Where can I go from here?

[jorghes]

I came across a conundrum the other day, and I was wondering if the wonderful members here could give me some ideas about where to look next in terms of records and other resources.
The conundrum involves my great-great-great grandmother, Elizabeth Lowe.

Elizabeth was born in 1861 to James Lowe and Mary Holmes and died in 1950 in Hurst Hill, Staffordshire, where she lived her entire life. She married Enoch Rudge in 1886 and lived with him in Summerhill Rd and for a while she operated a grocery shop out of her front room with the help of her eldest daughter. One of my cousins remembers visiting Elizabeth, her great-grandmother, in Hurst Hill. She had given birth to two illegimate children before her marriage, one in 1880 and the other in 1884. The elder of the two boys lived with her parents until their deaths in the 1890s. I have Elizabeth on every census between 1871 and 1911 and have even found her on the 1939 register (which I didn't think I was going to at the time).

I'd discovered all this information, clarified her death date after finding her on the 1939 census when I thought she'd already died, and put her on the back burner as having discovered all that I could. When I went on my trip back to the mother country last year I was able to see a photo of Elizabeth for the first time.
But recently I decided to write down all the information I had into an ancestral file to help my mother and siblings keep everyone straight. As I was adding information about Elizabeth to the book, I had to look up information about the 1911 census, so I opened it up and read through it again, and hit the conundrum.

The 1911 census lists Elizabeth Rudge (nee Lowe) as having been married 24 years to Enoch (which works with the marriage date of 1886), and having had 12 children in total for the marriage. Of those, 10 are still living and 2 have died.

My response was simple shock - Twelve children? Since when?
And then came the query - so did these 12 children include the two sons she had out of wedlock, or not? None of my research, or any of the census returns, had given Elizabeth 12 children, rather, beyond her two illegitimate sons, I only had Elizabeth having 7 children with her husband Enoch, 6 daughters and a son.

I know that Elizabeth had two children out of wedlock:
⁃ Samuel Leadbetter Lowe, 1880, and
⁃ John Thomas Jones Lowe, 1884 (my great-great grandfather)

The current list of "accepted" children (for her marriage to Enoch), which occurred in 1886, compiled from census data and other information is:
⁃ Mary A, 1888
⁃ Elizabeth, 1888
⁃ Florence, 1890
⁃ Rose Anne, 1892
⁃ Edith, 1896
⁃ Beatrice May, 1901
⁃ Enoch William, 1903


I have physical evidence (photos), documentary evidence (1939 register, censuses etc.) and anecdotal evidence of the following children:
⁃ Elizabeth (documentary, anecdotal)
⁃ Florence (documentary, anecdotal + photos of one of her daughters)
⁃ Rose? (Anecdotal, photo)
⁃ Eliza Jane (documentary, anecdotal, plus gravesite for one of her children, photos)
⁃ Beatrice (photos, documentary)
⁃ Enoch William (photos, documentary)

Checking the GRO indexes for children born of with the surname Rudge and the mother's maiden name of "Lowe" from the wedding date of 1886 onwards gives the following responses: (primarily searching the registry area of Dudley, since Elizabeth lived there all her life)
⁃ Elizabeth 1886 *
⁃ Isabella 1887
⁃ Mary Ann 1888 *
⁃ Florence 1890 *
⁃ Eliza Jane 1891 *
⁃ George Victor 1892
⁃ Joseph James 1893
⁃ Hannah 1894
⁃ Edith 1896 *
⁃ Violet Maud 1897 (with a death register date of 1898)
⁃ Alfred Norman 1898
⁃ Beatrice May 1901 *
⁃ Harold 1901
⁃ Enoch William 1903 *

Seven of the children match those I already know about (adjusting Elizabeth's age, which is fine, since I already thought she was the eldest), Elizabeth, Mary Ann, Florence, Eliza Jane, Edith, Beatrice May, and Enoch William.

Even with her two illegitimate children, Samuel and Jack, this still only brings her total to 9 children, not the 12 given on the 1911 census. And none of these children died in infancy, in fact the majority lived to adulthood, got married etc etc.

Bar purchasing all the birth certs on the GRO for who I think are her children, what are the options for discovering which of that list are Elizabeth's children and which are not? Will I ever get up to the magical 12?

Noting of course that right now I don't think "Rose" is the correct name - as the only GRO entry for a Rose Rudge in 1892 is in Wolverhampton and the mother's maiden name is not give as "Lowe". I have a suspicion that Rose will be a nickname, as I actually have a photo which has been identified as Rose Rudge.

