• Important Update: Our New Email Domain

    Please note: We've updated our email domain to familyhistory.email. All our emails will be from this domain.

  • Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Burgin Family

Nanaki

0
Location
Burton On Trent
From
England
James Burgin was born in 1844 and married to his wife Hannah Bestwick born in 1850 and my search for their kids thru the censuses. They had William Burgin 1871 (my ancestor), Frank Burgin 1874, Mary Burgin 1876 and Elizabeth Burgin 1877.

After I made a contact to one of members on other site (genesreunited) to check out what their relation to my family etc which was matched. At one point, the person said had a look at 1911 census someone had noted that down that James and Hannah had married for 42 years and had 17 children, 4 children living and 13 children died.

I was like whoa! Where 13 children had gone? I did double search on Ancestry to make sure that I havent missed anything but still 4 children i can see on censuses. I dont know if I am allowed to give the link to 1911 census on here?

I think it could be either that mother had lot of miscarriages or kids died or up for adoption? But I dont have any clues!!

What is your advice on this?

Lisa
 
So effectively, they had 17 children between, 1871 & 1891 census. Or they had and lost more children from 1891 to 1901/1911.

The 4 children they had for certain, were born between 1871 & 1877.

If you need to find out, you will have to search for Burgin births, in between the years of the children that are known, and after the last child was born, namely Elizabeth A. Burgin c1877.Langley Mill, Derbyshire.

This may mean finding baptisms, birth certs, and deaths for those children. This may, or will cost you quite a bit of time and money if certs are ordered etc. if they were registered.

Personally, I wouldn't bother, but it would be nice to know.

Or there could have been a mistake made on the 1911 census return for some reason.


Steve.:)
 
Even assuming 17 is correct and all the children had births registered in Basford it would be an almost impossible search without purchasing copies of certificates given the number of BURGIN registrations in the district.
 
Maybe it was meant to be 1 or 3 and not 13. There doesnt seem to be any big gaps of years between the kids they did have. Even if they did lose a couple of kids around that time it would seem strange that they lost most of them after the first 4.
 
Total number of children, living, dead so figures would have to add up. I've not seen the original so I can't say what other possibilities exist for 17, 4, 13. It could be 7, 4, 3.
 
Got you Dave. I need to do more maths :biggrin: If it was a error it wouldnt add up:rolleyes:

They married around 1868/1869 and first child was born in 1871 so possible could have lost one or two before 1871 birth.

I was wonder all so that the 1911 census was filled out by the head of the household and not by a numerator so did this family allow for miscarriages within the number of children that died.

Did they have to note miscarriages etc or a baby that actually lived even for a short period of time or longer.
 
Last edited:
Hmm that's interesting. That got me thinking why did they put that down?

I wouldnt research for the children that possible were died but like p.risboy said it would cost me time and money because I dont know the names or years they died. Plus I am not that expert to find people that born to James and Hannah using freebmd because I don't know how anyway.
 
Oh. The 1911 census added some new fields including: How many years married and details re children. So, it's not specific to this particular family.

No sign of any baptism records on FS to help so what is left is FreeBMD and there are simply to many to think about trying to sort them all out into possible families.
 
Although I agree the figures quoted are as on the 1911 census, I cannot see how they are correct. A check of all census returns from 1861, only reveals the four named children. Family Search also only lists these four as children to James and Hannah. Still born or miscarriages should not be included on the return so I find it amazing that 13 children were born, then died without any of them being alive at a census date.

on 2 april 1871 Hannah was 22, had a son William 3 months old, and had been married 2 years (based on 42 yrs on 1911 census). The most children she could have had before 1871 was one, unles they were twins or ilegit, leaving twelve un accounted for.

There are a lot of Burgin children born in Basford (Langley Mill)

dave
 
And I may have to swallow my words.

I checked births in Basford between 1868 and 1891, then compared them with deaths at less than 10 years, (as they would be on a census if older)
these are the results, (*children still alive)

1868 - George 1868 0
1869 - James 1870 0
1871 -* William
1873 -* Frank Bestwick
1874 - Minnie 1876 3
1875 - * Mary Ellen
1877 - * Elizabeth Ann
1877 - Richard 1877 0
1879 - Lucy - 1879 0
1882 - Arthur 1884 1
1882 - George 1882 0
1884 - Sarah Hannah 1886 1
1886 - James 1886 0
1886 - John Thomas 1886 0
1888 -Joseph Henry 1888 0
1889 - Sarah Jane 1889 0
1890 - George 1891 1

If all these are James's and Hannah's that's 17 children. there could be others out of my search years, or they may not have been registered if they were born alive but died soon after birth

dave
 
Last edited:
And I may have to swallow my words.

