Liverpool & South West Lancashire FHS - Forum

On the 1871 census, eight years after my ancestor James Lee died, a mysterious extra child appeared with his widow's family on the census.

1871 census: 56 Duke Street, St Helens, Lancs (RG10/3862 f122)
Mary Lee, head, wid, 54, provision dealer, born Ashton in Willows
Henry Lee, son, un, 16, apprentice to joiner, born Windle
Tho. Lee, son, 8, scholar, born Liverpool

Ancestry have transcribed this child as Louisa M Lee, but the age of 8 is in the male column and the child is described as a "son". The actual image shows Louisa crossed out but the squiggle that might be the M still standing.

Many years ago, my first sight of this 1871 census wasn't the image of the page, it was an index by the Lancashire FHS, and they said the last child was Thomas, aged 8, scholar, born Liverpool. Now I look at the image of the page, I can see how that squiggle which might be the M could be interpreted as "Tho", and taken with the age in the male column, and the relationship "son" suggests a boy called Thomas. That's what the indexer from the Lancs FHS thought.

If this child is supposed to be Mary's son, he was born when Mary was 48 or 49 and six years after her last known child, Agnes in 1857. I think it's pretty clear that this can't be Mary's child. Also, the child's birthplace is said to be Liverpool, when none of her other children were born in Liverpool.

So was it an illegitimate child of one of the daughters? In 1862/3 the only possible daughter to be the mother of a surprise child would be the eldest, Alice, who was then about 15. Did she "get into trouble", and was she sent away to Liverpool on the pretext of being in service?

Is there is a birth registration for this child? I looked in all of Lancashire in 1862, 1863 and 1864. There is only one possible Louisa, a Louisa Ann Bates Lee born West Derby in the first quarter of 1862, which would make her 9 in early April 1871, not 8. Perhaps the child of a boyfriend called Bates? There is no subsequent record I can find of this Louisa Ann Bates Lee, not even a death.

There were five baby boys called Thomas Lee:
4Q 1863 Liverpool
1Q 1864 West Derby
2Q 1864 Liverpool
2Q 1864 Ormskirk
3Q 1864 Prescot

None are in 1862 or early 1863, to make them 8 on the census. These boys would only be 6 or 7 on 2nd April 1871. I was hoping for an obvious one so I could buy the birth certificate and find out the truth.

Furthermore, I can't see a likely Louisa or Thomas Lee aged about 18 in 1881. A cousin says he has all the Lee baptisms from St Mary Lowe House (where the previous children of James and Mary had been baptised), but there is no baptism for a Thomas Lee or a Louisa Lee in 1862 / 63.

So would you send for Louisa's birth certificate, or has anyone any other ideas to pin this child down?

Barbara

Just so that everybody can see, here is the entry



I don't see it as Tho. and am wondering if the "Do" is written in by mistake.

I'm always hesitant to encourage people to spend their money on a hunch, but I don't think that there is any certainty in putting a criteria on ordering it in this case - such as specifying that the mother was Alice, unless you would be certain that it couldn't be anybody else's, however if we agree that the squiggle is M, then Louisa Ann Bates Lee doesn't fit.

I've checked baptisms in Liverpool without success.

I wonder if you have considered the marriage of Louisa Mary Lee in 1880 to George James Leeming, she was 20 and living in 16 Oberon Street and father stated to be John Lee "Dead"

there is this entry

Births Jun 1862
LEE Male W Derby 8b 277

but obviously won't know anything for sure on this one without the certificate

Simone x

I think the squiggle is a "R" It resembles the "R" in Rachel above, definitely not Tho. and the Enumerators Ms are clear enough.

On FMP the transcription is shown as R. Lee

Did Mary have an older son, if so this could be his son, therefore Mary's grandson.

Just a thought Mary may have been pregnant when James her husband died and was..possibly to upset to register Louisa (( looks like Louisa M to me )) ..Mary would have been 48 years old not too old to have a child...I say this because my own grandmother had her 13th child at 49 ...

Ann

I was actually thinking it looked more like Lavinia
Strangely came across a burial at Eccleston St Thomas of Lavinia Lee 20/04/1862 age 8 weeks , residence Windle, in 1862

wonder who the parents were for her

Thanks, all, for your thoughts.
What I didn't say, and perhaps should have, is that this was an RC family.
Barbara W: Mary's eldest son Isaac Lee (born 1852) left home at 12 and became a priest at Stonyhurst. I don't really suspect him of being this child's father.
Mary A: Thanks for that suggested marriage of a Louisa Mary Lee from Oberon Street (Liverpool I presume). I'd have expected a marriage to have been in St Helens, and the father's name isn't right (should have been James, if he managed to leave his wife pregnant just before he died.) It's tempting, but not close enough to spend a tenner on, sadly.
Thanks also for checking baptisms in Liverpool. Do I understand there is a central index? or a CD from the Society?
Simone: That birth registration of a male child is another to add to the list when (perhaps!) birth certificates become available on-line and much cheaper! Lavinia is good, too, and that's an interesting burial, but a bit too young and not RC.
Daisycakes: Yes, if your grandmother had a child at 49, I suppose Mary Lee could have done so as well, so it isn't impossible for this mystery child to have been her and her husband's, and not an illegitimate grandchild at all.

Mary Lee nee Webster's deceased husband, James Lee (died 30 Oct 1863), was my g g grandfather, but I am descended from his first wife, so this unknown child isn't that close to my line. He or she is of interest only because a) I don't like loose ends and b) James is the most prolific of my ancestors, fathering 12 children by his first wife, then six more by Mary. This child would make his total 19!
Cheers
Barbara

Very prolific!! I have to admit that I often get sidetracked when I come across something of interest and want the loose ends tying up, it sometimes leads to a story.

I can only check the Liverpool baptisms on Ancestry, Lancashire Online Parish Clerk or Familysearch, of which there are many available, we are very lucky with what is available online for Liverpool, although there are a number of churches whose registers have to be checked either on microfilm or in the original at the RO.

Just adding to this old thread with extra information.
I finally sent for the PDF BC of the interesting Louisa Ann Bates Lee. She was born 2 Feb 1862, at 2 Wood Street East, West Derby RD, no father listed, mother Elizabeth Meadows Lee, registered on 15th March 1862 by x the mark of Elizabeth Lee, occupier, of 2 Wood Street East.
The person registering the birth wasn't the mother, I don't think, or it would have said so. Possibly the grandmother? But this is not the mystery child in St Helens in 1871, I'm pretty sure of that. The only possible daughter of the St Helens Lee family to have borne an illegitimate child was called Alice, but the mother of this child didn't have that name. I was also hoping that the place of birth would be some sort of mother-and-baby home, but that's not the case either.
But at least one possibility for this mystery child has been eliminated.
Barbara