Any ideas from the learned community of genealogists?

 

[peter]

The technique I use is to look for other marriages between people with the same surnames. All of the birth entries must belong to one or other of those couples* - and often you can group them together by location.

*Barring the possibility that one of the mothers had been married previously

 

[jorghes]

The technique I use is to look for other marriages between people with the same surnames. All of the birth entries must belong to one or other of those couples* - and often you can group them together by location.

*Barring the possibility that one of the mothers had been married previously

That is a good idea, I'll have a look around and see if I can find any other Lowe/Rudge marriages in the area to account for some of the children.

Looks like I have one other - Susan Lowe marrying John Rudge in 1875 in Sedgley - finding a census return then might help to clarify their children.

 

[Rhian]

Census entries for the \extra\ children would also help group them into families. An added bonus is that you might find several of the families were related, extended families often lived near each other, and sometimes cared for each others children, so some of your missing 12 might have been with family members during the census.

It may be useful to check adjoining registration districts if all else fails, I have some family members who were registered in a next door reg. district as it was more convenient.

 

[Tim]

There are parents Enoch and Ann Rudge on 1891, 1901 and 1911, (5 children, 1 died) who seem to be the parents of
⁃ Isabella 1887
⁃ George Victor 1892
⁃ Alfred Norman 1898
⁃ Harold 1901

 

[jorghes]

Census entiries for the \extra\ children would also help group them into families. An added bonus is that you might find several of the families were related, extended families often lived near each other, and sometimes cared for each others children, so some of your missing 12 might have been with family members during the census.

It may be useful to check adjoining registration districts if all else fails, I have some family members who were registered in a next door reg. district as it was more convienient.

I'll adjust my list to add in the adjoining registration districts - thought I was on to something since this is seemingly one of my only ancestors who stayed in the same place for their entire life!

Very true about the relations - Elizabeth herself had a number of siblings, so did her husband Enoch, makes sense they all stayed around - both of them had jobs in the collieries, so it makes sense to stay where they could earn money.

There are parents Enoch and Ann Rudge on 1891, 1901 and 1911, (5 children, 1 died) who seem to be the parents of
⁃ Isabella 1887
⁃ George Victor 1892
⁃ Alfred Norman 1898
⁃ Harold 1901

Yes, I have now come across the second Enoch - was digging in some censuses to locate some of the names of the list, so thank you very much for adding that to my information.

What are the odds of two Enochs of approximately the same age in the same place... I have a sneaking suspicion that the two of them could possibly be related.

 

[Tim]

What are the odds of two Enochs of approximately the same age in the same place... I have a sneaking suspicion that the two of them could possibly be related.

Highly likely I would have thought. You need to push back the Rudge's if you want to confirm this.

 

[peter]

What are the odds of two Enochs of approximately the same age in the same place... I have a sneaking suspicion that the two of them could possibly be related.

1st cousins who were born/baptised around the same time were often given the same name. Whether this was because they were honouring the same godparents, or simply because one set of parents copied the other, we can only hazard a guess.

 

[Tim]

Or grandfathers...

 

[Bob Spiers]

I'll adjust my list to add in the adjoining registration districts - thought I was on to something since this is seemingly one of my only ancestors who stayed in the same place for their entire life!

A little late to notice this posting Jorghes, but, if not already discovered in your adjoining district search there is a Marriage of an Ann Lowe to an Enoch Rudge in Stourbridge, Worcestershire, 1886. (6c/187) The same year as the marriage you show for your own Enoch Rudge and Elizabeth Lowe in Dudley, Staffordshire. (6c/133)

As a Midlander by birth I am aware that Stourbridge often got lumped under Staffordshire even though historically Worcestershire. Modern day Stourbridge comes under the 'West Midlands' banner and part of the Metropolitan borough of Dudley; another town often mixed in with Worcestershire, though strictly Staffordshire.

Tim has already identified the family in Censuses, so all that is left is to work out relationships of the two Enoch Rudge's and the two Lowe's . I will give it further thought, as I'm sure will others.

By the way the name Enoch and Eli were so synonymous in the Black Country that they had 'Aynuk & Ayli' jokes (those spellings representing the way they would sound with a Black Country dialect, but standing for Enoch & Eli). A couple of local Midland comedians used Aynum & Ayli as their stage names and performed regularly in Clubs in the 1980 & 90's.

