Alice Maud DAY
1892 -
-
Name Alice Maud DAY Birth 27 Sep 1892 Lambeth, Surrey 
[1, 2] Gender Female 1901 Census 2, Canal Street, Camberwell, Surrey [1] At 1901 Census, she is 8 1911 Census 111, Ravenslea Road, Balham, Surrey [3] At 1911 Census, she is 18, no occ Person ID I453 Webb Last Modified 1 Jun 2025
Father Henry Herbert DAY, b. Abt 1866, Mortlake, Surrey Relationship natural Mother Ann IMPEY, b. 24 Jan 1869, Battersea, Surrey Relationship natural Marriage 4 Mar 1889 St. Mary Magdalene, Congreve Street, Southwark, Surrey [4] - One of the witnesses was Edward Desborough, not clear who this is
At 1911 Census he records 9 children with 1 who has died
Family ID F247 Group Sheet | Family Chart
- One of the witnesses was Edward Desborough, not clear who this is
-
Event Map 
Birth - 27 Sep 1892 - Lambeth, Surrey 
1901 Census - At 1901 Census, she is 8 - - 2, Canal Street, Camberwell, Surrey 
1911 Census - At 1911 Census, she is 18, no occ - - 111, Ravenslea Road, Balham, Surrey = Link to Google Earth
-
Notes - As with her siblings, the year of birth given in the schools admission document is considered wrong. This is in part because a birth in 1893 is incompatible with the birth of George 5-6 months later, though of course his details may be incorrect. The only sensible GRO record with the mother's maiden name correct is however Q4 1892, and this is consistent with a birth in October too.
Many internet trees have her dying on 26 Aug 1914 based on a probate entry. However it is somewhat strange given her probable lack of money, and also there is no obvious "Laura Day" who would receive the money. The only GRO record for somebody of this name dying in 1914 is for a person who was born in 1862. I can find no record of her in 1921 or 1939, though it is clearly likely she would have married, and there are then too many possibilities at this stage to follow up. So at present her life after 1911 (and maybe 1901) is unclear.
- As with her siblings, the year of birth given in the schools admission document is considered wrong. This is in part because a birth in 1893 is incompatible with the birth of George 5-6 months later, though of course his details may be incorrect. The only sensible GRO record with the mother's maiden name correct is however Q4 1892, and this is consistent with a birth in October too.
-
Sources