Florence Fernyhough born 190x - father?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

For those that like a genealogical puzzle ...

Emma Foxley and William Fernyhough married in 1884.

Emma has children, all with surname Fernyhough, in ~1885, ~1887, ~1889,
1890, ~1893, ~1896, and finally Florence in 1901.

But then I discover that William died in 1896. Emma Fernyhough is shown
- with that name - as a widow in both the 1901 and 1911 censuses.

The 1911 census shows Florence Fernyhough, Head, 55, Widow, with (a son
aged 26 and) Florence Fernyhough, Daughter, 9 (so born 1902 or '1).

FreeBMD and GRO show a Florence Fernyhough birth registered in
Wolstanton in 1901Q3 - with mother's maiden name Mellor. No other
Florence Fernyhough birth registration is shown in 1902 ±2.

So, obviously, William isn't Florence's father. I haven't found who is.

I've found a marriage of an Emma Fernyhough in 1902Q3 in King's Norton,
to either Hiram Frederick Rhodes or Daniel Basson; a Hiram Frederick
Rhodes dies at 65 in 1905Q2, in King's Norton. Emma is still shown as
Fernyhough in 1911, so I'm far from confident about that marriage.

There are a pair of marriages in 1900Q4 in Cheadle; two of the four
named are William Mellor and Lucy Sophia Fernyhough. This may or may not
be relevant.

All placenames above are in Staffordshire.

Can anyone disentangle this - at least say who is Florence's father?

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I've found a marriage of an Emma Fernyhough in 1902Q3 in King's Norton,
to either Hiram Frederick Rhodes or Daniel Basson

As you don't know the groom I take it you haven't bought a copy of the
marriage certificate. I'd have thought that would be an essential step
but not a necessarily informative one. If the mother doesn't want to
say who the father is - or maybe doesn't even know - there's nothing you
can do about it. I have a "John Smith" in my tree but Smith was the
mother's maiden name and she was down as spinster some years later when
she married.

One other possible step would be to look for an affiliation order if
there are any surviving records.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I've found a marriage of an Emma Fernyhough in 1902Q3 in King's
Norton, to either Hiram Frederick Rhodes or Daniel Basson

As you don't know the groom I take it you haven't bought a copy of the
marriage certificate. I'd have thought that would be an essential step
but not a necessarily informative one. If the mother doesn't want to

It's a remote part of my tree, so I'm not going to spend money on it.
Especially since, as you say, that may not answer the question.

Post by Ian Goddard
say who the father is - or maybe doesn't even know - there's nothing
you can do about it. I have a "John Smith" in my tree but Smith was
the mother's maiden name and she was down as spinster some years later
when she married.

Yes, I've got one of those (probably-fictitious first spouse with same
surname as mother's maiden name). [Unless it's incest, but (a) would she
admit that even to the registrar (b) I can't find a George in her near
family.]

Post by Ian Goddard
One other possible step would be to look for an affiliation order if
there are any surviving records.

Ah, I hadn't heard of those; where would I look?

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I've got one of those (probably-fictitious first spouse with same
surname as mother's maiden name). [Unless it's incest, but (a) would she
admit that even to the registrar (b) I can't find a George in her near
family.]

I've never thought either of these scenarios were particular likely. If
the surname was fictional, surely they would have chosen a different
name of the bride / mother. There are plenty of common surnames to
choose from. And if it was incest, as you say, they're unlikely to
admit it unless it was already so widely known in the area that they
couldn't not.

The two most likely scenarios seem to me to be that the registrar got
confused and mistakenly wrote the same surname down twice, despite
having been told the correct names. If the people involved were not
comfortably literate, they may not have noticed, or felt comfortable
challenging the mistake if they had noticed it.

The second possibility is that the names are correct, and the couple are
either only distantly related or not related at all. Bear in mind that
since Tudor times, even first cousin marriages have been broadly
acceptable – certainly they wouldn't be considered incestuous. By the
time you get to third cousins, there's a good chance the couple wouldn't
have know of the relationship themselves, so they were effectively
unrelated people.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I've got one of those (probably-fictitious first spouse with same
surname as mother's maiden name). [Unless it's incest, but (a) would she
admit that even to the registrar (b) I can't find a George in her near
family.]

