"An Unexpected Hint Unveils...What?" Continued

In my post "An Unexpected Hint Unveils...What?" I looked at the curious circumstance of William John Gunnee and his second family in Australia while back in England it appeared that he had left his first family. So what happened to his first wife Maud Louisa Mansfield?

But first a quick recap concerning William and Maud.

On 8 May 1904 William John Gunnee married Maud Louisa Mansfield, the daughter of Harry Mansfield, a lighterman.

"London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921," database, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Jul 2012), William John Gunnee and Maud Louisa Mansfield, married 8 May 1904; citing London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Michael And All Angels, Bromley, Register of marriages, P88/MIC, Item 024.

On 6 Jan 1906, Maud gave birth to a son, Harold Sheil Gunnee, at 19 Lake Street, Ratcliff in London.

England and Wales, birth certificate for Harold Shiel Gunnee, born 6 Jan 1906; citing 1c/375/201, Mar quarter 1906, Stepney registration district, Shadwell and Ratchiff sub-district; General Register Office, Southport.

Sometime between early 1905 and early 1907 he departed England and arrived in Australia where he met and wed Ethel May Millen on 17 Feb 1907.

What about his wife Maud Louisa (nee Mansfield) and his son Harold Sheil Gunnee back in England? What happened to them? This is where it continues to stay interesting. At least from a genealogy and family history perspective.

After 1905 in the record searches I first came across her and her son living in the household of Henry George Pocock in the 1911 census of England that took place on 2 Apr 1911. In that enumeration a Blanche Maud Pocock was also included and it looked like she was the daughter of Henry George Pocock but the relationship column was a bit confusing with pencil and ink notations.

1911 census of England, London, 8 Woollett Street, Poplar, Household of Henry George Pocock; digital images, Ancestry,com Operations, Inc., Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Jul 2012); citing RG 78 PN 60, RG 14 PN 1718, registration district (RD) 22, sub district (SD) 3, enumeration district (ED) 2, schedule number (SN) 66.

Possibly Blanche was the daughter of Henry's first wife since his marital status was "widower". So a few pounds and days later I had a PDF of her birth registration from the General Register Office of England and Wales.

England and Wales, birth certificate for Blanche Maude Pocock, born 22 Sep 1909; citing 1c/540/428, Dec quarter 1909, Poplar registration district; General Register Office, Southport.

Hmmm, it seems that Maud Louisa has taken the "Pocock" name as her own when she registered the 22 Sep 1909 birth of her daughter Blanche. That means I should be looking for a marriage of Maud Louisa Mansfield/Gunnee sometime between 1905 and 1909. I did find several possible marriages using the FreeBMD indexes but none to a Popock or variation of that name. I reversed the search to find any marriages for a Henry George Pocock in the same time frame. Still no good matches found. So I expanded the time frame to include up to 1912. Lo and behold a marriage for Henry G Pocock and Maud L Gunner appeared in the index for marriages registered in the fourth quarter of 1911.

Screen capture of Marriages Dec 1911 results for a search for Henry Pocock in the FreeBMD index.

I've seen "Gunner" as a transcription error before and the registration district, Poplar, is the same as their daughter Blanche. Even looking at the image of the index page it said "Gunner" but I took a gamble, paid even more pounds, and waited three weeks to get the marriage registration send to me by postal mail.

England and Wales, marriage certificate for Henry Pocock and Maud Louisa Gunnee, married 17 Oct 1911; citing 1c/1108/85, Dec quarter 1911, Poplar registration district; General Register Office, Southport.

This definitely appears to be "Gunnee" on the registration and her maiden surname is Mansfield. All the information I know about her matches what is on this document. The address for both Henry George Pocock and Maud Louisa Gunnee matches that recorded for their daughter Blanche's birth. From the document Henry and Maud were married 17 Oct 1911, several months after the 1911 census, and it took place at the Register Office (not included in the image posted) and not in a church. Maud again states that she was a widow and Henry is recorded as a bachelor (not a widower!). That 1911 census enumeration really is an interesting mishmash of confusing details.

They had at least one other child, Gladys Ellen Rose Pocock¹ born on 6 Jun 1913 in Barking, Essex, England. Henry, Maud, and Gladys could even be found in the 1939 Register of England and Wales in Barking, Essex. The red stroke through Maud's entry referred to a heavily redacted page providing the exact same information.

1939 Register, Essex, England, RG 101, piece 1057A, image 15, 82 Wedderburn Road, Barking, Essex, household of Henry G Pocock.

What about William John Gunnee and Maud Louisa Manfields' son Harold Shiel Gunnee? From the various records it appears that Harold kept the Gunnee name in his name but used the "Pocock" surname from his step-father. This can be seen in the Principal Probate Registry for the Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England.

Ancestry.com, "National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995," database on-line, Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com : accessed 13 Jul 2019), entry for Harold Shiel Gunnee Pocock, died 23 Jan 1978.