 

[jorghes]

Thanks Tim and Peter, I will keep looking at Enoch's family - it's difficult to decide whether or not to do it as I am technically not blood related to Enoch per se, as my link to Elizabeth is through one of her illegitimate sons (whose father is still unknown) - the family knew eventually that he was illegitimate, although not about his older, also illegitimate, half brother.

A little late to notice this posting Jorghes, but, if not already discovered in your adjoining district search there is a Marriage of an Ann Lowe to an Enoch Rudge in Stourbridge, Worcestershire, 1886. (6c/187) The same year as the marriage you show for your own Enoch Rudge and Elizabeth Lowe in Dudley, Staffordshire. (6c/133)

As a Midlander by birth I am aware that Stourbridge often got lumped under Staffordshire even though historically Worcestershire. Modern day Stourbridge comes under the 'West Midlands' banner and part of the Metropolitan borough of Dudley; another town often mixed in with Worcestershire, though strictly Staffordshire.

Tim has already identified the family in Censuses, so all that is left is to work out relationships of the two Enoch Rudge's and the two Lowe's . I will give it further thought, as I'm sure will others.

By the way the name Enoch and Eli were so synonymous in the Black Country that they had 'Aynuk & Ayli' jokes (those spellings representing the way they would sound with a Black Country dialect, but standing for Enoch & Eli). A couple of local Midland comedians used Aynum & Ayli as their stage names and performed regularly in Clubs in the 1980 & 90's.

I did see that eventually thanks Bob.

I was thinking my more likely adjoining registration district (after some searching yesterday) would probably be Wolverhampton, since Hurst Hill is reasonably close to the border of the two districts (Dudley and Wolverhampton). A few times it also mentions the village of Ettingshall for Elizabeth's parents, which I presume (my UK geography isn't all that great) isn't particularly far from Hurst Hill.

That is an interesting point about the names Enoch and Eli - I haven't found an Eli in what I do know about the Rudges, nor another Enoch, other than my Enoch's son, Enoch William. I'll have to see if I can take Enoch's family back another generation, and keep looking for those elusive missing 5 or so children.


Do people think that the list of 12 includes Elizabeth's illegitimate children? Or just those born within her 24 years of marriage to Enoch?

My great-grandfather seemingly considered Enoch his father, as he listed him on his marriage register entry in that position (and he was 2 when his mother married). At one point, the 1891 census, he was listed as son, and was using his step-father's name. He reverted back to his mother's maiden name by the 1901 census, at which point his older half brother was living with the family, both of them using "Lowe" and both referred to as "step-sons". My great-grandfather used his mother's maiden name as his surname then for the rest of his life. I haven't finished my research into Samuel, as he seems to have dropped his middle name, which makes him a little less distinctive.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Do people think that the list of 12 includes Elizabeth's illegitimate children? Or just those born within her 24 years of marriage to Enoch?

The 1911 Census was the first left to the householder to complete. Whilst the person collecting might scrutinise names, occupations and places of birth they would not be able to challenge personal information such as 'complete year married', 'children born alive', 'still living' & 'who have died'.

It is interesting to note the opening column statement (my underlining) . "State, for each Married Woman entered on this Schedule, the number of....." so if more than one married woman I suppose given the way people do not always read or interpret correctly, and where there is more than one married woman in the household, the prime married person might enter all the children on her line, instead of against each. (Or of course omit entirely children of daughters and daughters in law).

Taking a quick peak at your Enoch/Elizabeth 1911 image only Elizabeth (Wife) is shown married so one assumes that is not applicable in your case. However it still relies on interpretation of the individual, and perhaps allows freedom to record as the person understands the question? In other words both legitimate within and illegitimate without the marriage.

 

[peter]

The 1911 Census was the first left to the householder to complete.

A common misconception which I've seen repeated by many writers who ought to know better. In fact householders were asked to complete the census forms from 1841 onwards, and we know from the surviving household schedules for 1841 that about half of them did.

What is unique about the 1911 Census is that it's the first for which the household schedules have survived.

 

[Bob Spiers]

A common misconception which I've seen repeated by many writers who ought to know better. In fact householders were asked to complete the census forms from 1841 onwards, and we know from the surviving household schedules for 1841 that about half of them did.

What is unique about the 1911 Census is that it's the first for which the household schedules have survived.

Ever the stickler for exactitude Peter, so as one of the 'many writers who should know better', I bow to your knowledge. Even so, as far as I am aware -and you will of course tell me if I am wrong - was it not also unique in being the first Census to ask the 'how many children' question; which was at the heart of Jorghes posting?

