Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this the reason why ....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this the reason why ....

    ... so many people struggle to find a BMD reference.

    On freebmd there's

    3296 births, surname Unknown

    60772 deaths, surname Unknown

    & strangely 8 marriages, surname Unknown, but at least they have forenames :D
    Jay

  • #2
    The numbers of deaths are huge, aren't they? I suppose when I think of how many unknowns appear in the burial registers I've looked at, and how few people wouldn't have been easily identifiable after death if they were away from friends and family etc it becomes more understandable.

    I wonder what the birth stories are?

    For the marriages the most likely reason for them appearing with Unknown as the surname in the GRO index is that when the clerks at the GRO transfered the names from the forms sent to them by clergy and registrars they did so by writing the name of each person (with district, volume and page details) on an index card and then sorted them into alphabetical order before writing up the index pages. Occasionally I expect they omitted to write down the surname on the index card!

    Comment


    • #3
      I did wonder if the "name unknown" people found "washed up on the beach" or whatever had to be registered.
      I also wonder whether there are any details on the registration that could give a clue. Sometimes in the burial registers I've seen things like "from the [name of ship] sunk in the gale last Tuesday"
      some entries also give an approximate age.
      Vicky

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm sure there would be clues on the death certs, but it might be pretty tricky to buy the right one!!

        Comment


        • #5
          I've seen a few burials, a middle aged man found dead in the beck, a travelling woman etc but the numbers are far greater than I thought there would be.

          There's even Unknown Unknown, so I presume even the sex of the person couldn't be identified, for both births & deaths

          It's quite sad really, thankfully there's less than 30 Unknown's on the 84 - 05 death index.

          It would be interesting to see an Unknown certificate.
          Jay

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Merry Monty Montgomery View Post
            I'm sure there would be clues on the death certs, but it might be pretty tricky to buy the right one!!
            Now wouldn't that make an interesting WDWTYA :D :D :D
            Jay

            Comment


            • #7
              Given the number of abandoned infants there must have been, I'm surprised the birth figures are so low.

              I'd agree with Merry about the marriages. One of my ancestors married by licence (pre 1754) Lucky for me that he did as the clergyman didn't catch his surname and although the marriage is on family search it was in the bride's parish, so no way I would ever have spotted it.
              Phoenix - with charred feathers
              Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe there was one "Male unknown" registered after the King's Cross disaster.

                I watched a programme about the forensics and the lengths they went to, to get an id were stupendous. One of the scientists said it offended him both personally and professionally when he had to submit "male unknown" or even worse, unknown unknown, after some terrible disaster, and that it gave him a high if he could - years later - put a name to an unknown, which would cause it to be re-registered.

                I have also seen burial registers which say "unknown male" or whatever, even "unknown infant". One clergyman on the IOM, recorded all such as "known unto God", even the terrible list of body parts he buried day after day following a shipwreck.

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                  Given the number of abandoned infants there must have been, I'm surprised the birth figures are so low.

                  I think foundlings would have been registered under their new name (if indeed they needed to be registered).

                  I have read somewhere about some of the names of children given to them where they were found such as Rosa Bush or Henry Lane etc.

                  Remembering: Cuthbert Gregory 1889 - 1916, George Arnold Connelly 1886 - 1917, Thomas Lowe Davenport 1890 - 1917, Roland Davenport Farmer 1885 - 1916, William Davenport Sheffield 1879 - 1915, Cuthbert Gregory 1918 - 1944

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If they found the dead body of an abandoned new-born baby then I wouldn't think they would bother to give it a name, but would presumably still have to register the birth and death?
                    KiteRunner

                    Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
                    (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have seen many burials of unknown men & women in The registers of Barton upon Humber, their bodies having been found in the river.
                      Lynn

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lynn, I was just about to post the same about the Regents Canal. Can't recall what parish I was looking at now, somewhere around Islington or Shoreditch, but there was several burials for people that had been found in the canal. Sometimes it just had male/female and an approx age but for some of them they had obviously asked questions of who they were as they had "Travelling Carpenter staying with Mrs SMith" etc
                        Zoe in London

                        Cio che Dio vuole, io voglio ~ What God wills, I will

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Most of the ones I've come across were in the Medway area (Gravesend etc) thanks to City Ark I've spent many an hour browsing these. There are some fascinating snippets in there.

