The Moore Granddaughter

Eliza E Moore, age 7, born Christchurch Hampshire, was a Granddaughter in the household of William and Elizabeth Moore in the 1871 census (mentioned previously in 21 siblings - part 3).  In the next census Eliza was still with them, age 17, occupation Dressmaker.  Life moved on for her and in the 1891 census she was a Ladys Maid, progressing to Housekeeper by 1901 and then in the 1911 census her occupation was Proprietress Apartment House, with a Parlour Maid and Kitchen Maid living there too.

There was a death registration for Eliza E Moore age 76 in 1939 so it seems she remained unmarried.  That deprives us of the opportunity to find her father's name on a marriage certificate.  Also, there is no sign of a birth registration for Eliza Moore in the Christchurch district, which would have provided the name of her mother and father.  So who were her parents and which one of them connected Eliza to the grandparents in whose house she lived during her childhood?

Let's examine the census records more closely for any clues about family connections:

• 1891:  Ladys Maid in the household of Lavinia A Dutton age 76, Head of the household, Widow, occupation: Living On Own Means, and her Daughter Louisa E L Dutton age 40, Single, occupation: Chicken Fancier.  In total there were four Servants: Housekeeper, Ladys Maid (Eliza), House Maid and Footman.
• 1901 census  Housekeeper-Domestic, with two young women as General Servant-Domestic, in the household of Frederick Lovell age 57, Lodging House Keeper.
• 1911 census  Proprietress Apartment House and in her household was Frederick Lovell age 68, Widower, Stepfather.

Now let us not get distracted by the concept of being a Ladys Maid to a Chicken Fancier!  Note that in 1901 Eliza is a Servant Housekeeper in the Lodging House of Frederick Lovell then 10 years later the two of them are still together but Eliza is the Head of the household, Proprietress, and Frederick is recorded as her Stepfather, which would make him the husband of Eliza's mother.  What luck - a new clue!

There was a marriage registration for Frederick Lovell and Phoebe Moore late in 1879 and a little over a year later Frederick Lovell age 37, Lodging House Keeper, was with his Wife Phoebe Lovell age 39 in the 1881 census.  Eliza was 16 years old at the time of the marriage between her mother and stepfather.

To summarise the overall story once the various information is joined together, William Moore married Elizabeth Hoskins who brought with her a daughter only a few months old called Phoebe Hoskins and she grew up in his home as Phoebe Moore.  Then history repeated itself - at about the same age as her mother had been, Phoebe had her own daughter, whose birth was registered and baptism recorded as Eliza Elizabeth Hoskins (1863, Christchurch).  Like her mother before her, Eliza grew up in William's home and used the surname Moore throughout her life.

21 siblings - part 4

Although William Moore died in 1890, his widow Elizabeth formerly Hoskins, appeared in another three census reports, surviving to 1914 when she died age 92.

The 1911 census aimed to gather new information from each married woman: how many years they had been married, how many children had been born alive, the number still living and a count of the number who had already died.  The intention was that this data was only collected for the woman's current marriage, without reference to any previous marriage, without counting step-children, and without any data required from widows or husbands

However, Elizabeth Moore, Widow, filled in these columns on her census form.  She wrote that her marriage had produced 13 children, of which 4 were still living and 9 had died.  This called for a review to see if I could ascribe 13 children to Elizabeth and work out which 4 were still alive in 1911, with confirmation about the deaths of the other 9 of her children before 1911, if possible.

To date, I have only been able to identify 11 birth registrations for William Moore and Elizabeth.  They married in 1842, a unnamed baby girl was born and died a year later.  After that births were registered every two to two-and-a-half years until 1864, when Elizabeth was in her mid 40s.  There is no apparent gap in the sequence to suggest there is a child missing on the timeline.  However, I am still open to that possibility.

Then there was the little matter of confirming who were the parents of all the others in the set of 21 children that included my great-grandmother Moore.  Phoebe Moore who is age 9 on the 1851 census seems likely to be the Phoebe Hoskins whose birth was registered in 1841 with no father named.

William's oldest children were born before civil registration began, following his marriage to Hester Dowland.  The next blog post will be all about them.  Meanwhile, the middle of William's three wives, Amelia Lear, died only one-and-a-half years after their marriage.  She did feature on the 1841 census as part of the family but apparently did not contribute any children to the flock.  As with the rest of the details about this large family, I await correction or new information from descendants or other enthusiasts.

21 siblings - part 2

Using census records I had found the names of 11 out of an expected 21 children in the family of my great-grandmother Moore (see 21 siblings - part 1).  The next stage came years later when I discovered that, without purchasing each certificate, I could find the mother's maiden name for births registered in England from 1837 onwards using the GRO Online Index.

Once I was certain that I had the details of William Moore's marriage to Elizabeth Hoskins, which was in 1842, then I looked for births registered with the surname Moore and the mother's maiden name Hoskins.  My great-grandmother, Frances Kate Moore born in 1864, seemed to be their last child.  Before her was a birth registration for Emily Jane Moore in 1862, a daughter who had not appeared on any census with the rest of the family.

A search of the death registration index found an entry for Emily Jane, in the same registration district, 2 years after the birth and recorded as age 2.  There were other losses as well.  A birth registration for Walter in 1857 was matched by a death registration in the same quarter of the year.  Harriet died age 1 and a couple of years earlier Alice had died without reaching her first birthday.

Using this approach of comparing birth registrations with the father's and mother's surnames against death registrations I found the earliest case was the most poignant.  In 1843 a baby girl was born alive (only live births are included in the usual registration index) but died without having been given a name.

With a heavy heart, I added these 5 children to the family tree.  Combining those who appeared in the census records, plus those who were born and died in the intervening years, there was now a set of 16 siblings.  A better research result but still short of the expected 21 in the family.

Not for the first time, I wondered whether the story passed down the generations was a slight exaggeration or the result of the family just not remembering accurately how many babies were born altogether.  Another possibility was that as well as experiencing the death of babies and young children, perhaps there had been stillbirths that were included in the total.  I put the topic aside, not expecting to ever be able to piece together the whole family.