In Which We Find Two More

(This is the third part of a series.  If you would like to read the first part, click here.)

It was a sad little trip to the Laurel Grove Cemetery.

We found Lot 322.

We found there were no markers on the lot.  Nothing.  Not of any kind.

So Sugar thinks that he wants to have a marker made for these Batesons that originated in Lancashire, England.

But what to say on the marker?


I decide to make a timeline on an excel spreadsheet with the names and life spans of the Christopher R. Bateson family that I found on the database for the city of Savannah.  Perhaps then we can guess who belongs to whom.

I take their dates of death and their approximate age at death, and count backwards to get their approximate date of birth.  Subtraction comes in handy here.

Christopher R. Bateson and his wife Mary were both born approximately in 1818.

Christopher R. Bateson died in 1855.

Mary Bateson died in 1869.

Christopher H. Bateson is born in 1840 and died in 1870.

Thomas Bateson is born in 1841 and died in 1877.

Alice Bateson is born in 1845 and died in 1853.

Mary Jane Bateson is born and died in 12 hours in 1853.

Martha Bateson is born in 1848 and died in 1874.

Thomas H. Bateson is born in 1872 and died in 1879.

Thomas H. Bateson is the key.  He’s born in 1872 after Christopher R. and Mary are deceased, so they are not his parents.  There’s only one probable mother, and that is Martha Bateson.  There’s only one probable father, and that is Thomas Bateson, because Christopher H. is deceased and there are no other males.  Most probably Thomas H. is named for his father Thomas, and the middle initial “H.” is for his uncle Christopher H., although we don’t know what the H. stands for.

It looks like the whole family was wiped out.


What if they weren’t?

Julie in Brussels, who started this whole conundrum, weighs in.

These Batesons are certainly a bit of a mystery! I hope you eventually sort
it all out. It makes you wonder whether the whole family died out in
Savannah, or whether anyone survived and moved away from the area.

I assume you have already looked, but are any of these Batesons on the 1870
US census? Some of them were still alive in 1870 so should show up
somewhere. I have found that Bateson can be very easily misspelled and so I
have got good results by searching on Bat*son as the * can be e or i or
sometimes double t.

No, I’ve never used * as a wild card.  I can’t find them using the spelling “Bateson”, so how is it possible that I can find them by using an incomplete spelling?

I am a slow learner.


I type in “Bat*son”, and *Squeeee*, I find in the 1880 census for the City of Savannah, County of Chatham, State of Georgia, Alice Bateson and then Georgia Bateson, born about 1870 and 1871.

Living in the Episcopal Orphan Home.





Tags: , , , , ,

6 Responses to “In Which We Find Two More”

  1. Sharon Says:

    Now you wonder what happened to those girls which might be harder to find out because their names would have changed with marriage. Good work, historian Ruth.


  2. Pierre Lagacé Says:

    I have to come back here… Watch my blog…


  3. itg0 Says:

    Wow! Thats amazing. I have never used the search like that myself. Very cool… Most people would have given up on that family line. Dang good sleuthing! Now that information will live on… and so will this family. You have done a wonderful thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: