knew of (my GF and 2 great uncles), plus one girl that I didn't were all christened in Anglican churches in South Shields whose records are on familysearch. This rather implies to me that the others never got as far as the font, possibly died very young. (Unfortunately, not all my family events are at the same church - good idea, though, BritJan)
A really constructive idea of Peter's was that, since the ones I knew of had 2 or more Christian names, I should concentrate on children who also had 2 names. I may be discarding a 'correct' answer but this does look a way of closing in on one or more of my GGM's children. The interval between children is not much of a lead, as there is room between all the 4 that I know of to fit in another baby. And my GGF was away at sea for long periods which has an effect on such things.
If I was in a position to search Durham Records in person I think I would do so. The odds have shortened from searching over 100 deaths to perhaps ten. And, of course if I found one, it would reduce the other possibilities. Not for the names, of course, as they might have gone on and on naming a babies John, but it would create a no-go area for a period before an after the birth.

 

Now that Liberty is a celebrity in Peter's latest newsletter perhaps she won't want to associate with us lesser mortals . When I read her account in the newsletter I realised that I had missed this point "And my great-grandfather was away at sea for long periods (he was never at home for a census) which has an effect on such things."
So I throw out this possibly crazy notion ......If her ggf can be found on crew lists or perhaps with even greater luck Liberty can pinpoint a ship he might have sailed and then that ship's sailing list it would help confirm some of her deductions. Of course if she was searching in London she'd have the bonus of the 1.7 million registrations of school admissions and discharges between 1840 and 1911 to help as well if some of the missing little ones survived infancy. I've found several relevant records where the children are only three.

 

BritJan I shall ALWAYS want to associate with you. Many thanks to you and the others who put forward suggestions.

I had thought about my GGF's absences, which at least means no baby 9 months after the 1891 census - but my grandfather was born Feb 1891 so that wouldn't have got me much further.
He appears on just 2 crew lists on Findmypast; one is before he married and one in 1908, which is after the period I was considering. I know the shipping line he worked for, but not the ships. Probably the info is 'somewhere' but would require plodding through countless ledgers.

 

Liberty, have you searched on the National Archives records? I have found some of my ancestors listed on various crew lists on TNA when I have drawn a blank on FMP and Ancestry. I recently visited TNA for the first time (after promising myself a visit for many years) and almost had to be dragged out again, I found so much of interest!

 

........and don't forget my very favourite.... The Ship's List which I have mentioned on the forum before. It doesn't mention crews as such but is invaluable in tracing ship history and you can get a sense of how long some voyages took.

 

I have just FOUND a lost child and don't know how to pin her to my family.

Looking for a relative, Robert Watson London, I found a photo of his grave grave in Wandsworth cemetery, listing
Robert died 23 July 1898 aged 38 years, his wife Emma d 17 Nov 1893 aged 37 years
And on same stone is Winifred Maggie Rawlings d 6 Apr 1900 Aged 5 years and 4 months

I have identified her, with parents George Joseph Rawlings (b c1844 Putney) and Sarah Tilsed Way (b c1850 Poole) but have no idea how these might link to my family.
I am quite puzzled as to how an unrelated child would be buried in the same grave as a couple, 2 years after the later one had died. There are circumstances (such as pauper burials, etc.) where people share a grave, but then you don't usually have burials at 3 different dates or run to a headstone.

Any ideas?

 

Could it be to do with ownership of the grave? I suspect there must be a family connection between the parties. When I find an ancestor on the Manchester Burials website, the grave is often shared with other family members interned at earlier or later dates. Sometimes, a deceased person of a name not known to me, turns out be related by marriage etc. after further research identifies them. In your case you know the child's identity/parentage but need to find the connection to "the Watsons"
perhaps?

 

Hi Liberty, I have found a probate notice which might help..........
Robert Watson London of 67 North Street Clapham Surrey carpenter died 23 July 1898 Probate London 2 Dec to Arthur Rawlings contractor effects 20 pounds.

So there is some link between the London and Rawlings names, what it is, who knows? Maybe if you search the census records for 1901 the Londons and the Rawlings families may have been friends or neighbours or work colleagues and Arthur allowed them to bury Winifred in their family grave, just one suggestion of many that will appear soon on this site, I've no doubt!!!!

 

Great ideas! - keep them coming!

Heather, thanks for the note of the probate, you have certainly established some clear connection between Robert Watson London and the Rawlings family.
However, the executor was Arthur, and Winifred's father was George Joseph, so there is some step between them.
Tim, the idea of godparentage looks good, but Emma had died before Winifred was born, so she couldn't have been a godmother - though of course Robert could have been a godfather.

I am going to attack the line of that probate and why Arthur Rawlings was executor. I know that at that time they (almost) never made woman executors, so perhaps there was some link by marriage i.e. Arthur had married into the family and was the closest male relative.

 

This link shows a typical scanned burial record page and there is a record available from Wandsworth cemeteries for Winifred's burial April 11, 1900. Here's the cost of the record etc.

 

Friends - thanks for all the input, but nothing yet sorted.

Sarah Tilsed Way (who was born in Poole, Dorset ) seems to have no connection with the London family. Her parents were Peter Way and Susanna Stone, and those names and part of the country have no correspondence with the Londons. Robert London had a sister Sarah Elizabeth (b 1863) but I have her marriage and children pretty well sorted. He also had an aunt Sarah Leeder London (b 1843 and mentioned elsewhere in the forum as becoming Sarah Leeder Leeder and having a family of similarly ridiculous names) So Sarah Tilsed was not an immediate sister or aunt Sarah London who I had not noticed. She COULD be related to Emma Thompson, whose family I have not dug into, but is not one of her 5 younger sisters (on d.o.b. as well as names), so would have to be e.g. an aunt, and this is getting a bit far removed.

I found a christening record for Winifred Maggie, giving mother's name, so this is as certain as I could expect that the identification is correct, the name combo being fairly distinctive.

I didn't get much help from Robert and Emma's place of residence. In 1891 they were sharing a house with Robert's parents (67 North Street Clapham) and from the probate notice that Heather found, Robert continued to live at that address until his death. (In 1881 young Robert London's family was at 31, Wycliffe Grove, Battersea.) In 1881 and 1891 George and Sarah Rawlings were at 3 Southfield Terrace, Merton Road, Wandsworth. Arthur Rawlings (Robert London's executor) was living at 8, Southfield Terrace, with his parents and siblings. I am confident this is the right Arthur, as I actually identified him by working backwards from the Arthur who was a 'contractor horticultural' in 1911, at 8, Southfield Terrace, Merton Road, Wandsworth.

There is obviously a connection between the Rawlings. George was born 1844 in Putney, and from the 1851 census his parents were John and Margaret. Arthur was born in 1862 in Roehampton, and his parents were John and Sarah. It LOOKS as if they may have been half-brothers, but I would have to dig further to confirm this.

Maybe the whole Rawlings family just befriended the Londons. It is slightly odd that Arthur was the executor or administrator of Robert's estate, as he had a couple of male relatives (e.g brothers-in-law) alive at his death. Given that his estate was so small, maybe(?) he died without a will and his friend Arthur applied for the probate. Someone who knows London better than me can judge how likely it was that a joiner/carpenter living in Clapham would be friendly with a horticultural contractor living in Wandsworth - are the places close?

This connection remains a puzzle - unless anyone has further ideas, which I would welcome. Meantime I have posted the Rawlings in 1881 on my LC page as 'unknown' in the hope that one day I might connect with a descendant. Then at least I might be able to supply them with the lost child Winifred Maggie, who appears in no census.....