I've never thought either of these scenarios were particular likely. If
the surname was fictional, surely they would have chosen a different
name of the bride / mother. There are plenty of common surnames to
choose from. And if it was incest, as you say, they're unlikely to
admit it unless it was already so widely known in the area that they
couldn't not.

The case I'm thinking of, the child was born before the first marriage I
know of, and the father is given as George x, where x is the same as the
(born) surname of the mother. (A _relatively_ uncommon surname.) I
cannot find a George among her near family. I therefore suspect that
George x, as such, might be invented. Whether the father was _actually_
called George (with a different surname), I'll (probably) never know.

The two most likely scenarios seem to me to be that the registrar got
confused and mistakenly wrote the same surname down twice, despite
having been told the correct names. If the people involved were not

Possible, as above. The person she _did_ subsequently marry wasn't
called George, though.

comfortably literate, they may not have noticed, or felt comfortable
challenging the mistake if they had noticed it.

True.

The second possibility is that the names are correct, and the couple
are either only distantly related or not related at all. Bear in mind

Indeed. In other words, another family with the same surname but not
knowingly related. This is indeed common in many places, especially
smallish ones. (Ask me about the Weightmans of Shilbottle
[Northumberland], or the Neave/Neve/De Neves of a cluster of small
villages in Norfolk.)

that since Tudor times, even first cousin marriages have been broadly
acceptable – certainly they wouldn't be considered incestuous. By
the time you get to third cousins, there's a good chance the couple
wouldn't have know of the relationship themselves, so they were
effectively unrelated people.

Indeed. I'm still finding (mainly through DNA nowadays) third or fourth
cousins, one or two a year, I didn't know of; both my parents were more
or less only children, and I had little contact (no family feud or
anything - just geography and time) with my grandparents' siblings, let
alone further back: I expect this is pretty common, at least these days.
(Go back 150-200 years or so, things were probably very different, when
many people never moved more than 5-10 miles throughout their life.)

Richard

John

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The case I'm thinking of, the child was born before the first marriage I
know of, and the father is given as George x, where x is the same as the
(born) surname of the mother. (A _relatively_ uncommon surname.) I
cannot find a George among her near family. I therefore suspect that
George x, as such, might be invented. Whether the father was _actually_
called George (with a different surname), I'll (probably) never know.

There's a third option, besides being an invention by the mother and a
clerical error by the registrar. Imagine the situation. Mother goes to
register the child's birth. "Hello, I'm Jane Smith. I'm here to
register the birth of my son, John."

"What's the father's name and occupation", the registrar asks.

"George. He's a carpenter", the mother replies.

The registrar just assumes the mother and father are married, and the
mother doesn't think to volunteer that they're not, not necessarily out
of any intent to deceive. The registrar proceeds to write "George
Smith, carpenter" in the certificate, and the mother doesn't notice at
the time.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The case I'm thinking of, the child was born before the first marriage I
know of, and the father is given as George x, where x is the same as the
(born) surname of the mother. (A _relatively_ uncommon surname.) I
cannot find a George among her near family. I therefore suspect that
George x, as such, might be invented. Whether the father was _actually_
called George (with a different surname), I'll (probably) never know.

There's a third option, besides being an invention by the mother and a
clerical error by the registrar. Imagine the situation. Mother goes
to register the child's birth. "Hello, I'm Jane Smith. I'm here to
register the birth of my son, John."
"What's the father's name and occupation", the registrar asks.
"George. He's a carpenter", the mother replies.
The registrar just assumes the mother and father are married, and the
mother doesn't think to volunteer that they're not, not necessarily out
of any intent to deceive. The registrar proceeds to write "George
Smith, carpenter" in the certificate, and the mother doesn't notice at
the time.
Richard

A very plausible suggestion. Especially if the mother couldn't read (or
couldn't read upside down; not a lot of people can, especially
handwriting).

