Missing Children for William and Mary DIXON
Before trying to trace Mary DIXON nee PRICE any further back, I want to try to find her 'missing' children. On the 1911 census, she says that she'd had 13 children and yet I could find only 10 birth registrations. The way I searched was to search for DIXON births on the GRO website where the maiden name was PRICE. I'm just wondering whether any births were registered where the maiden name was misheard and entered incorrectly?
In looking at the list of the children I know about, it is clear that the births come very regularly! However, there are gaps; 1878-1881 in St Saviours, Surrey, 1887-1890 either St Saviours, Surrey or Holborn as they clearly moved between the two districts in that time period; 1892-1895 in Holborn; 1897-1898 in Holborn; 1900-1901 in Holborn.
Taking each time period in turn and just looking for DIXON births with no mother's maiden name, I find the following:
1878-1881 St Saviours, Surrey - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1887-1890 St Savious, Surrey - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1887-1890 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1892-1895 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1897-1898 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1900-1901 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
On the 1901 census, Mary is aged 46 so it's going to be increasingly unlikely that she'll have many more children. However, searching 1902-1911 would be useful, just in case! But, as I thought, there are no more DIXON children where the mother's maiden name is anything like PRICE.
I can only conclude that the unknown three children were stillbirths whose births were not recorded.
On the 1911 census, she does also say that of her 13 children, 6 have died. There's the 3 probable stillbirths, plus William born in 1890, so that's four deaths accounted for.
On the 1901 census, there are 7 children listed and on the previous blog post, I did wonder whether the missing Edwin had died between 1891 and 1901. Also, I guessed that the James William not on the 1891 census had flown the nest, but perhaps he died too, sometime between 1881 and 1891?
Looking at James William DIXON first, it was sometime between 1885 and 1887 that they moved from St Saviour to Holborn, so if James William DIXON did die, it could be in either district. So, looking for his death between 1881 and 1891 and looking in both St Saviour and Holborn, I find the following:
James William DIXON Age at death: 3 1Q 1882 St Saviour Surrey Ref 01D 76
I can't find anything in Holborn, so this must be his death entry. When I quickly assumed that he'd flown the nest, I hadn't really closely looked at what his age would have been. So, little James is death number five.
Looking at Edwin DIXON, I'm looking to find his death between 1891 and 1901 in Holborn. Using the GRO website, I find ........ nothing! In 1901 he would have been about 18 so I need to look for him in his own right on the 1901 census. He may not be the other one to die! On the 1911 census, only Maud, Leonard and the married Alberta and her husband and first child are living with them, so the sixth child to have died will need a bit more investigation :)
In looking at the list of the children I know about, it is clear that the births come very regularly! However, there are gaps; 1878-1881 in St Saviours, Surrey, 1887-1890 either St Saviours, Surrey or Holborn as they clearly moved between the two districts in that time period; 1892-1895 in Holborn; 1897-1898 in Holborn; 1900-1901 in Holborn.
Taking each time period in turn and just looking for DIXON births with no mother's maiden name, I find the following:
1878-1881 St Saviours, Surrey - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1887-1890 St Savious, Surrey - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1887-1890 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1892-1895 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1897-1898 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
1900-1901 Holborn - None where the mother's surname could be a mis-hearing of PRICE
On the 1901 census, Mary is aged 46 so it's going to be increasingly unlikely that she'll have many more children. However, searching 1902-1911 would be useful, just in case! But, as I thought, there are no more DIXON children where the mother's maiden name is anything like PRICE.
I can only conclude that the unknown three children were stillbirths whose births were not recorded.
On the 1911 census, she does also say that of her 13 children, 6 have died. There's the 3 probable stillbirths, plus William born in 1890, so that's four deaths accounted for.
On the 1901 census, there are 7 children listed and on the previous blog post, I did wonder whether the missing Edwin had died between 1891 and 1901. Also, I guessed that the James William not on the 1891 census had flown the nest, but perhaps he died too, sometime between 1881 and 1891?
Looking at James William DIXON first, it was sometime between 1885 and 1887 that they moved from St Saviour to Holborn, so if James William DIXON did die, it could be in either district. So, looking for his death between 1881 and 1891 and looking in both St Saviour and Holborn, I find the following:
James William DIXON Age at death: 3 1Q 1882 St Saviour Surrey Ref 01D 76
I can't find anything in Holborn, so this must be his death entry. When I quickly assumed that he'd flown the nest, I hadn't really closely looked at what his age would have been. So, little James is death number five.
Looking at Edwin DIXON, I'm looking to find his death between 1891 and 1901 in Holborn. Using the GRO website, I find ........ nothing! In 1901 he would have been about 18 so I need to look for him in his own right on the 1901 census. He may not be the other one to die! On the 1911 census, only Maud, Leonard and the married Alberta and her husband and first child are living with them, so the sixth child to have died will need a bit more investigation :)
Comments
Post a Comment