 

[Rhian]

The eugenics questions were covered in a recent newsletter, and there are lots of ways they have been interpreted by people filling in forms. Some definitely include illegitimate children some definitely exclude them, some omit details for widows some include them. I have not seen any entries where single women have admitted to the number of children born, even if they list the child(ren) as son or daughter. I did see one where it appears the enumerator drew a line through the answers given by a widow, he obviously regarded her as no longer married although the data was useful to me.

Like so much of life it seems like interpretation rules, and everyone does it differently.

 

[peter]

I did see one where it appears the enumerator drew a line through the answers given by a widow, he obviously regarded her as no longer married although the data was useful to me.

All census data is collected with the intention of compiling statistics, and it's therefore important to stick to the criteria that have been laid down. The question is quite clear, but because it was new some people misinterpreted it.

There are many instances where members of my family didn't answer the question correctly, and I'm grateful for that - but if the enumerator or clerk spotted the errors they were quite right to amend them before the statistics were compiled.

 

[peter]

Ever the stickler for exactitude Peter

Fake news is like a cancer - it spreads if you don't detect it, or if you detect it but do nothing.

 

[jorghes]

Thanks Bob. Looks like I might never really know if she's referring to both her legitimate and illegitimate children. But then if I limit the number of children in the GRO indexes which are hers, I might still be able to answer that question.

The one big one which might help is that I don't know of any of her children in my excepted list, that had died by 1911. Even though I'm not completely sure if I've found Samuel (her eldest illegitimate son) in the 1911 census, I also can't find an appropriate death register entry that could be Samuel. I still think my issues with Samuel is simply because he seems to have dropped the "Leadbetter" out of his name on official documents!

So since I'm looking for deceased children who could "vanished" as they didn't appear on any censuses, it means that Violet Maud born 1897, died 1898 could very well one of those children who were listed as died on the census.

I also took a cursory look to see if Elizabeth's number of illegitimate children could be three, but there doesn't seem to be another likely child on the GRO list.

So my list is now - removing the children of the "other" Enoch:
⁃ Elizabeth 1886 *
⁃ Mary Ann 1888 *
⁃ Florence 1890 *
⁃ Eliza Jane 1891 *
⁃ Joseph James 1893
⁃ Hannah 1894
⁃ Edith 1896 *
⁃ Violet Maud 1897 (with a death register date of 1898)
⁃ Beatrice May 1901 *
⁃ Enoch William 1903 *

I'm still missing my "Rose", who having been born supposedly in 1892, doesn't have a corresponding entry on the list (which I just noticed is now exactly 10...) although I'm wondering if she's "Hannah" born in 1894.

But I suppose I need to look for death register entries prior to 1911 for Joseph James (Enoch's father was a Joseph and Elizabeth's James, so perhaps that's a sign?) and perhaps if I do find one, he might actually be the final number on the 1911 census as the second who died prior to 1911 (most likely prior to 1901). Which would then suggest that Elizabeth hadn't included her two illegitimate sons in the count on the 1911 census.

The confirmation I might need for Rose (to see if her name was actually Hannah) is to find the so far elusive marriage register entry - apparently, according to family stories, she married a Mr Astley - I'm inclined to believe it, as the same source helped me to find the marriages of some of her sisters when I had been unable to find them previously (and as I found, they had also been attributed to Worcestershire, which I had been unaware of earlier).


Edit:
May have just hit pay-dirt (as we say) - did a brief search for a Joseph James Rudge death from the birth year of 1893 onwards and hit the following entry:
Rudge, Joseph: 1893 D Quarter, Dudley, 06C, Page 46, age 11

Given the errors when it comes to months and years in the death indexes, then this could very well be Joseph James Rudge, dying at the age of 11 months. Quickly checked, just to make sure, and Joseph James Rudge was born in M Quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) of 1893, which makes this a little more likely to be him... or am I reading a touch too much into it?

 

[peter]

Although it might not help in this case, remember that tracking people in the 1939 Register gives you their precise date of birth (in theory).

 

[jorghes]

Although it might not help in this case, remember that tracking people in the 1939 Register gives you their precise date of birth (in theory).

Very true, but all my attempts to find Rose in the 1939 census, even with her husbands apparent name of "Astley" is coming up blank, which is why I am wondering if it was her proper name, that and I can't find an appropriate birth register entry for her either under that name.