Lost a family in 1901, England

[LesleyB]

Hi all
This should have been a 5 minute job but I've been at this all morning (snowed in here! ) on both Ancestry and the 1901 site...I must be doing something silly...

Looking for:

• John Breese, b. June quarter 1861, Dudley, Worcestershire
  
  He appears to be in the 1881:
  84 Gt Barr St, Aston, Warwick, England
  John BREESE Head U Male 19 Dudley, Worcester, England Grocer
  Alfred LIGHT Servant U Male 20 Berkeley, Gloucester, England Grocer Assistant
  Ann CHESLIN Servant U Female 31 Belball, Warwick, England House Keeper (Dom)
  
  He married Sarah Morey, March Quarter 1896, King's Norton (date and place of birth unknown, thought 1901 would be a big help there... )
  
  The eldest daughter was known as "May", so this looks likely
  Florence May Breese, b. Dec Quarter 1896, Kings Norton, Worcestershire
  
  Definite child: Winifred Breese, b. September quarter 1899 (July 29th) Kings Norton, Worcestershire (who you'd think would be very easy to find...)
  All children survived to adulthood, so in 1901 there should be the above two daughters.
  
  Two further children, twins born in 1901, September quarter, so they are after the 1901 census, also b. Kings Norton, Worcestershire so that suggests that this family should be in Kings Norton, Worcestershire area... but can I find them??

Any suggestions as to why I can't find them, or where they are, most gratefully received!

Best wishes
Lesley

[garibaldired]

Hi Lesley,

Can't help with the 1901 census
I'm afraid, but they are in Kings Norton in 1911.
I haven't got any credits left I'm afraid but there seem to be John, Sarah (born 1869), May and Winifred and twins Ethel and Doris born 1902.
So perhaps it's worth looking there?
Expensive but the information could be better.

Best wishes,
Meg

[LesleyB]

Hi Meg
Thanks for that - good to know I'm not going completely loopy...

twins Ethel and Doris born 1902

That's the ones, twins actually born in 1901, but names are correct, so it's the right family.

Best wishes
Lesley

[Susan]

Hi Lesley

Found them on Ancestry in 1901, in Balsall Heath not Kings Norton.

John Breeze 39, b Dudley, Worcs
Sarah Bruse 32, b Salop
May Bruse 4, b Birmingham
Winifred Bruse 2, b Birmingham
Mary Edge 17 (servant), b Birmingham

Hope this helps.

Susan.

[LesleyB]

hi Susan
Brilliant - thanks so much. I thought I'd tried all reasonable variations, but I must have been suffering from "Ancestry Anguish" - it doesn't take much as I find it a frustrating site to use, and I don't use it very often either... the pages seem to take so long to load sometimes that I find myself urging it to get a blooming move on!

Best wishes
Lesley

[Tracey]

What i have started to do with the earlier census when i know a family are there is

UK Census
Specify year ie England 1841
The select County (Kent for me today !)
Then Civil Parish (ie Blean)
Then District

Not many pages on the earlier ones to trawl through - on the above mentioned only about 8 - 10 pages and it seemed the only way to find my Tabretts (some found as Sabre today ) Bit like freecen way of doing things only i find this much better.

[Montrose Budie]

And 1901 ............

Sarah Bruse
Age: 32
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1869
[A touch of the "I think that I'll just remain 39 for a few years" ? syndrome <g>]
Relation: Wife
Spouse's Name: John
Gender: Female
Where born: Pontesbury, Shropshire, England

Civil Parish: Balsall Heath
Ecclesiastical parish: St Paul
County/Island: Worcestershire
Country: England

Household Members: Name Age
John Breeze 39
Sarah Bruse 32
May Bruse 4
Winifred Bruse 2
Mary Edge 17


So no need to invoke the flying saucers ..................

mb

PS Knowing from other sources that the surname has previously been recorded as BREEZE, there's no doubt in 1901 from the image that John has been so recorded, but with the chance that his surname could have been interpreted as BRUZE, but no how, no way as BRUSE.

For some unknown reason, his wife and wains' surname has been transcribed by the enumerator as ending 'SE'.

John is still a 'Grocer' which was my route to the record ...........

An advantage on Ancestry is that it's possible to search without having to enter the surname, and to include the occupation in another field !

mb

[LesleyB]

Hi David

Estimated Birth Year: abt 1869
[A touch of the "I think that I'll just remain 39 for a few years" ? syndrome <g>]

Sarah was indeed most likely born in 1869, christened on 17th May 1869 - she wisnae lying!

Best wishes
Lesley

[Montrose Budie]

Hi David

Estimated Birth Year: abt 1869
[A touch of the "I think that I'll just remain 39 for a few years" ? syndrome <g>]

Sarah was indeed most likely born in 1869, christened on 17th May 1869 - she wisnae lying!

Best wishes
Lesley

I thought that 1865 had been quoted soemwhere ...............

ibi

[Montrose Budie]

Just to emphasize an earlier comment from Lesley......

... to the effect that the Ancestry databases are not the easiest to search and understand how to control and optimise the results, not least as regards the various UK censuses; but, given the fields that can be searched, - more than those searchable on www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk , for example, and various other providers in relation to the English and Welsh censuses, in my experience it is very well worth investing significant effort in understanding how to search optimally the Ancestry databases.

To be very honest, I've never found that the overall navigation of the Ancestry website is that easy, and ditto, re how to search in a particular database and how to optimise such a search, but it's well worth, in my experience, persisting and learning how to optimise such an Ancestry search!

ibi