From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 20/04/18 17:10, john wrote:   
   > On 20/04/2018 17:16, Richard Smith wrote:   
      
   >> I would consider the 1901 census entry to be circumstantial evidence   
   >> that one of the parents was still alive.  Do you have any reason to   
   >> think the death registrations you have found are the right people beyond   
   >> the fact that their names (and presumably ages) match the census?  Purdy   
   >> seems to have been a common enough surname in the area that I can easily   
   >> believe one of those death registrations may be for someone else.   
   >   
   > I'll leave it up to you to find the mother in 1891, 1901, or later, the   
   > father in 1901 or later, or different the deaths of either, if you think   
   > otherwise.   
      
   I've no intention of doing anything of the sort as I have no interest in   
   this family.  However the census provides strong circumstantial evidence   
   that at least one parent (or possibly step-parent) was alive in 1901 and   
   normally resident with the children.  It may not be true, but I'd   
   certainly want more evidence than a vaguely plausible match in the GRO   
   death index to disprove it.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)