Starting with the 1881 census return for Bram Stoker and his family, I have been tracing all the members of the household, including the servants, through the public records that are easy to use, mainly relying on Ancestry.co.uk. The point is to see what can be gleaned from these primary sources, not to prepare comprehensive biographies. We'll leave that for others!
I've come to the eldest of the three servants listed with the family in 1881.
The transcription given by Ancestry indicates the the lady's name is Elizabeth Jarrald. She is a Servant in the household, a widow, age 30. Her occupation is Nurse (presumably meaning the baby's nurse, not a hospital nurse), and, rather infuriatingly, her birthplace is blank. Not helpful at all.
There is no easy way to find this lady.
A further problem is that her name may actually be Jerrald, or Jerrold, or Jarrold, or even a variant starting with a "G". When I look at the handwriting, it appears to be Jerrald, but it's a close call.
The assumptions and the dangers of making them
This is not the right way to do research! It worked for me and suits my purposes because I like the research for its own sake, I like to see what turns up even if it's "wrong", and I am only answerable to myself. Of course, as a matter of public responsibility, I try to point out to readers and other researchers where there are traps, such as here.
I was stuck with a name, an age, a location on one day in 1881, an occupation, and a marital status. Bearing in mind that any of these could be wrong (a danger with any census record), I went ahead and tried to find information.
A simple search for Elizabeth Jarrald
From the Bram Stoker family entry (linked to above), we have the spelling Jarrald, date of birth about 1851, place unknown.
Ancestry's search function, for Elizabeth Jarrald, b. abt 1851 gives two results with the same spelling. One is the 1881 return we already have, the other is also for 1881, in Haverhill, Suffolk, wife of John Jarrald. Noting the same name, we can exclude this second Elizabeth from consideration if she turns up again.
Now I will tell the truth about the way I did this research, but remember, I am not saying this is the "right" way to do it. This is a fast way to get results that may be for the person I want, but equally, may not be.
I wanted to find Elizabeth in 1871, but I didn't know if she was married then.
I could deduce that Elizabeth's husband, Mr. Jarrald, would appear in the GRO index of marriages with her, and in the GRO index of deaths, some time before the 1881 census.
I searched for marriages between a man with the surname Jarrald and a woman named Elizabeth, starting in 1881 and working backwards, one year at a time. This method takes some care and attention, and of course, some patience. I also searched for Jarrald men (and variations of the spelling) in the death index, working backwards.
In 1869, which is about as far back as I would go, if Elizabeth's age is correct (born 1851), I found a GRO marriage index with two men and two women:
Charles Jarrald and William James Randall
married
Emma Bloom and Elizabeth Trott.
Charles Jarrald is a likely candidate because he married in London and died in London in 1877.
The marriage index doesn't tell us which men married which women, but for Charles Jarrald, the choice of wives is narrowed to only two, Emma or Elizabeth. Of course, I would like it to be Elizabeth, but we need proof.
Next step: how I figured out the marriage puzzle.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Figuring out which man married which woman: Elizabeth Jarrald, cared for Bram Stoker's baby, 1881
Showing posts with label errors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label errors. Show all posts
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Harriett Daw, Bram Stoker's Cook in 1881. The problem of a small spelling error.
Bram Stoker was the author of Dracula, the famous vampire novel, published in 1897. From the early 1880s he lived in Chelsea, London, with his wife Florence.
Bram Stoker and family in the 1881 census (link)
The household in 1881 included Bram and Florence, their infant son Irving, and three servants. The youngest was Emma Barton, the 15-year-old Housemaid. I posted her story the other day.
The story of Emma Barton, Housemaid to Bram Stoker in 1881 (link)
Today I'll continue with the Cook, Harriet Daw, who was 21 and single in the 1881 census.
The problem with Harriett and spelling
I haven't found a matching Harriett Daw in the census or in the other easy records to find on Ancestry.co.uk. Almost immediately, though, a Harriett Dew appeared. Off by one letter. Matching, sort of, as to place of birth. Matching as to age.
Other people's non-verified family trees have a Harriett Matilda Dew traced from birth to death, including marriage in 1882. Missing: an entry for the 1881 census. These gaps are also suggestive that the two Harrietts are actually one.