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Richard Smith
There's a third option, besides being an invention by the mother and a
clerical error by the registrar.  Imagine the situation.  Mother goes to
register the child's birth.  "Hello, I'm Jane Smith. I'm here to
register the birth of my son, John."
"What's the father's name and occupation", the registrar asks.
"George.  He's a carpenter", the mother replies.
The registrar just assumes the mother and father are married, and the
mother doesn't think to volunteer that they're not, not necessarily out
of any intent to deceive.  The registrar proceeds to write "George
Smith, carpenter" in the certificate, and the mother doesn't notice at
the time.

That's an interesting thought from my PoV. My "John Smith" could, in
fact, have come about that way. The occupation given was stone mason
and I'd assumed that this was extra obfuscation because stone masons
seemed to be quite peripatetic at the time. IIRC there was a John Kaye,
stone mason, living in the area.

Not that I need another Kaye. A John Smith hereabouts would have been a
lot less problematic, it was quite an unusual surname at the time. The
mother's Smith family had come into the area from the dales.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ian Goddard
One other possible step would be to look for an affiliation order if
there are any surviving records.

Ah, I hadn't heard of those; where would I look?

In somebody's dustbin in my case :(

AIUI it was the Poor Law Guardians who applied to the courts so there
may have been records in both places. They may have ended up in your
local archives. Try TNA and your local archives if they have an
independent index. I found that the Kirklees branch of my local
archives had a collection but it turned out to be about half a dozen.

Parish records is another possibility - not the registers but any other
records they may have been keeping. Honley WRY had a Town Book, the
churchwarden's records which was transcribed and published to
commemorate a big anniversary and raise funds. It had an entire section
of Poor Law records which consisted of records of disbursements and also
of certificates of those moving in and out of the area. No affiliation
orders there but you could be lucky if you can light on such a volume.

[MB]

I posted previously about the link between the loss of the ANNIE JANE
and Blackrod. I was just looking at the website for another reason and
saw this comment by the author of the book on the disaster. Passengers
could have travelled from a wide area so posting here.



So I am requesting visitors to this site if you have an interest in
local history to look through the names of those who were lost to see if
you recognise names from a dead branch of your family tree. Perhaps you
can help? Any additional information gladly received, it will be added
to the update page. As for the survivors; we have found the origins of
all but nine of them, but again any information would be welcome

http://www.anniejane.net/




MB

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MB
I posted previously about the link between the loss of the ANNIE JANE
and Blackrod. I was just looking at the website for another reason and

(The website below does not mention Blackrod. I have no idea whether
that is the name of a ship or something else.)

Post by MB
saw this comment by the author of the book on the disaster. Passengers
could have travelled from a wide area so posting here.
So I am requesting visitors to this site if you have an interest in

(This isn't a site, it's a newsgroup.)

Post by MB
local history to look through the names of those who were lost to see
if you recognise names from a dead branch of your family tree. Perhaps
you can help? Any additional information gladly received, it will be
added to the update page. As for the survivors; we have found the
origins of all but nine of them, but again any information would be welcome
http://www.anniejane.net/

To save other readers here time looking at the website: the Annie Jane
sailed from Liverpool for Quebec on 1853-9-9, was "dis-masted" after
three days but carried on, and eventually was totally wrecked 1853-9-28
on the tiny island of Vatersay one of the Outer Hebrides on the West
coast of Scotland, with about three quarters (about 350) drowned.
Mostly emigrants. The crew who drowned mostly had French (or
French-Canadian) names; those who survived, and most of the passengers
(drowned and survived), English or Irish.

Post by MB
MB

JPG

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by MB
So I am requesting visitors to this site if you have an interest in

(This isn't a site, it's a newsgroup.)

For the sake of accuracy I would point out that the line you quoted ("so
I am requesting ...") was part of the abstract from the website to which
the OP referred, and thus the reference to "this site" was to the
website, not this newsgroup.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by MB
So I am requesting visitors to this site if you have an interest in

(This isn't a site, it's a newsgroup.)

For the sake of accuracy I would point out that the line you quoted ("so
I am requesting ...") was part of the abstract from the website to which
the OP referred, and thus the reference to "this site" was to the
website, not this newsgroup.

