Liverpool & South West Lancashire FHS - Forum

Yes, this is the man who was married to Mary Gertrude PARRY/EVANS in a previous post of mine.

I seem to have found him at various stages of his life, but not others.

He was born in 1885/86 (more likely 1885) and died on 2 December 1950

I've found the following for him:
Death record
Burial record (he's buried in Anfield Cemetery)
Census records for 1891 and 1911
His army pension record (which surprisingly doesn't give his date of birth!)
His marriage record to Mary Gertrude PARRY/EVANS

What I can't find:
Birth record (no luck with any BMD searches)
1901 Census record

I can find his parents in 1901 without any problems, but it looks like Thomas Christopher has flown the nest, but where to, I don't know.

To assist, he married Mary Gertrude Parry on 13 Jul 1903 giving his age as 18, so born about 1885 and his father's name as Thomas. Who were the witnesses, were they siblings?

Perhaps you would like to provide the details from the 1891 census - what address? was he at home with his parents? who were they? were there any siblings? Example how to give the census informaton http://forum.liverpool-genealogy.org.uk ... 94#p108231

Have you found a marriage for his parents? if not perhaps Thomas was registered in his mother's name.

1891, transcribed as, Cobridge,
RG12 P2920 F44 Page23,

1901, Coleridge,
RG13, P3423 F115 Page25,

Could this be Thomas?


Name:
Thomas Colebridge

Birth Date:
25 Dec 1885
Baptism Date:
22 Jan 1886
Parish:
St Joseph's, Lancashire
Father's Name:
Thomae Colebridge
Mother's name:
Catharinae Mahoney

There's also a Catholic Baptism for a Elizabeth Coleridge, 1883,
Parents, Thomas Coleridge, Catherine Mahony.

I can't find a marriage for a Thomas Coleridge to a Catherine Mahony, but there is this one,

Thomas Colbridge, Catherine Mahony,
1880, Liverpool,
8b 60

Good work Bert, that baptism for Elizabeth seems to tie the two names together.

Bert

Wonderful, the baptism record you find must be him as his parents were indeed Thomas COLERIDGE and Catherine MAHONEY.

He was the fifth of at least 10 children and had 3 elder sisters, including Elizabeth.

The 1901 Census entry you provided shows the parents Thomas and Catherine along with some of the children living in Baptist Street, but I can't seem to find Thomas Christopher anywhere.

Thomas Christopher Coleridge's birth registration?

Scenario?
Before he married as below...>>>
COLERIDGE, Thomas Christopher married PARRY, Mary Gertrude
Registration district: Liverpool
Year of registration: 1903; Quarter of registration: Jul-Aug-Sep
Volume no: 8B; Page no: 15

>>>... he discovered, perhaps via his Catholic baptism record and a requirement to produce a birth cert, that his birth had not been 'officially' registered. So he applies for a late registration...

Birth: COLERIDGE, Thomas Christopher
Registration district: Liverpool
Year of registration: 1903; Quarter of registration: Jul-Aug-Sep
Volume no: 8B; Page no: 137

Seen several late registrations, some over 25 years later.

Doh! I looked at that and automatically assumed it would be his child.

I think it would be well worth ordering that certificate stating that you want it only if it was a late registration and not a child.

Bit of a long way round, but do we know Mary Gertrude Parry's father's name to see where they lived in 1901 census? How old was Mary in 1901?
I've found some of my ancestors living close by to their future husband/wife in previous censuses as lodgers and names haven't been transcribed too well

Erika,

It was Edward Parry,

Previous
http://www.forum.liverpool-genealogy.or ... =2&t=13594

Thanks Bert.

Obviously everyone has exhausted that avenue already

This is really a mystery which may never be resolved!!

MaryA wrote:Doh! I looked at that and automatically assumed it would be his child.

I think it would be well worth ordering that certificate stating that you want it only if it was a late registration and not a child.

Could be a win win situation, if its a late registration, great, if its the son, it could help solve the Parry/Evans mystery.

Bertieone wrote:

MaryA wrote:Doh! I looked at that and automatically assumed it would be his child.

I think it would be well worth ordering that certificate stating that you want it only if it was a late registration and not a child.

Could be a win win situation, if its a late registration, great, if its the son, it could help solve the Parry/Evans mystery.

On serious reflection I am now of the opinion that the 1903 birth is indeed the son. Part of that 'reflection' is the absence of a handwritten notation at the bottom of the column on the 1903 GRO Index which refers to the actual birth year and quarter. There would be a similar note on the Index for the actual birth year/quarter as well, referring to the year/quarter when the registration was made.

Well if Steve uses the method of ordering giving the criteria of an adult, then he will definitely know one way or the other and get his money back if it's the child.

Thanks for the efforts and suggestions everyone.

Following the Mary PARRY/EVANS discussion, I've ordered several certificates of the children one of which is the Thomas Christopher COLERIDGE entry from 1903 so hopefully will know soon.

A further update.

Following Bert's finding of Thomas Christopher's baptism, I did a search at Liverpool Central Library today and managed to find out that Thomas Christopher COLE(B)RIDGE was actually baptised Thomas COLE(B)RIDGE and, being a Roman Catholic, Christopher was his confirmation name - his confirmation taking place in June 1896 at St. Joseph's (the same church as the baptism).

A further search, however, still finds no Thomas COLE(B)RIDGE birth being registered around 1885

Like DS has suggested, I think the Thomas Christopher from 1903 is a son as there is a Thomas COLERIDGE showing with the family in the 1911 Census aged 7 (RG14 P22165)

Re:

A further search, however, still finds no Thomas COLE(B)RIDGE birth being registered around 1885

Unless there was a very serious mis-transcription in transferring Thomas Christopher's 1885 birth registration into the GRO Birth Index, it appears very likely that his birth was not actually registered. While registration within 6 weeks of the birth was a legal obligation after the early 1870s it is known that a percentage of births were not registered.