So, with a giant flashing red light warning that we may be talking about two different people, here is the story of Harriett Matilda Dew, as found in the public records on Ancestry.co.uk.
Daughter of a Carman
Harriet was named after her mother, Harriett. Sometimes there is one "t" in "Harriett", sometimes two. Harriet Matilda was baptized on June 13, 1858 in St. Paul's District Parish Church, Lisson Grove. Her mother's name was Harriett Eliza, and in the baptism register, although both parents are named, only the occupation "Laundress", a word that would only apply to a woman, is given.
Harriet Matilda had a brother, John (full name, John Thomas Henry Dew), two years older and named for their father, John Thomas Dew. Both John and Harriett were christened at the same church, on the same day.
In 1861 the young family was living at 10 Upper Lisson Street, Marylebone, London. The father was a Carman.They lived reasonably close to Paddington Station, and he worked for the Great Western Railway for a good part of his life, it appears.
I can't get to 10 Upper Lisson Street on Google Maps today; perhaps the street no longer exists, or maybe this part of it has been taken up by later road-building, or destroyed in the Second World War. However, on Lisson Street as it now is, I found this charming Google Street View picture. Possibly the best one I've found to date.
(Link in case picture does not display properly below)
View Larger Map
Ten years later, in 1871 on census night, they had a "Nurse Child" in the house. Her name is hard to read and probably misspelled. Literally, it looks like Lousia Cate, but my guess is Louisa Cole may be closer. She was 6 years old, and the only other thing we know is she was reportedly born in Notting Hill.
I have looked for a connection between Louisa (using either surname, Cole or Cate) and the Dew family. I can't find one strong enough to mention.
The phrase "Nurse Child", in the most general sense, means a child in the care of a woman who is not the child's natural mother. It's more of a fostering arrangement than what we would think of as babysitting. If the child had only been there for a day or two, on the census I would expect her to be called a Visitor.
Women could earn money by looking after children, often while their (not uncommonly unmarried) mothers went out to work. In desperate situations, that was what a mother had to do to feed herself and her child.
This is another piece of social history that would be interesting to know about, but it doesn't advance our understanding of Harriet Dew particularly, since Louisa and Harriet were not in the same house in the next census. Any speculation that there may have been a close relationship between Louisa and the Dew family is just that: speculation.
Marriage in 1882
In 1882, so within about a year of Harriett's appearance in the census as the Stokers' Cook, she left to become the wife of William Edmund Frid. They were married on Christmas Day. On the marriage certificate, Harriet's father is John Dew, deceased. Unverified family trees say her mother had died earlier. Her only sibling, John, was married in 1876 and, like their father, worked as a Carman for the railway.
Mr. Frid was a Carpenter. Before marriage, he was apparently living with an aunt and uncle in London and was unemployed. I am only guessing that his fortunes changed, at least I hope so. In 1891, Harriett and William had four children, three girls and a boy.
Although the Frids lived in Marylebone at the time of Harriett's marriage to William, (both at Welling's Place on the marriage certificate) and were there in Marylebone again in the 1891 census, all four children were born in Mortlake.
That's not how I personally got my vampire bloodline, but it does have a personal connection, because for two years, about a hundred years later, we lived in the same part of town. I hope the Frids liked it as much as I did.
An early death in 1895
Her little children were still young when Harriett died in 1895.
Did William remarry? What became of the motherless children?
It's not far-fetched to speculate that Harriett died in childbirth, given her age. That is pure speculation. The death certificate would give a cause of death, but you have to pay for those.
The family in 1901
Six years after their mother died, Harriett's children and their father were still living together, in Marylebone. William, the father, was a Carpenter Joiner, and his son William working for a Butcher. No occupation is listed for any of the three girls.
Because of the misspelling (or to be more clear, the assumption that there is a misspelling), the descendants of Harriett Dew may not know their ancestor cooked for "Dracula" himself. I hope they see this post and do some further research to see if my hunch about Harriett Dew and Harriett Daw being the same person is correct.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: A brick wall: Elizabeth Jarrald, widow, Nurse to Bram Stoker's baby son in 1881
Bram Stoker and family in the 1881 census (link)
The household in 1881 included Bram and Florence, their infant son Irving, and three servants. The youngest was Emma Barton, the 15-year-old Housemaid. I posted her story the other day.
