Opinions please....

[dickiesam]

On the 19th of October 1891 a child was baptised "Petrus" Fry, parents Thomas and Elizabeth Fry nee Pierce. The child's birth is simply entered as September 1887.

I believe the child was actually Percy Fry, subsequently 'abandoned' by his parents. Percy has no been found in the 1891 census and is believed to have been sent to Canada in 1898.

His departure...
Passenger: Percy FRY
Date of departure: 26 March 1898
Port of departure: Liverpool
Passenger destination port: Portland, USA
Passenger destination: Portland, USA
Date of Birth: 1887 (calculated from age)
Age: 11
Occupation: Child
Passenger recorded on: Page 1 of manifest.
Ship: CARTHAGINIAN

Percy is accompanied by 27 other young children on the manifest and two adults, Ellen Douglas and Louisa James.

From Source: Library and Archives Canada;
Reference: RG 76 B 1 a, Vol 32, File 724, Part 1, Documents from Immigration Branch, Central Registry Files; Microfilm: C-4690; Type of Record: Other Government of Canada records

His arrival....
Surname: FRY
Given Name: Percy
Age: 11
Ship: Carthaginian
Year of Arrival: 1898
Departure Port: Liverpool
Departure Date: 1898
Arrival Port: Portland
Arrival Date: 1898
Party: The Sheltering House, Liverpool, England.
Comments: Group of 42 medically examined 22 May 1898 in England.

The final destination of the children aboard the CARTHAGINIAN 1898, following arrival at Portland, Maine, was Knowlton, Quebec. http://jubilation.uwaterloo.ca/~marj/ge ... /birt.html

His 'abandonment' is in line with the neglect of 2 other sons of this couple, both taken into care in 1898. Two daughters born died soon after birth.

Now, the opinion... The only birth for a Percy Fry was registered in January 1888. The certificate arrived today. His birth is dated 24th November 1887, father named as William Fry [seaman], mother Elizabeth Fry formerly Pierce of 19 Mulberry Street.

Elizabeth's spouse Thomas was a railway lorry driver and they had married in October 1883, their first child Elizabeth was born in 1884 [died 1886]. Percy was, as far as I can see, their second child. They are not living together in 1891 and there is no marriage for a William Fry to an Elizabeth Pierce. So was Thomas not Percy's father and William Fry was a convenient invention? Or what.....? Recently discovered family lore has it that Elizabeth had a 'drink problem'. And where is Percy in 1891?

[graleystives]

Could the name on the certificate be a mistake? I have a marriage cert for an ancestor from the same period in which I know one of the Christain names is wrong. If people were illiterate they may not have spotted it.
Have you found Elizabeth and Thomas on the 1891 census?

[MaryA]

Definitely consider it to be the correct child, the difference in birth date of just two months as we know is as we know, often due to a cover up to hide the non registration at the time of birth.

I wonder whether there was a reason for a baptism at four years old? Thinking of my own grandfather, he Admittance details to the Bluecoat School included an entry for baptism place and date, I believe the school insisted that they were.

Perhaps 1891 was when little Percy was admitted to The Sheltering House and this may have been a requirement.

[Bertieone]

Looking at a little Timeline,

Thomas/ Elizabeth 1883 marriage.

William/Elizabeth, 1887 Birth cert

Thomas/Elizabeth, 1891 Baptism,

Wasn't a child William born 1890?

Do you have his Birth cert, DS,
Do you need to raid the piggy bank again?
Perhaps brotherly love went a bit far.

[dickiesam]

Could the name on the certificate be a mistake? I have a marriage cert for an ancestor from the same period in which I know one of the Christain names is wrong. If people were illiterate they may not have spotted it.
Have you found Elizabeth and Thomas on the 1891 census?

Elizabeth [bn 1865] and Thomas [bn 1864] are not together in 1891. She is with her parents Thomas and Sarah Pierce, while Thomas is with his widowed mother Elizabeth. As to the father's name I don't believe it to be a simple error because of the 'wrong' occupation as well. I am coming to believe the 'error' was a deliberate fiction, perhaps because Thomas was not the father and Elizabeth didn't want to actually name him on the cert in case it was traceable back to him. 'William' Fry being a seaman could conveniently disappear back to sea.