So it was a cite from a site?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by MB
So I am requesting visitors to this site if you have an interest in

(This isn't a site, it's a newsgroup.)

For the sake of accuracy I would point out that the line you quoted ("so
I am requesting ...") was part of the abstract from the website to which
the OP referred, and thus the reference to "this site" was to the
website, not this newsgroup.

So it was a cite from a site?

Try not to lose sight of which site was cited in the original.

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep going…

[Evertjan.]

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep goingƒ Ý

Putting sails on the broken poles.
Rowing.
Towing.
Just floating.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Evertjan.

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep goingƒ Ý

Putting sails on the broken poles.

Presuming the stumps are high enough and there is enough spare canvas
still available.

Post by Evertjan.
Rowing.

Not practical far a large (fsvo) vessel

Post by Evertjan.
Towing.

Again, not practical for any length of time

Post by Evertjan.
Just floating.

That's not continuing the voyage.

In reality I suspect she lost her topmasts and tried to continue with
just fore and mainsais.

[MB]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep goingƒ Ý

Putting sails on the broken poles.

Presuming the stumps are high enough and there is enough spare canvas
still available.

Post by Evertjan.
Rowing.

Not practical far a large (fsvo) vessel

Post by Evertjan.
Towing.

Again, not practical for any length of time

Post by Evertjan.
Just floating.

That's not continuing the voyage.
In reality I suspect she lost her topmasts and tried to continue with
just fore and mainsais.

I think both times that it happened the mast broke part way up.

ON the second attempt, the storm was so bad that they could really do
much. They tried to get around the Southern tip of the islands but were
blown towards Vatersay. They tried to beach it but it broke up.

[Evertjan.]

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep goingƒ Ý

Putting sails on the broken poles.

Presuming the stumps are high enough and there is enough spare canvas
still available.

Post by Evertjan.
Rowing.

Not practical far a large (fsvo) vessel

Post by Evertjan.
Towing.

Again, not practical for any length of time

Post by Evertjan.
Just floating.

That's not continuing the voyage.
In reality I suspect she lost her topmasts and tried to continue with
just fore and mainsais.

I think both times that it happened the mast broke part way up.
ON the second attempt, the storm was so bad that they could really do
much. They tried to get around the Southern tip of the islands but were
blown towards Vatersay. They tried to beach it but it broke up.

Ask Captain Hornblower, he would know how to.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.

Also trying to work out how a dismasted ship managed to keep goingƒ Ý

Putting sails on the broken poles.

Presuming the stumps are high enough and there is enough spare canvas
still available.

Post by Evertjan.
Rowing.

Not practical far a large (fsvo) vessel

Post by Evertjan.
Towing.

Again, not practical for any length of time

Post by Evertjan.
Just floating.

That's not continuing the voyage.
In reality I suspect she lost her topmasts and tried to continue with
just fore and mainsais.

I think both times that it happened the mast broke part way up.

Most likely the topmast snapping off, not an unusual occurrence in heavy
seas and a poorly-maintained vessel. The ship would still be sailable
but with reduced manouverability, especially in high winds.

Post by MB
ON the second attempt, the storm was so bad that they could really do
much.  They tried to get around the Southern tip of the islands but were
blown towards Vatersay.  They tried to beach it but it broke up.

Off a lee shore and lacking the finesse the topsails would have given
them, they had little chance.

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(The website below does not mention Blackrod. I have no idea whether
that is the name of a ship or something else.)

As I wrote I was just looking something up on the loss for another
reason and saw the comment about trying to identify people so just
thought that I would post here and a couple of other places that I visit.

If you are not interested then no reason for you to bother reading any more.

The link to Blackrod is quite amusing and I asked around the area to see
if the story was still known but it did not seem to be the case.

The book is very interesting because it was a major tragedy and
passengers came from many places. The book is also gives a good picture
of the migrant boats of that time.

[Richard Smith]

Emma Foxley and William Fernyhough married in 1884. Emma has
children, all with surname Fernyhough, [...] and finally Florence in
1901.

Okay. So this Florence is the daughter of Emma.

The 1911 census shows Florence Fernyhough, Head, 55, Widow, with (a son
aged 26 and) Florence Fernyhough, Daughter, 9 (so born 1902 or '1).