Based on the marriage index and also the 1939 Register of England and Wales it appears that Harold married Rosalind Ellen Tyler in 1929 and they had at least four children.

I think a few lessons can be taken from this little bit of exploration into this branch of my family:

• Census enumerations and other documents can't be taken as gospel, people don't necessarily tell the truth.
• Always try to corroborate the facts found in the records you find.
• If there have been corrections or edits to document then following up on the changes can sometimes highlight something "interesting".
• Always expand your search if you can't find the event in the expected time frame. You might be surprised at what you come across.

---

1. England and Wales, birth certificate for Gladys Ellen Rose Pocock, born 6 Jun 1913; citing 4a/1168/267, Sep quarter 1913, Romford registration district; General Register Office, Southport.

Researching in the 1939 Register of England and Wales

The most recent task I set for myself in researching my own family tree was to look for people in my tree that might have been recorded in the 1939 Register of England and Wales.

You might be asking, just what is this 1939 Register?

From The National Archives research guide they state:

"The 1939 Register provides a snapshot of the civilian population of England and Wales just after the outbreak of the Second World War.

As the 1931 census for England and Wales was destroyed by fire during the Second World War and no census was taken in 1941, the Register provides the most complete survey of the population of England and Wales between 1921 and 1951, making it an invaluable resource for family, social and local historians."

The 1939 Register was taken on September 29, 1939. It is important to note that it only recorded civilians on that date. Anyone in the military were not recorded. It also only covered England and Wales and not the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Additionally, people that are born less than 100 years ago and whose deaths have not been recorded in the register will have the dreaded black line "This record is officially closed."

So where can I find the 1939 Register online?

If you have a subscription to the UK sites of Ancestry or Findmypast or a subscription that has access to the UK records on those sites then you have the records at your finger tips. You might have already been given hints that the records exist for people in your online trees on both of those sites.

So what is great about this registration? Basic details of a person have been recorded such as name, gender, date of birth (not just the year but the full date!), marital status, occupation, and their address. However, it is important to note that it does not state the relationship to the first person recorded for the household. This means that you need to be very careful about your assumptions as to spouses, parents or children.

Sometimes you will come across an entry for a woman where her surname has been crossed out and another name written above:

1939 Register, Durham, England, RG 101, piece 2742E, image 015, line 21, 17 Sunnybrow Avenue, Billingham, Durham, Margaret G Mitchell (Armstrong).

This might be a clue that she married. There might even be what looks to be a date in the first column of the date of the marriage. That is when you what to take pop over to the FreeBMD site to look for a marriage recorded in that quarter or the following quarter.

FreeBMD.org.uk search results for marriage of Margaret Armstrong to a "Mitchell" between Mar 1946 and Mar 1947 quarters

Could Margaret Armstrong's future husband be John Mitchell and were they married on July 29, 1946? In order to confirm this assumption the next step would be to order the marriage registration document from the General Register Office of England and Wales for a cost of £11 and wait a few weeks for it to be delivered via postal mail.

About that black line I mentioned when you find "This record is officially closed." That too can provide you with clues. Could it be that under the black line is a name of a child? Well if you found the record on Ancestry then you might want to check for the same page on Findmypast. I've personally found that Findmypast is more current when it comes for closed records opening up. However, if it is also closed on Findmypast then this is where piecing together several searches can provide you with possible answers.

If you don't already have the maiden surname of the mother then you will need to see if you can identify it via a similar search on FreeBMD that I did for Margaret Armstrong above. After that you can make use of the extra field that was added to the GRO birth index from September 1911 onward, that of the mother's maiden surname.

1939 Register, Glamorganshire, Wales, RG 101, piece 7260E, image 002, line 6, 118 Caerphilly Road, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, Harry Warrener.

For example, here is the household of Harry Warrener (my 1st cousin, twice removed), a master butcher, residing in Cardiff, Wales. Residing in the same residence are:

• Marcia Warrener: most likely his wife since I know he married a Marcia Andrew from other records
• Florence Andrew: quite possibly Marcia's mother
• Anne Warrener: most likely his daughter since I already have her in a baptism document. With her surname crossed out and Hanks written above it would seem that she married a "Hanks".
• Unknown 1
• Unknown 2

The question is, could these two lines that are still sealed be additional children of Harry and Marcia? Or could they be lodgers?

For that we can use any of the sites that have a copy of the GRO birth index. In this case, I'm using FreeBMD. Here is the screen shot of the search I used. I'm not even restricting the location where the birth was registered or the date range.

Screen capture of FreeBMD.org.uk birth search for children of Warrener-Andrew

As you can see only three children were returned from that query.