Incidentally, 1891 is the last sighting of Elizabeth Fry nee Pierce apart from a son Joseph being born in 1894. 1891 is also the last UK Census for Thomas Fry although he has, thanks to eagle-eyed Bertieone, turned up in the US getting married in 1898!

[dickiesam]

Looking at a little Timeline,

Thomas/ Elizabeth 1883 marriage.

William/Elizabeth, 1887 Birth cert

Thomas/Elizabeth, 1891 Baptism,

Wasn't a child William born 1890?

Do you have his Birth cert, DS,
Do you need to raid the piggy bank again?
Perhaps brotherly love went a bit far.

Thomas was the only son born to his parents. The known and confirmed children born to Thomas and Elizabeth were....
1) Elizabeth Fry - Born: 1884 in Liverpool - Died: 1885 in Liverpool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) William Fry - 16 Jan 1890 in Liverpool - Died: 04 Sep 1903 in Kirkdale Industrial Schools, Liverpool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Elizabeth Fry - Born: 05 Jan 1893 in Liverpool - Died: 19 Aug 1893 in Liverpool
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Joseph Fry - Born: 14 Nov 1894 in Liverpool - Died: May 1967 in Poplar, London.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mystery child: Percy Fry - 24 Nov 1887 in Liverpool - Died: ? Canada/USA

[Bertieone]

William Born, 16 Jan 1890, father, also William, Baptism 27 Jan 1890. St Josephs.
DS,
Pigeon post down, will send when fixed.

[dickiesam]

William Born, 16 Jan 1890, father, also William, Baptism 27 Jan 1890. St Josephs.
DS,
Pigeon post down, will send when fixed.

The pigeon has landed!
Weird that the parents are a repeat of the Percy/Petrus baptism. Was Thomas hiding behind an alias named William?

And there's still the mystery of where the children William [bn 1890] and Percy/Peter/Petrus [bn 1888] are in the 1891 census because they are not with their 'separated' parents?

[Bertieone]

DS,

I'm beginning to think William was a player and not an alias.

Thoughts are he entered the scene about 9 months before the birth of Percy/Peter and it gave Elizabeth the opportunity to enter William as father on the birth cert, whether he was William's or Thomas's, if she had just split up with Thomas. perhaps a decision she later regretted, putting William down as Father.
The next child William, 1890, is William's, according to the baptism anyway. Perhaps after the baptism, William goes AWOL or dies, Elizabeth being the reckless mother she appears to be, puts Percy and William in the homes system, can't find them anywhere, maybe a massive transcription error or gone unrecorded.
A reconciliation between Thomas and Elizabeth takes place, she is able to convince Thomas that Percy/Petrus is his, hence him appearing as Father at the Baptism, 1891. Little William is left out in the cold, perhaps Thomas knew nothing of him.
After that the next 2 children and the parents are as reckless as ever.

[MaryA]

We could put a book together with all the various scenarios

Re my thoughts as to why a later baptism, was this Sheltering House the records you enquired with the LRO about? did you get any joy from the University Archives?

[dickiesam]

We could put a book together with all the various scenarios

Re my thoughts as to why a later baptism, was this Sheltering House the records you enquired with the LRO about? did you get any joy from the University Archives?

Yes, it was the Liverpool Sheltering House records I was after and it is possible the child had to be baptised before being taken into their care. Unfortunately the Uni Archives couldn't help and put me onto the Barbardo's archives from whom I await a response.

It is beginning to look as though Bertie's take is close to the mark and that Elizabeth Fry nee Pierce had a sailor friend called William who fathered at least 2 of her children. If her legal spouse Thomas had any doubts about 'his' children, small wonder he downed tools and took off for the USA where he married in 1898! And claimed he had not been married before.

[dickiesam]

I sent an enquiry to Barnardos who hold the records for the Liverpool Sheltering Homes, the institution that was responsible for shipping the child Percy Fry to Canada in 1898. This is part of their response.....

We will only provide information on any individual to their nearest surviving direct descendant. If you are not the next of kin, then written permission from them is required before any information can be released to you.

The proverbial brick wall? Because without finding Percy Fry's nearest living direct descendant and getting their actual hand-written signature the trail stops here and if he has no living descendants the trail also stops! There is no suggestion of providing information to any other relationship.

Does the Freedom Of Information Act apply to cases such as this? Or does it only apply to 'public records'?