Genealogy Chat

I have the marriage certificate of Sidney John Robin and his age makes him born about 1895. I have found him on the 1901 census makes his date of birth about 1895. Have searched 1837 from 1891 to 1896 and no sign of him. I though 1837 was complete or am I wrong? Linda

Might have had his name registered the other way round ? Where does the 1901 say he was born? John Sidney or Sydney

Hi Jess, On the 1901 census he is just down as Sidney born Newington, London. I am sure this is the one as his father is listed as Ernest G Robin and his father was Ambrose Robin and I remember my Nan telling me about Ambrose. There are lots of Robins but a very few Robin. Linda

Wasn't Ambrose Ernest's Step-father?? If you look at Ambrose in 1881 he and Rachel have her children there with a different surname. By 1891 they are all called Robin and Ambrose and Rachel got married both with the surname Robin asfter they seem to have been cohabiting for several years!! Could later entries for Ernest's family be listed under his birth surname?? Sorry, I don't have time to copy all I've found here...... Have to go right now....!! Sarah

Right, I think I've got it now. (Hopefully) - and I am not supposed to be here, so would like to be typing in very small font, if only GR would allow! 1881 Census: John Clark abt 1841 Boarder 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England Ernest G. Fifoot abt 1867 Newington, Surrey, England Step Son 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England John Fifoot abt 1870 Gt Suffolk St, Surrey, England Step Son 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England William T. Fifoot abt 1869 Gt Suffolk St, Surrey, England Step Son 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England Ambrose J. Robin abt 1852 Camden Town, Middlesex, England Head 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England Charles S. Robin abt 1877 Gt Suffolk St, Surrey, England Son 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England Francis J.S. Robin abt 1878 Gt Suffolk St, Surrey, England Son 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England Rachel Robin abt 1844 Westminster, Middlesex, England Wife 42 Charles St, Newington, London, England So, above, Ernest was a Fifoot and Ambrose was his step-dad. In 1890 Ambrose remembers to marry Rachel (below), but as she has been using his name for so long she seems to have married him using the name Robin rather than Fifoot: Name: ROBIN, Ambrose James Record Type: Marriages Quarter: June Year: 1890 District: St Saviour Southwark County: London Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 130 Spouse name: Rachel Robin 1891 census: Robin, Ambrose J abt 1855 London City, Hampshire, England Head Newington London Robin, Charles abt 1877 Southchurch, London, England Son Newington London Robin, Ernest abt 1867 Newington, London, England Stepson Newington London Robin, Frank abt 1878 Southchurch, London, England Son Newington London Robin, Jenny abt 1882 Newington, London, England Daughter Newington London Robin, Rachael abt 1846 Westminster, London, England Wife Newington London Robin, William abt 1869 Southchurch, London, England Stepson Newington London In 1891 (above) the whole family are calling themselves Robin. As yet I have not found Ernest's marriage to Sarah, but this is his family in 1901: Percy Richardson abt 1873 Ridgwell, Essex, England Lodger Great Clacton Essex Dorothy Robin abt 1900 Clacton, Essex, England Daughter Great Clacton Essex Ernest Robin abt 1892 Walworth, London, England Son Great Clacton Essex Ernest G Robin abt 1867 Newington, London, England Head Great Clacton Essex Lilly Robin abt 1897 Newington, London, England Daughter Great Clacton Essex Sarah Robin abt 1863 Walworth, London, England Wife Great Clacton Essex Sidney Robin abt 1895 Newington, London, England Son Great Clacton Essex and the children all seem to have been registered as Fifoot when they were born: Name: Fifoot, Ernest George R Record Type: Births Quarter: June Year: 1892 District: St Saviour Southwark County: London Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 171 Name: Fifoot, Sidney John Record Type: Births Quarter: September Year: 1894 District: St Saviour Southwark County: London Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 168 Name: Fifoot, Lily Elizabeth Record Type: Births Quarter: March Year: 1897 District: St Saviour Southwark County: London Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 193 Except for Dorothy, who is a Robin!!: Name: Robin, Dorothy Pretoria Record Type: Births Quarter: June Year: 1900 District: Tendring County: Essex Volume: 4a Page: 690 Back to the start again - I think Rachel's first hubby was John Fifoot, as there is this death: Name: Fifoot, John Record Type: Deaths Age at death: 31 Quarter: September Year: 1870 District: St Saviour Southwark County: London Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 33 He is the right age and in the right place - all other Fifoot deaths in the right time frame (he was dead by the 1871 census) seem to have occurred in the West Country. I can't find his marriage to rachel though. Maybe they married just before 1866 as I've only looked where it's free!! Best Wishes Sarah

sarah i dont think it is complete. my son isnt on there and i KNOW he was born cos i was there lol susie

Starting from Sarah's formidable array of results... Judging by age-at-death, this is a candidate for John Fifoot in 1861: Source information: RG9/1738 Registration district: Clifton Sub-registration district: St Philip and Jacob ED, institution, or vessel: 27 Folio: 4 Page: 4 (click to see others on page) Household schedule number: 16 GSU Number: 542860 Bristol St Philip and St Jacob Gloucestershire Eliza Fifoot abt 1802 Bristol, St Paul Wife John Fifoot abt 1805 Bristol, St Philip Head John Fifoot abt 1839 Bristol, St Philip Son Christine

Ooh Susie!! Have you checked the quarter after your son was born as well as his birth quarter?? Sarah

1837, Freebmd, Ancestry civil reg etc all take their info from the GRO indexes. 1837 supposedly has all the GRO indexes, whereas Freebmd is still transcribing them and Ancestry takes its info from Freebmd. BUT when the original indexes were compiled, the GRO took the info from copies of the original certs, which were sent to them from the local registration districts. So it is possible for the information never to reach the GRO and hence be missed off the index. Also, some births were registered just as Male/Female + surname and additions are often added at the bottom of the index page instead of being in the right place alphabetically. nell

Thanks to you all. It never ceases to amaze me how helpful you can all be, Thanks again Linda x