The story of Emma Barton, Housemaid to Bram Stoker in 1881 (link)
Today I'll continue with the Cook, Harriet Daw, who was 21 and single in the 1881 census.
The problem with Harriett and spelling
I haven't found a matching Harriett Daw in the census or in the other easy records to find on Ancestry.co.uk. Almost immediately, though, a Harriett Dew appeared. Off by one letter. Matching, sort of, as to place of birth. Matching as to age.
Other people's non-verified family trees have a Harriett Matilda Dew traced from birth to death, including marriage in 1882. Missing: an entry for the 1881 census. These gaps are also suggestive that the two Harrietts are actually one.
So, with a giant flashing red light warning that we may be talking about two different people, here is the story of Harriett Matilda Dew, as found in the public records on Ancestry.co.uk.
Daughter of a Carman
Harriet was named after her mother, Harriett. Sometimes there is one "t" in "Harriett", sometimes two. Harriet Matilda was baptized on June 13, 1858 in St. Paul's District Parish Church, Lisson Grove. Her mother's name was Harriett Eliza, and in the baptism register, although both parents are named, only the occupation "Laundress", a word that would only apply to a woman, is given.
Harriet Matilda had a brother, John (full name, John Thomas Henry Dew), two years older and named for their father, John Thomas Dew. Both John and Harriett were christened at the same church, on the same day.
In 1861 the young family was living at 10 Upper Lisson Street, Marylebone, London. The father was a Carman.They lived reasonably close to Paddington Station, and he worked for the Great Western Railway for a good part of his life, it appears.
I can't get to 10 Upper Lisson Street on Google Maps today; perhaps the street no longer exists, or maybe this part of it has been taken up by later road-building, or destroyed in the Second World War. However, on Lisson Street as it now is, I found this charming Google Street View picture. Possibly the best one I've found to date.
(Link in case picture does not display properly below)
View Larger Map
Ten years later, in 1871 on census night, they had a "Nurse Child" in the house. Her name is hard to read and probably misspelled. Literally, it looks like Lousia Cate, but my guess is Louisa Cole may be closer. She was 6 years old, and the only other thing we know is she was reportedly born in Notting Hill.
I have looked for a connection between Louisa (using either surname, Cole or Cate) and the Dew family. I can't find one strong enough to mention.
The phrase "Nurse Child", in the most general sense, means a child in the care of a woman who is not the child's natural mother. It's more of a fostering arrangement than what we would think of as babysitting. If the child had only been there for a day or two, on the census I would expect her to be called a Visitor.
Women could earn money by looking after children, often while their (not uncommonly unmarried) mothers went out to work. In desperate situations, that was what a mother had to do to feed herself and her child.
This is another piece of social history that would be interesting to know about, but it doesn't advance our understanding of Harriet Dew particularly, since Louisa and Harriet were not in the same house in the next census. Any speculation that there may have been a close relationship between Louisa and the Dew family is just that: speculation.
Marriage in 1882
In 1882, so within about a year of Harriett's appearance in the census as the Stokers' Cook, she left to become the wife of William Edmund Frid. They were married on Christmas Day. On the marriage certificate, Harriet's father is John Dew, deceased. Unverified family trees say her mother had died earlier. Her only sibling, John, was married in 1876 and, like their father, worked as a Carman for the railway.
Mr. Frid was a Carpenter. Before marriage, he was apparently living with an aunt and uncle in London and was unemployed. I am only guessing that his fortunes changed, at least I hope so. In 1891, Harriett and William had four children, three girls and a boy.
Although the Frids lived in Marylebone at the time of Harriett's marriage to William, (both at Welling's Place on the marriage certificate) and were there in Marylebone again in the 1891 census, all four children were born in Mortlake.
That's not how I personally got my vampire bloodline, but it does have a personal connection, because for two years, about a hundred years later, we lived in the same part of town. I hope the Frids liked it as much as I did.
An early death in 1895
Her little children were still young when Harriett died in 1895.
Did William remarry? What became of the motherless children?
It's not far-fetched to speculate that Harriett died in childbirth, given her age. That is pure speculation. The death certificate would give a cause of death, but you have to pay for those.
The family in 1901
Six years after their mother died, Harriett's children and their father were still living together, in Marylebone. William, the father, was a Carpenter Joiner, and his son William working for a Butcher. No occupation is listed for any of the three girls.