And this Florence is the daughter of Florence. Are you sure they're the
same person?

FreeBMD and GRO show a Florence Fernyhough birth registered in
Wolstanton in 1901Q3 - with mother's maiden name Mellor.

Neither the GRO index nor FreeBMD show the mother's maiden name prior to
about 1911, and I've just looked up this birth, and there is definitely
no mother's maiden name shown in either place. Presumably that means
you have the birth certificate. If so, what does it say is the mother's
name? Emma or Florence? I assume the father is not given.

No other Florence Fernyhough birth registration is shown in 1902 ±2.

Indeed not. However the GRO index lists a Florence Ferneyhough born in
Q3 1901 in the Stone district of Staffs. The difference between
Ferneyhough and Fernyhough is small enough that it could simply be an
error by the clerk who compiled the index from the handwritten registers.

The most obvious explanation to me is that you have two Florences: one
the daughter of Florence, the other the daughter of Emma.

Richard

[john]

Emma Foxley and William Fernyhough married in 1884.  Emma has
children, all with surname Fernyhough, [...] and finally Florence in
1901.

Okay.  So this Florence is the daughter of Emma.

The 1911 census shows Florence Fernyhough, Head, 55, Widow, with (a
son aged 26 and) Florence Fernyhough, Daughter, 9 (so born 1902 or '1).

And this Florence is the daughter of Florence.  Are you sure they're the
same person?

FreeBMD and GRO show a Florence Fernyhough birth registered in
Wolstanton in 1901Q3 - with mother's maiden name Mellor.

Neither the GRO index nor FreeBMD show the mother's maiden name prior to
about 1911, and I've just looked up this birth, and there is definitely
no mother's maiden name shown in either place.  Presumably that means
you have the birth certificate.  If so, what does it say is the mother's
name?  Emma or Florence?  I assume the father is not given.

No other Florence Fernyhough birth registration is shown in 1902 ±2.

Indeed not.  However the GRO index lists a Florence Ferneyhough born in
Q3 1901 in the Stone district of Staffs.  The difference between
Ferneyhough and Fernyhough is small enough that it could simply be an
error by the clerk who compiled the index from the handwritten registers.
The most obvious explanation to me is that you have two Florences: one
the daughter of Florence, the other the daughter of Emma.
Richard

The 1911 census shows Florence Fernyhough, Head, 55, Widow, with (a

son aged 26 and) Florence Fernyhough, Daughter, 9 (so born 1902 or '1).

That is an error and should be Emma Fernyhough, Head 55......

From the GRO, Florence Ferneyhough is the daughter of Emma
FERNEYHOUGH, FLORENCE FOXLEY
GRO Reference: 1901 S Quarter in STONE Volume 06B Page 31

in 1901 census Emma was a grocer shopkeeper, so plenty of friendly
customers?

[Richard Smith]

Post by john
From the GRO, Florence Ferneyhough is the daughter of Emma
FERNEYHOUGH, FLORENCE FOXLEY
GRO Reference: 1901 S Quarter in STONE Volume 06B Page 31

Where are you getting this from? The GRO index doesn't include the
mother's maiden name before about 1911. This is a scan of the relevant
page of the GRO index:

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~richard/tmp/1901b3-187.tif

It simply says FERNEYHOUGH, Florence . . . Stone, 6b 31.

Richard

[john]

  From the GRO, Florence Ferneyhough  is the daughter of Emma
FERNEYHOUGH, FLORENCE        FOXLEY
GRO Reference: 1901  S Quarter in STONE  Volume 06B  Page 31

Where are you getting this from?  The GRO index doesn't include the
mother's maiden name before about 1911.  This is a scan of the relevant
  http://www.ex-parrot.com/~richard/tmp/1901b3-187.tif
It simply says FERNEYHOUGH, Florence . . . Stone, 6b 31.
Richard

Log in to the GRO (where you buy certificates)
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp
Select Search the GRO Indexes on the next screen and you can then search
births from 1837 to 1918 which include maiden names and deaths from 1837
to 1957
It has been available since 1916 e.g. see this old article
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/gro-launches-new-digital-services

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by john

  From the GRO, Florence Ferneyhough  is the daughter of Emma
FERNEYHOUGH, FLORENCE        FOXLEY
GRO Reference: 1901  S Quarter in STONE  Volume 06B  Page 31

Where are you getting this from?  The GRO index doesn't include the
mother's maiden name before about 1911.  This is a scan of the
  http://www.ex-parrot.com/~richard/tmp/1901b3-187.tif
It simply says FERNEYHOUGH, Florence . . . Stone, 6b 31.
Richard

Agreed, the printed indexes don't.

