Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's E.Tyer. (As a reality check: zero Fyer marriage records found in FreeBMD for 1920-1940.)

The first E Tyer marriages found after 1918 are:

Mar 1924 Tyer Amy E = Goodwin Bethnal G.

Mar 1938 Tyer Louise E = Dickenson Gateshead

Jun 1938 Tyer Eugenia E = Edwards Deptford

Sep 1946 Tyer Eugenia = Lytton Dover


To do any serious tracking you'll want her forename.

It may be worthwhile looking at death registers for then as well - 1918-19 was a peak time for Spanish flu - which took-out a large number of young adults - my then 21 year old aunt amongst them - curiously more vulnerable than either infants or elderly people to this flu variant. Someone who dies could explain an abandoned letter (so could lots of other reasons as well, of course)
It looks like she is Eliza Tyer, born c1858 in Rotherhithe. She worked as a teacher and lived in Glengarry Road, Melford Road and Lordship Lane between 1908 and 1922 although the 1911 census shows her in Herne Hill. she then moved to Lewisham and it looks like she died in 1949 in Bromely. She never married, although I seem to recall that teachers weren't allowed to marry?

Thanks for all your replies particularly tfwsoll .


The envelope contained a letter,which unfortunately is now falling apart and has to be put together very carefully. It talked about food stamps and life after the war.


Thee was also a post card which is in better shape which I'm attaching for those who are interested.


Thanks again

The old Civil Service Rules were that women had to resign on marriage - but could later re-join as a married woman. However if they did that they had a break in service and (effectively) started off again as new - so the additional service as a married person didn't add to the initial unmarried service. This had an impact on things like pensions and incremental awards. I suspect the same would be true of teachers - local government tended to mirror Civil Service rules.


In many cases women did start to have children as soon as they were married (the options for not doing so were then limited) - so many women did marry, resign, bring up a family and then maybe re-join once the family had grown up. The concept of married 'career women' was only very slowly beginning to develop (this rules continued after the second world war) - women who stayed in a career tended to be ones who did not marry (and it must be remembered that post the first war the losses in the trenches and the following flu epidemic meant that there were too few men of marriageable age to go around). Hence there were numbers of spinsters who worked as career women, but not perhaps as their first choice.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...