I checked births in Basford between 1868 and 1891, then compared them with deaths at less than 10 years, (as they would be on a census if older)
these are the results, (*children still alive)

1868 - George 1868 0
1869 - James 1870 0
1871 -* William
1873 -* Frank Bestwick
1874 - Minnie 1876 3
1875 - * Mary Ellen
1877 - * Elizabeth Ann
1877 - Richard 1877 0
1879 - Lucy - 1879 0
1882 - Arthur 1884 1
1882 - George 1882 0
1884 - Sarah Hannah 1886 1
1886 - James 1886 0
1886 - John Thomas 1886 0
1888 -Joseph Henry 1888 0
1889 - Sarah Jane 1889 0
1890 - George 1891 1

If all these are James's and Hannah's that's 17 children. there could be others out of my search years, or they may not have been registered if they were born alive but died soon after birth

dave


Now there's a woman that needs a medal of somesort.:eek:
 
This is unbelievable!

I cant think how the hell they managed to have 17 children in time frame from 1868 to 1890!

I had the different responses from Genesreunited and they seems not to understand what I mean and this is response I wanted from you guys!

But still, wow!
 
But dave...

Elizabeth Ann June Q 1877 and Richard Sep Q 1877

Arthur and George Dec Q 1882 not twins not on same page

James and John Thomas Sep Q 1886 not twins not on same page


Total of 43 births registered in Basford 1868 - 1891.
 
But dave...

Elizabeth Ann June Q 1877 and Richard Sep Q 1877

Arthur and George Dec Q 1882 not twins not on same page

James and John Thomas Sep Q 1886 not twins not on same page


Total of 43 births registered in Basford 1868 - 1891.

Hi Dave
You are quite correct.

The list is of births, with a death within 10 years of birth not overlapping a census year. I did say if they were James's children as I realised some may not be.

dave
 
Hello dave,

It was a worthwhile exercise but even assuming all the children have birth registrations and that they were registered in Basford still too many to find a solution. We don't even know how many families those 43 in Basford belong to.

Dave
 
To Nanaki:
I have spent some time comparing Birth and Death records for the Basford area, as the James and Hannah Burgin family, despite some moves, stayed in the Basford Registration District. I am not claiming complete accuracy but the following may help. I gave poor Hannah from 1868 to 1898 to have all children (and it looks as if she did!).

James Burgin, born 1844, married Hannah Bestwick, born 1850, in the 4th Quarter of 1868, registered in Basford GRO Vol 7b Page 238.

Hannah (Bestwick) Burgin died in the 4th Quarter of 1912 age 63, reg. Basford
James Burgin died in 3rd Quarter of 1934 age 81, reg. Basford.

CHILDREN:
1) James born 3Q 1869 died 1Q 1870 age 0
2) William born 4Q 1870 (survived)
3) Frank Bestwick born 3Q 1873 (survived)
4) Minnie born 1Q 1874 died 4Q 1876 age 3
5) Mary Ellen born 4Q 1875 (survived)
6) Elizabeth Ann (? possible) born 1Q 1877 (survived)
7) Richard born 3Q 1877 died 3Q 1877 age 0
8) Lucy born 1Q 1879 died 1Q 1879 age 0
9) George born 4Q 1882 died 4Q 1882 age 0
10) Arthur Herbert born 2Q 1883 died 2Q 1884 age 1
11) Sarah Hannah born 4Q 1884 died 1Q 1886 age 1
12) John Thomas born 3Q 1886 died 3Q 1886 age 0
13) Joseph Henry born 2Q 1888 died 3Q 1888 age 0
14) Sarah Jane born 1Q 1890 died 1Q 1890 age 0
15) Eliza Ann born 1Q 1894 died 4Q 1896 age 2
16) Ruby born 1Q 1895 died 4Q 1896 age 1
17) Margaret Ella born 2Q 1897 died 1Q 1898 age 0

Note: where I put "born" and "died", these are registration dates and can often be a quarter (3 months) after the actual date. Elizabeth Ann was probably actually born the previous year (1886).
I see that the area sometimes came under Derbyshire and other times under Nottinghamshire! (If only they would leave those borders alone!)
It would cost a fair bit to send for all these certificates - but it may give you some leads.
Meanwhile, I have to get back to my London Burgins!!
Good luck! Janice
 
Back
Top