Post by john
Log in to the GRO (where you buy certificates)
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp is
the URL that I keep a tab open to. (IIRR, you have to register with the
GRO before you can use it, but you only have to do that once.)

Post by john
Select Search the GRO Indexes on the next screen and you can then
search births from 1837 to 1918 which include maiden names and deaths
from 1837 to 1957

That's MMNs on births, and ages at death on deaths. It's more fiddly
than FreeBMD, for mainly two reasons: you can only search five years at
a time (nominal and ± 0, 1, or 2 years; and, you have to pick a gender.
However, for the extra information - MMN and age-at-death - it's well
worth the extra effort. (A lot of the time I use FreeBMD to start with.)

Post by john
It has been available since 1916 e.g. see this old article
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/gro-launches-new-digital
-services

I suspect that might be 2016 (-:. IIRR, it more or less coincided with
one of the (initially trial; not sure if it's still nominally "trial")
instances of them offering PDF-by-email rather than paper-by-mail for
certificates.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Emma Foxley and William Fernyhough married in 1884. Emma has
children, all with surname Fernyhough, [...] and finally Florence in
1901.

Okay. So this Florence is the daughter of Emma.

Yes.

Post by Richard Smith

The 1911 census shows Florence Fernyhough, Head, 55, Widow, with (a
son aged 26 and) Florence Fernyhough, Daughter, 9 (so born 1902 or '1).

OOPS!!! I wrote that wrong. The 1911 shows (all Fernyhough):
Emma Head 55 Widow
William R Son 26 Single
Florence Daughter 9 -

Post by Richard Smith
And this Florence is the daughter of Florence. Are you sure they're
the same person?

Pretty sure. Sorry about the mistake!

Post by Richard Smith

FreeBMD and GRO show a Florence Fernyhough birth registered in
Wolstanton in 1901Q3 - with mother's maiden name Mellor.

Neither the GRO index nor FreeBMD show the mother's maiden name prior
to about 1911, and I've just looked up this birth, and there is
definitely no mother's maiden name shown in either place. Presumably

(See other posts - by GRO I meant
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp, not
the printed indexes.)

Post by Richard Smith
that means you have the birth certificate. If so, what does it say is
the mother's name? Emma or Florence? I assume the father is not given.

Sorry, no, I don't. I can't find a baptism either - from a combination
of the online coverage of baptism registers getting spotty as we get
into the 20th century, and the question of whether such a child would
have been baptised anyway.

I'm not actually _bothered_ about this, other than for completeness;
they're far from my direct line. It only came up because I ran a
"reasonableness check" on my data, and it pointed out "Father died
before child was born"; in the interests of keeping the size of that
output down, I do a quick look, as it can often clarify and thus
eliminate a line (for example, if I've mistyped one digit of a date
year). The Mellor intrigued me.

Post by Richard Smith

No other Florence Fernyhough birth registration is shown in 1902 ±2.

Indeed not. However the GRO index lists a Florence Ferneyhough born in
Q3 1901 in the Stone district of Staffs. The difference between
Ferneyhough and Fernyhough is small enough that it could simply be an
error by the clerk who compiled the index from the handwritten registers.

Well found: that's the one! GRO shows MMN Foxley, so the Mellor one is
different. I hadn't tried "Similar Sounding Variations".

Post by Richard Smith
The most obvious explanation to me is that you have two Florences: one
the daughter of Florence, the other the daughter of Emma.

Well, she's almost certainly the daughter of someone other than Emma.
(There are, in 1901±2, two Florence Fernyhough and the one Florence
Ferneyhough.)

