Dead person listed in census

VirginiaB

No one here will be surprised, I'm sure, at strange things in census records. But I have finally confirmed that a child of my great-great grandparents, listed in the 1870 US census, had been dead for nine years when the census was taken. It proves once again that anything is possible in genealogy.

They were William Sheehan and Ann Frawley, both born Ireland, living first in Manhattan, then in Brooklyn. They emigrated in the 1850s. They had six other children of whom I have records. William says he was from Co Cork in his Emigrant Bank record.

Baby Julia was born in 1861 and lived only 19 days. She is their first child according to the records--birth, death, baptism. I can't explain it. They had another child who had died in 1869--James, age 13 months, and he is not listed in the 1870 census.

Perhaps there is another explanation. I'd be interested if anyone has found anything similar.

pinkypinky

Are you sure it's not just another child called Julia? It's really common to use the name again.

VirginiaB

I have searched this Julia and family for years and have never found another Julia in the family--which is not to say it's impossible. I do know about that naming custom and have found it in other of my family lines.

I finally found the family's Manhattan parish church and got Julia's baptism. I gave them all the other children's names and requested a search for the parents' marriage--if they married in that parish--and the baptisms of the other Manhattan-born children. No civil marriage/birth records, quite usual for NY Irish in the 19c. The parents had a doctor in for Julia's birth and he registered the birth, how I ultimately found them in Manhattan.

My main goal is of course the ever-elusive place of origin in Ireland. But this Julia puzzle has been quite a challenge.

srmf5

What age was given for Julia in the 1870 census?

VirginiaB

The 1870 census says Julia Sheehan is 11. But this family is very unreliable and variable about ages in censuses and death records. They are consistent in birth order of children--Julia, Hannah, Mary, David--all born Manhattan. Then James, Catherine, Ellen--all born Brooklyn. There may also have been babies born and died without any record, often the case.

There is no Julia Sheehan or Julia anybody in the two family graves at Calvary. Baby Julia Ann, died 1861, is in another Sheehan grave. Her parents did not yet have a family grave when Julia Ann was born so she seems to be buried with other Sheehan relatives. The grave was bought by a Timothy Sheehan for a David Sheehan (not above child) in 1860 at Calvary. There are several of these names in Manhattan at the time.

My Dad had 2 brothers with the same first name. The oldest died and a younger baby was given the same name. This was in the 1920's. Dad always knew one brother had died, but didn't realise the name was reused until he researched his family tree in the 1970/80s

VirginiaB

If there were two Julias, one appears only in the 1870 census and nowhere else, ever. I have been searching for years. Again, not impossible but odd.

I have another pair of gt gt grandparents from Co Cork who listed five children in the 1850 US census in NY--but four were still in Ireland. The records have many anomalies.

tabbey

Deleted User wrote: »

My Dad had 2 brothers with the same first name. The oldest died and a younger baby was given the same name. This was in the 1920's. Dad always knew one brother had died, but didn't realise the name was reused until he researched his family tree in the 1970/80s

This was standard practice.

spurious

Some people thought if God wants Baby Johnny Smith and has taken him, he won't take another Johnny Smith.

pedroeibar1

VirginiaB wrote: »

My main goal is of course the ever-elusive place of origin in Ireland. But this Julia puzzle has been quite a challenge.

Have you looked in the records of the Emigrant Savings Bank- it had branches the Bronx / Kings & in NYC? A surprising number of Irish had accounts there and the records show great detail (e.g.County of origin in Ireland and mothers maiden name, etc.). Some are online and there is a book on them, the author of which I cannot remember right now.

VirginiaB

Yes, thanks. I am very familiar with this. It's on Ancestry. It's gold if you find someone and they gave details.

tabbey

spurious wrote: »

Some people thought if God wants Baby Johnny Smith and has taken him, he won't take another Johnny Smith.

My greatgrandparents first child was born premature and died at nine days.
The next daughter received the same name, she died aged six and three quarters.
The next daughter after this death, received the recycled name, she lived to 85, but spent most of her adult life in St Brendan's Hospital.

srmf5

tabbey wrote: »

My greatgrandparents first child was born premature and died at nine days.
The next daughter received the same name, she died aged six and three quarters.
The next daughter after this death, received the recycled name, she lived to 85, but spent most of her adult life in St Brendan's Hospital.

My mum always thought it was unlucky to give the same name as a previously deceased child. Even though she had a paternal aunt with the same as a first born child that she did not know about. Like that the aunt that she knew died in her 40s. My mum must have heard it from somewhere could have been from her mum.

VirginiaB

An update. This does indeed seem to be a case of a deceased child listed in the 1870 US census. I found the correct Manhattan parish for my Sheehan-Frawley family and paid for a search of the 1860s baptismal records, any children at all of this couple. The baptisms found were children I knew about and all born in the years I had deduced from other records--Julia Ann, Johanna, Mary, David. Several more were born after they moved to Brooklyn--none named Julia or Ann.

The father, William Sheehan, arrived in May 1859, so the marriage, not yet found, took place between then and the birth of Julia Ann in July 1861. Let's assume the marriage was sometime in 1860.

Julia and Ann seem to be the names of the grandmothers, records indicate tho not 100% yet. William and wife Ann never named another child either Julia or Ann.

It does look as if their deceased first-born was listed in the census. Maybe they were asked for a list of children and gave it to the census-taker without qualification.

leck

VirginiaB wrote: »

...It does look as if their deceased first-born was listed in the census. Maybe they were asked for a list of children and gave it to the census-taker without qualification.

That sound like a reasonable explanation. But if they listed Julia why not list James (who you said died at 13 months)? I presume there's no sign of Julia on the 1880 census?

VirginiaB

Why indeed not list James? No idea. I have his death cert and burial at Calvary. Maybe they realized mid-way thru the list of their children that living children only were to be listed. James' death was 1869, just the year before the 1870 census. In guesswork territory here.

No, there is no sign of Julia anywhere but her birth, baptism, death--all within 19 days in summer 1861--and the odd listing in the 1870 US census. I have been combing sources for years.