Missing Field births

[Terri]

Can't pin down Henry. Doesn't seem to have died in Ipswich and can't see him in 1891.
Emily is not at home in 1891. If she married between 1881 and 1891, it wasn't in Ipswich. There are a lot of "Emily" wives in Ipswich of the right age. This could take a while. lol

[kiterunner]

There's a public tree on ancestry which has Emily marrying a Robert John Kearns 26 May 1890 in London and then travelling all over the place (he was a soldier). This is the Kearns family in 1901:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...67553764/facts

The marriage doesn't come up on FreeBMD, I assume because one of the page numbers has been mistranscribed - Emily's is shown as 613 and Robert's as 643.

[kiterunner]

I've found a transcription for the marriage: Robert John Kearns / Emily Fields 26 May 1890 St Mark's, Kennington, Surrey, which says Emily was 22, single, and her father's name was William. But I would have thought the actual image would be on ancestry; not found that yet. Still, the transcription plus her birthplace on the 1901 census fit with your Emily.

[kiterunner]

I wonder whether Emily's birth could have been accidentally registered as Henry, a boy? nd then never corrected.

[Terri]

Thankyou! At least that discounts the Fields have a very early Transgender and Emily/Henry having thrown off his skirts in 1891 and joined the Navy

So ......... fixed 2 Marias and and Emily, but gained a Henry.

I hate this family.

[Terri]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

I wonder whether Emily's birth could have been accidentally registered as Henry, a boy? nd then never corrected.

That is very possible! I'm not that worried about not finding a birth now that I knew she actually existed outside of the immediate family, if that makes sense.