Because of the misspelling (or to be more clear, the assumption that there is a misspelling), the descendants of Harriett Dew may not know their ancestor cooked for "Dracula" himself. I hope they see this post and do some further research to see if my hunch about Harriett Dew and Harriett Daw being the same person is correct.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: A brick wall: Elizabeth Jarrald, widow, Nurse to Bram Stoker's baby son in 1881
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Take advantage of spelling mistakes and transcription errors in family history research
You may already have come across some spelling mistakes in your own research. Keep track of them.
Spelling and transcription errors happen all the time in family history research
For example, when I did my search for John VERNELL and his wife Eleanor Anne in the 1871 census, here is the transcription of the entry I found for them.
John Vernell Good.
Spouse: Eleana A Instead of Eleanor A, the person who transcribed the page put Eleana A. Transcription errors are extremely common! It's no wonder. The handwriting on the digitized version of the original is often hard to read. I will not keep a particular note of "Eleana" being a common mistranscription of "Eleanor" because the first five letters are the same, and a search for Eleanor Anne VERNELL will also pull up Eleana. However, if this were a surname, or if the mistake was a little more bizarre, I would make a note of it, and use the mistaken spelling if I get stuck in a search in future.
Birth: abt 1845 - Whitiebapel, Middlesex, England This is referring to John's birth, and is calculated by subtracting the age John gave on the census from the year of the census, 1871. This is a more precise estimate than I had before. I started out with "about 1844" based on John being under age (under 21) when he and Eleanor Anne got married in 1864. I simply guessed that he was around 20 then. Now we have a better estimate of his birth year, 1845.
Did you notice that his place of birth is shown as "Whitiebapel"? This is a fairly obvious and easily spotted mistranscription of "Whitechapel".
Residence: 1871 - East Dulwich, Camberwell St Giles, Surrey, England The census transcript doesn't give the house and street, nor does it show the occupations of the people, and their marital status. But you can get that by looking at a copy of the original handwritten census return, which is just one click away on Ancestry.com. I always look at the original, first because there are so many errors in the various transcriptions (and I don't blame the transcribers for that! Many of them are volunteers doing their best under less than ideal circumstances sometimes.) Another reason to look at the original is to see if another interesting person lives close by. It's always worth skimming the whole page just in case.
The first book I've included below has no picture, just a link.
Reading Old Handwriting (Guides for Family Historians)
Spelling and transcription errors happen all the time in family history research
For example, when I did my search for John VERNELL and his wife Eleanor Anne in the 1871 census, here is the transcription of the entry I found for them.
John Vernell Good.
Spouse: Eleana A Instead of Eleanor A, the person who transcribed the page put Eleana A. Transcription errors are extremely common! It's no wonder. The handwriting on the digitized version of the original is often hard to read. I will not keep a particular note of "Eleana" being a common mistranscription of "Eleanor" because the first five letters are the same, and a search for Eleanor Anne VERNELL will also pull up Eleana. However, if this were a surname, or if the mistake was a little more bizarre, I would make a note of it, and use the mistaken spelling if I get stuck in a search in future.
Birth: abt 1845 - Whitiebapel, Middlesex, England This is referring to John's birth, and is calculated by subtracting the age John gave on the census from the year of the census, 1871. This is a more precise estimate than I had before. I started out with "about 1844" based on John being under age (under 21) when he and Eleanor Anne got married in 1864. I simply guessed that he was around 20 then. Now we have a better estimate of his birth year, 1845.
Did you notice that his place of birth is shown as "Whitiebapel"? This is a fairly obvious and easily spotted mistranscription of "Whitechapel".
Residence: 1871 - East Dulwich, Camberwell St Giles, Surrey, England The census transcript doesn't give the house and street, nor does it show the occupations of the people, and their marital status. But you can get that by looking at a copy of the original handwritten census return, which is just one click away on Ancestry.com. I always look at the original, first because there are so many errors in the various transcriptions (and I don't blame the transcribers for that! Many of them are volunteers doing their best under less than ideal circumstances sometimes.) Another reason to look at the original is to see if another interesting person lives close by. It's always worth skimming the whole page just in case.
The first book I've included below has no picture, just a link.
Reading Old Handwriting (Guides for Family Historians)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)