What happened to them?

[Smoosh]

I've recently started doing my family tree and I'm currently working on the maternal side. My great grandmother was called Ruth Badrick, she was born in 1888 to William Badrick and Sarah Kempster (at least, I'm about 95% sure that's her surname!). On the 1891 census William and Sarah are living at 9 Charles Street, Tring, Hertfordshire with Ruth and their 7 other children (if you have Ancestry it can be viewed here http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...=&pid=21719265). On the 1901 census there is no record of Sarah. William is living at a different address (Still in Tring but I can't make it out on the census) with 5 of the previous children and a further two that were born in 1894 and 1899. I'm not even sure if the youngest children were Sarah's, I'm just assuming they were. William now lists himself as widowed so it definitely seems as though she died in between the census', however, with the youngest child being born in 1899, that would've made Sarah about 45 years old, so I wonder if that had something to do with her death. Their 1901 census is here http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...c=&pid=7756125 The problem is that I can't seem to find any record of Sarah's death, I believe she was born in 1855 and would have died between 1899 and 1901. Unless she was in fact still alive and had moved somewhere else, but I'm not sure why William would then declare himself as widowed on the census.

I'm also stuggling to find out what happened to William after the 1901 census. Two of his children, possibly more that I haven't researched yet, were enlisted in the army (John and Harry) and they both list William as their next of kin, this is roughly around 1916. The only death record that I can find that seems to match him is for the 1930s.

Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated as I feel like I've really hit a wall with this and I'd love to know what happened to Sarah.

[Guest]

wonder if this is her death
Sarah M Baldrick in Berkhampstead Hertfordshire
Mar quarter 1900
3A 522 age 45

[Smoosh]

wonder if this is her death
Sarah M Baldrick in Berkhampstead Hertfordshire
Mar quarter 1900
3A 522 age 45

That sounds like her! Her middle name was Margaret as far as I know. Where did you find that? :o :D

[Guest]

maybe his death
William Badrick
Berkhampstead Hertfordshire
Jun quarter 1934
3a 1118
age 81

[Guest]

I stuck an L in Badrick ? as it could have been mistranscribed

[Smoosh]

maybe his death
William Badrick
Berkhampstead Hertfordshire
Jun quarter 1934
3a 1118
age 81

I'm fairly sure that is him I just have no idea where he was after 1901 before he died! These are Harry Badrick's WWI documents: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...src=&pid=49432 Where there's even a letter from William who says he's living in "White House, Miswell Road, Tring" but I cannot find him on the 1911 census :( Similarly, these are John Badrick's documents: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...src=&pid=49435 Where there is also mention of William as well as Sarah and some of his siblings as well, although I'm not sure what dates it is from.

[Smoosh]

I stuck an L in Badrick ? as it could have been mistranscribed

I definitely think that is her! I suppose that would've been quite an easy mistake to make, I can't believe I didn't think of doing that sooner. Thank you so much for finding that for me :D I wonder why she died, I'm tempted to order the certificate, although I can't really afford to be doing that. Harry wasn't born until 26th November 1899, so I wonder if her giving birth at the age of 45 had anything to do with her death.

[davelambert271]

1901 address Wendover branch of Grand Union Canal, tring

Freebmd

BADRICK	William		Berkhampstead	3a	609
BARBER	Mary Ann		Berkhampstead	3a	609
Kempster	Margaret Sarah		Berkhampstead	3a	609
MUTKINS	George		Berkhampstead	3a	609

[Smoosh]

1901 address Wendover branch of Grand Union Canal, tring

Freebmd

BADRICK	William		Berkhampstead	3a	609
BARBER	Mary Ann		Berkhampstead	3a	609
Kempster	Margaret Sarah		Berkhampstead	3a	609
MUTKINS	George		Berkhampstead	3a	609

That's great, thank you for reading that, I just couldn't make out what it said!
Thank you for posting their marriage as well. I have seen that before and wondered why she's listed as Margaret Sarah when everywhere else I can find her lists her simply as Sarah and her death would indicate that she was Sarah Margaret.

[Guest]

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=1708&iid=31820_00386-00059&fn=Wm&ln=Badrick&st=r&ssrc=&pid=1382557

here is your William in 1911 thats in the summary books but cannot find the census record

[Smoosh]

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...c=&pid=1382557
here is your William in 1911

Thank you! Unfortunately it seems that this is the census page: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/...5.2&sid=&gskw= it's totally unreadable :( I wonder who the younger children are and who the woman is. It does appear to be him though as on this one he is a night watchman for canal company and on the 1901 census he was also listed as being a labourer for the canal company.

[Smoosh]

Hmmm, it's been filled out by someone called Mary Ann Badrick who states that their marriage has been for 4 years. I have found this record: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...06&f9=10&f5=1a Which has a William Badrick marrying a Mary Ann Messenger in 1906, although it's in Paddington, I suppose it's a possibility that he did remarry though. The third person on the list does kind of look like it says Harry, which would tally up. I have no idea who the younger boy and girl are though, surely they can't be Mary Ann's children as she lists herself as 65 and the youngest is only 8.

[Guest]

I think he married again in Paddington in 1906 Dec quarter 1a 165 to a Mary Ann Messenger ???? a Mary Ann Badrick signed the 1911 census record ???

[Guest]

maybe they are Harrys children ? he is there .

[Smoosh]

I think he married again in Paddington in 1906 Dec quarter 1a 165 to a Mary Ann Messenger ???? a Mary Ann Badrick signed the 1911 census record ???

It's looking likely. I just wish I could read it Harry would've only been able 11 in the 1911 cenus, so they can't be his.

[Guest]

oh no of course not dont know what I was thinking ? but they could be the children of an older child

[Smoosh]

oh no of course not dont know what I was thinking ? but they could be the children of an older child

That is possible, I believe William and Sarah had 10 children, so I guess I'll have to do some research on them! Other than that, I suppose they could be related to Mary Ann, maybe her grandchildren or something.
I'm almost 100% certain that the 3rd person is Harry the digit of his age that is actually legible does look like a 1.

[Guest]

yes it is Harry I could make that out

[Smoosh]

I've just noticed there's an exact birthplace for the 8 year old girl - 29 Oldbury Place, Marylebone, London. I hope that might make it easier to find her. It looks like the first two letters of her name are Ed, but I'm not sure.

[Uncle John]

As a boat family they were probably illiterate (I know I'm generalising) and family members could be born, married and die anywhere between London and Birmingham or even Leicester if they went up that branch of the Grand Union Canal. There are specialised researchers of boat families and national canal museums which hold employment and similar records. (gleaned from the TV series Waterworld - I have no personal experience).