Screen capture of FreeBMD.org.uk birth search results for the children of Warrener-Andrew

I already know about Anne Warrener but it appears that Harry Warrener and Marcia Andrew might have had two other children. And there are two lines that haven't been revealed in the 1939 Register. Could that be them? The next steps for me, at least, is to create a to do item for both Mary and Harry A. to order their civil birth registrations from the General Register Office of England and Wales. Then I will know if they are the children of Harry and Marcia. Even the fact that the line for Anne is viewable indicates that she has died. Is there a death registration for Anne Hanks available through the GRO that matches what I know about her? I might even explore possible marriages and look for online obituaries or death notices that can shed more light on this family.

As you can see there is quite a bit of information and clues held within the 1939 Register of England and Wales. Not all of it is visible but with a bit of research you can look forward to adding even more people to your family tree.

Re-examining Assumptions

One thing we need to do on a periodic basis when doing our genealogy and family history research is to re-examine our assumptions when it comes the "hmmm, is this the same person?" situation.

For over 10 years I had a note associated with my 2nd great-grandfather George Warrener of Cayton, Yorkshire, England. This note was concerning a possible second marriage after his first wife, Mary Ann Kay, died in 1876 in Stockton, County Durham, England. This possible second marriage was to Jemima Halliman (nee Jordan) in Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, England in 1899:

England and Wales, marriage certificate for George Warrener and Jemima Halliman (nee Jordon), married 26 Dec 1899; citing 10a/155/131, Dec quarter 1899, Stockton registration district; General Register Office, Southport.

There were a few details in the marriage registration that just didn't fit at the time when I was first looking at the record:

1. He was listed as age 64 years (born about 1835) when I have him recorded as being baptized in 1829.
2. His occupation was a coal dealer yet I'd only seen him recorded in his later years as working as a foreman in a brick yard.
3. The occupation of his deceased father, William Warrener, was listed as "farm bailiff". In all the records I had for William he was always an AgLab.

None of these were showstoppers per se but at the time I just couldn't convince myself that the George Warrener that married Jemima Halliman was the same person as the George Warrener that married my 2nd great-grandmother May Ann Kay. 

Of course, that was before I started on my current project of reviewing family members that might be found in the 1939 England and Wales Register that was taken on September 29, 1939.

One of the names that was in the list to check was that of Elizabeth Warrener, the daughter of George Warrener and Mary Ann Kay. In her civil birth registration it was recorded that she was born on 15 May 1872. On July 24, 1899 she married John William Sadler:

England and Wales, marriage certificate for John William Sadler and Elizabeth Warrener; citing 10A/127/332, Sep quarter 1899, Stockton registration district; General Register Office, Southport.

In the registration she stated her father, George Warrener, was a coal merchant. But is this Elizabeth Warrener the daughter of my 2nd great-grandfather George Warrener?

This is where the 1939 Register comes into play. I found John W. Sadler and his wife Elizabeth recorded as living in Port Talbot, Glamorganshire, Wales:

1939 Register, Bedfordshire, England, RG 101, piece 7367I, image 012, line 29, 4 Greenfield Avenue, Port Talbot, Glamorganshire, Elizabeth Sadler.

One of the really nice details recorded in this 1939 Register is the date of birth of the person, or at least the date provided by the informant.

As you can see, Elizabeth Sadler has a date of birth of May 15, 1872. This is the same date as recorded in the civil registration for Elizabeth, the daughter of George Warrener and Mary Ann Kay. It would seem that the Elizabeth Warrener that married John William Sadler is the same Elizabeth Warrener that is the daughter of my 2nd great-grandfather George Warrener.

This also means that just a few months before George Warrener married Jemima Halliman she recorded her father as being a coal merchant. In his second marriage he states he was a coal dealer. So the occupation change seems to be valid.

This seems to have satisfied the second of my three concerns. What about the other two? Shaving a few years off your age when marrying someone almost half your age doesn't surprise me anymore. I've seen it many times by both partners in marriage registrations since I've been working on my tree since the first time I looked at this record in 2009. That's two concerns down, what about the occupation of his father?

The first time I looked at the marriage record I saw "town bailiff" but with more experience in deciphering writing I now see it as "farm bailiff". Additionally, William died in 1859. So George might have slightly inflated William's standing or William actually was a farm bailiff before he died.

One more point I need to make. I finally really looked at the record and paid attention to the participants. Not just the two being married but also the witnesses. That is when I noticed a "G. K. Warrener" as a witness. G. K. Warrener is most likely my great-grandfather George Kaye Warrener, the youngest son of George Warrener and Mary Ann Kay.

So after ten years from first ordering the marriage registration for George Warrener and Jemima Halliman (nee Jordan) I can finally add her and their son Walter Horsley Warrener, to my family tree.

There are several lessons from today's post:

• You always need to re-examine your assumptions and the associated records as you get additional facts and uncover newly found documents.
• As you improve your own knowledge in doing genealogy and family history research the records in your possession may provide additional clues. Take the time to re-read the documents.
• Don't be afraid to admit that you might be wrong in your initial conclusions. Make the corrections and document your reasons.