Post by Richard Smith
Richard

Thanks again!

[Jenny M Benson]

Emma            Head    55      Widow
William R       Son     26      Single
Florence        Daughter 9      -

I recently struggled in vain to find the birth of a "daughter" -
according to a Census entry, only to find that she was in fact a
granddaughter. William R was just about old enough to have fathered
Florence, or were there other sons?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Emma            Head    55      Widow
William R       Son     26      Single
Florence        Daughter 9      -

I recently struggled in vain to find the birth of a "daughter" -
according to a Census entry, only to find that she was in fact a
granddaughter. William R was just about old enough to have fathered
Florence, or were there other sons?

G'daughter recorded as daughter not uncommon: sometimes I presume to
hide unwed mothers, but more often than might be expected seems to have
been either incompetence or laziness on the part of the enumerator. (E.
g. cases where parents, with plenty of other children, were living with
grandparents, so no concealment necessary.)

In this case, Emma had children in ~1885 (William Roland, as above),
~1887, ~1889, 1890, ~1893, ~1896, and 1901 (Florence). Her husband died
in 1896. Florence's birth is recorded (1901Q3 6b 31, Stone) with MMN
Foxley (which is correct for Emma). You could still be right, of course,
that Florence was a granddaughter (all Emma's other children except Ada
~1893 were male, assuming Jesse ~1896 is), though I'd have _normally_
expected such a child to live with her mother. (Could have been unable
to though.) Emma was born 1855 (baptised 1 April), so would have been 46
in 1901Q3 (45 at conception), so entirely possible; she was clearly
fertile up to her husband's death.

[Jenny M Benson]

though I'd have _normally_ expected such a child to live with her mother.

I am frequently shouting at the tv during WDYTYA because an assumption
is made that someone appearing on a census in a certain place is living
there. Just because a child is enumerated with - for example - a
grandparent on Census night, it doesn't necessariy mean it was not to be
found with its parent(s) for the other 364 nights of the year.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

though I'd have _normally_ expected such a child to live with her mother.

I am frequently shouting at the tv during WDYTYA because an assumption
is made that someone appearing on a census in a certain place is living
there. Just because a child is enumerated with - for example - a
grandparent on Census night, it doesn't necessariy mean it was not to
be found with its parent(s) for the other 364 nights of the year.

Indeed; they could just be visiting their grandparents (or whatever) on
census night.

Also, I have two cases in my tree of someone who's in two places at
once; I think one's their normal abode and someone just forgot they were
away that night, and the other's where they were starting work at the
remote address but (someone) assumed it wasn't their permanent address.
I've also encountered (in the case of an inn) "refused to give name".

[knuttle]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

though I'd have _normally_ expected such a child to live with her mother.

I am frequently shouting at the tv during WDYTYA because an assumption
is made that someone appearing on a census in a certain place is
living there.  Just because a child is enumerated with - for example -
a grandparent on Census night, it doesn't necessariy mean it was not
to be found with its parent(s) for the other 364 nights of the year.

Indeed; they could just be visiting their grandparents (or whatever) on
census night.
Also, I have two cases in my tree of someone who's in two places at
once; I think one's their normal abode and someone just forgot they were
away that night, and the other's where they were starting work at the
remote address but (someone) assumed it wasn't their permanent address.
I've also encountered (in the case of an inn) "refused to give name".

My wife's family has four generations of John George Hirsch. The
father of John George is undocumented except on his death certificate.
On his death certificate it says that his father was John George Hirsch.

There are several online trees that have his father as some one else,
and I have found a record in Germany that list A John George Hirsch as
Heinrich. There is a record for this JOhn George Hirsch comeing to
America in 1872 when records show my wife's John George immigrated.

Except for the death certificate it would be easy to accept one of the
other JOhn Georges as her ancestor.

One scenario where his father could be Heinrich and John George appear
on his death certificate would be:

That as the death record was being filled out the fact that ancestor
John George Hirsch had a son John George Hirsch and the recorder hear
that the ancestor's father was John George Hirsch.

Only time and research will prove the the actual father