Eiley Nora Kathleen COOTE née GAYTON

[Christine in Herts]

This absolutely a matter of curiosity - loose-end tidying - and not My Tree. This unusually-named lady is a sideline/twig in my mother's part of the tree.

• b 1903 q2 Portsmouth 2b-429
• 1911 RG14/5652 RG78/256 RD92 SD1 ED5 SN185: age 7; Castle St, Portchester, Fareham
• m 1928 q3 Soton 2c-71, Gordon W S COOTE (who died 1968 age 66 Worthing)

Gordon W S COOTE married again 1941q2, Worthing.

Someone who's a lot closer in the tree mentioned to me that Eiley "died young - possibly of TB".

I think, from some unrecorded source (grr! - why do I always imagine I'll remember? or that it won't matter later on?) that she tended to use "Nora" and not her first name - possibly just to avoid confusion with her mother, whose first name was also Eiley (born in Scotland).

I can't find Eiley's death registration... I have presumed that she would be Eiley Nora K COOTE, b ca 1904, and would have died 1928-1941.

Can anyone else, with a moment to spare, find Eiley N K's death registration entry? Or suggest why I can't?

I have tried looking for her in the outgoing ship-passenger manifests, too.

Christine

[champagnegal]

Eily NK Coote - Died Worthing registration area July quarter 1939 Vol 2b page 650 aged 36

Hope that helps

[Guest]

oh pooh you beat me to it

[Christine in Herts]

Thank you both

I thought I'd tried all the likely options/errors! Still - it demonstrates that teamwork can be very effective!

Christine

EDIT:
I think there's some kind of bug in the way the ± years work on Ancestry. That death doesn't show up if you put COOTE in the surname, born 1904 ±2 and died 1938 ±10, even though 1903 is within 2 years of 1904, and 1939 is well within 10 years of 1938.

[champagnegal]

Must admit, I never put date of possible birth in as I found it didn't work unless the death was from 1969 onwards I think you're right Christine and it is some kind of bug.

[Christine in Herts]

I think I may have spotted the problem - and I've told Ancestry that they should sort it out quickly:

Is this missed because the estimated YoB has not been entered in the transcription, just the age? If so, I think you should get something done about that very soon, because the search box allows you to search on approx YoB, and that can be estimated from the age, so there's no reason to expect that function not to be available, especially as there’s no “age” box.

It'll be interesting to see what they have to say about it.

Incidentally - if you're searching from 1946 or so onward, they haven't got the adjusted counties in place, so (yesterday's feedback!):

Rotherham and Leeds are (and always have been) in Yorkshire - the north of England - not Hampshire - the south of England.

I suggest that you check other places, too: I see you have relocated the Gloucester (City) out of Gloucestershire, eastwards and northwards into Nottinghamshire / Derbyshire; Middlesbrough has moved a few hundred miles south into Greater London; parts of Kent (far SE) to Cornwall/Devon (far SW); Worcester from Worcestershire, northeastwards to Yorkshire; and so on...

I have referred them to GenUKI info about the volume numbers.
Christine

[Guest]

I have emailed Ancestry constantly in the last few weeks and they dont even reply for days ? they then say they will sort it out and dont humph

[Christine in Herts]

Must admit, I never put date of possible birth in as I found it didn't work unless the death was from 1969 onwards I think you're right Christine and it is some kind of bug.

I've had a reply from Ancestry - a bit patronising!

At this time it is not possible to search any death registers, before the second quarter of 1969, by the individual's date of birth. This is because the birth dates were not included on death registrations until after the second quarter of 1969.

However, because the age at death was still included, this can be used as a valuable tool in your research. Simply type in the name, death date, and death location of the individual and select 'Search.' Then open up any possible matches to see what the age at death was. This age can be used to verify an estimated date of birth.

I have replied to point out that the lack of accurate DoB isn't any impediment to an estimated YoB for births pre-1916, so I'd like to know why it suddenly becomes a problem afterwards; and also that their idea of opening up lots of individual hits to make your estimate is not really very helpful - particularly if you have a common surname or a wide band of years to search.

Christine