                          I've also come across several around Tynemouth thanks to the BTs on the LDS site. I suppose any coastal parish will have a fair number.
                          I've also had one from Swaledale that was "a traveller found drowned in the river near Marrick". I didn't think the river was particularly deep there though it does have a fairly strong current.
                          Vicky

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was looking at the 2005-2008 GRO index at the library on Saturday with my mum and we were both very saddened to see that there were unknowns on there. I'd not thought about it before to be honest but have done so since then and is a dreadfully sad that the chances of family ever finding the deaths are pretty small.
                            Clare

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tom Tom View Post
                              I think foundlings would have been registered under their new name (if indeed they needed to be registered).

                              I have read somewhere about some of the names of children given to them where they were found such as Rosa Bush or Henry Lane etc.
                              Qute a lot of children, certainly those taken in by the Coram foundling hospital, were named after or by what were known as 'sponsors'.-People that gave money to the foundling hospital.

                              ( My Grandfather worked there, and both my father & I are members of the OCA)

                              One local Doctor sponsored a child, and gave her the First name of his wife and her surname was the name of his house!
                              Jess

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I suppose in the days before the child's surname was put on the birth certificate, where there was a column for mother's name including surname, and one for father's name including surname, then because the surname(s) on the index were taken from those two columns, if the parents of the child were unknown then the entry would have to be indexed under unknown? Even though the child would be given a surname, there would be nowhere on the certificate to show that it was the child's surname, would there? Looking at some of the "unknown" birth entries on the index, there are quite a lot with a first name and a lot with first name and middle name, where the middle name looks likely to have been chosen because of a connection with when or where the child was found, and was probably used as the child's surname, for instance:

                                Unknown John Wednesday
                                Unknown Joseph Chapel
                                Unknown Sarah Saturday
                                Unknown Sarah Sands
                                Unknown Emily Hill
                                KiteRunner

                                Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
                                (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I was once looking at a list of foundlings baptised at St Matins in the Fields, each of them were either given Martin or Fields in their names.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    I believe there was one "Male unknown" registered after the King's Cross disaster.

                                    I watched a programme about the forensics and the lengths they went to, to get an id were stupendous. One of the scientists said it offended him both personally and professionally when he had to submit "male unknown" or even worse, unknown unknown, after some terrible disaster, and that it gave him a high if he could - years later - put a name to an unknown, which would cause it to be re-registered.

                                    I have also seen burial registers which say "unknown male" or whatever, even "unknown infant". One clergyman on the IOM, recorded all such as "known unto God", even the terrible list of body parts he buried day after day following a shipwreck.

                                    OC
                                    You are right and it remained that way for a number of years. But he has now been identified.

                                    His family never reported him missing because he was always missing in action and a wanderer but a few years ago I think it was one of his daughters who felt having not heard from him for a very long time decided to pursue it. I thought they did a DNA test and it was him but I think having read the report now it seems that wasn't possible but they concluded it was him!

                                    The case of the initially "unidentified man", commonly known as "Body 115" after its mortuary tag number, was finally solved on 22 January 2004, when forensic evidence proved that he was 73-year-old Alexander Fallon of Falkirk, Scotland. The previously unidentified victim was immortalised in a 1990 Nick Lowe song, Who Was That Man?

                                    He was one of those people who just wandered around with no fixed abode.

                                    For 16 years, he was 'body 115'. But finally, the mystery victim of the King's Cross fire has been identified as Alexander Fallon, a 72-year-old Scot. Matthew Taylor reports.
                                    Last edited by Guest; 28-04-09, 23:20.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      That will explain this one then Kate

                                      Unknown Seaton Cliff
                                      Hartlepool 10a 190
                                      Jay

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        on a page of baptisms for 1842, at st anne's westminster, was " victoria. a foundling, named after the queen"
                                        i feel sorry for that poor child.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X