In 1871, Thomas Charles MARCH lived at 1 Charles Street, Berkeley Square, in London. (I usually use "London" to describe the modern metropolis. Many places were more properly described as being in Westminster rather than London, in the 19th century.) His career was spent in the service of Queen Victoria, and by the time he died in 1898, he was at the top of her household staff.
Thomas MARCH: One degree from Queen Victoria
I have traced Thomas and his family, mainly through the census returns using Ancestry.co.uk, as well as a few other online sources. At every turn I find something rather unexpected and interesting. Hope you find it so, too.
Where and what Thomas MARCH was in the census
1841: Don't know yet. I have looked, and looked, and looked. More to come about what I know of his family from about 1800 up to 1851.
1851: St. James's Palace, Stable Yard, No. 4, Thomas C. MARCH: unmarried, age 31, (occupation) Lord Chamberlain's Office, living with his two unmarried brothers, William (36, also of the Lord Chamberlain's Office) and George (22, No Occupation), and an unmarried woman servant, Elizabeth BARTLEY, age 70 (or possibly 40).
Census Reference (from Ancestry.com): Class: HO107; Piece: 1481; Folio: 10; Page: 12; GSU roll: 87806.
Modern Google Map for Stable Yard Road
The official website of the British Monarchy, "St James's Palace"
1861: St. James's Palace, Thomas C. MARCH, Head, unmarried, 41, [Clerk?] Lord Chamberlain's Office, living in a dwelling (not sure of what sort) with his brother William G. MARCH, unmarred, 43, "Ditto" (i.e., also a clerk in the Lord Chamberlain's office) and a 54-year-old widow, Sarah LOW, as their general servant.
Census Reference (from Ancestry.com): Class: RG9; Piece: 56; Folio: 17; Page: 29; GSU roll: 542565
With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that Thomas rose through the ranks of the Royal Household to become what appears to be the top financial manager. The Lord Chamberlain, his boss for most of Thomas's years in service, was a political appointment. There were about 13 of them, some with multiple terms of office, during Thomas's career. I envision Thomas as the Victoria equivalent of Sir Humphrey Appleby.
(Link to video in case the embedded video is not showing.)
Sometime in the 1860s it appears Thomas got married. In the census returns before 1871, he was shown as unmarried. (This is not the same as widowed, which is usually specified.) I hard quite a hard time figuring out the identity of Thomas's wife. That's coming next.
Thomas March is the first of many interesting people we will meet on Charles Street in 1871. His story starts with Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Applying some Jane Austen logic to the marriage of Thomas Charles March, Queen Victoria's Pay-master
Showing posts with label Who do you think you are?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Who do you think you are?. Show all posts
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Charles Jarrald, a well-placed servant indeed
Charles Jarrald, born in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, around 1849, is only loosely connected to Bram Stoker. His wife (or, the woman I assume to be his wife, but haven't proven) Elizabeth Jarrald, was a widow and the Nurse of Bram Stoker's only child in the 1881 census. Trying to learn more about Elizabeth, I found myself drawn into Charles's story. Where it took me was away from the Stokers and into territory I hadn't expected.
Servant in St. George Hanover Square in 1871
Because Elizabeth was a widow in 1881, I went looking for her husband in the census before that. I already had a hunch that the Charles Jarrald who died in 1877 was the man I wanted, so it was reasonable to look for him to be alive in 1871.
My result: A 22-year-old Servant born in Bury St. Edmunds, married, but not living with his family on census night, Charles Jarrald can be found in the census at 27 Charles Street, St. George's Hanover Square, in London.
When I first reported that the Stokers lived on Cheyne Walk in Chelsea, I said it was a good address, fashionable now as then.
St. George Hanover Square takes us beyond fashionable. On the census pages in and around where Charles Jarrald was, there are many servants and here and there a Landowner, or Annuitant, or other wealthy person. The servants include Grooms, Butlers, and Lady's Maids, not just the more common Cook and Housemaid as the Stokers had. But the surprise for me, a mere commoner, was how many Viscounts, Earl's daughters, Lords and Ladies, etc., turned up when I did just a little digging. I don't want to give it all away now, but it is quite amazing.
Charles Street is called, in directories of the day, "Charles Street, Berkeley Square". It runs out of the south-west corner of Berkeley Square, in a westerly direction. In the census, St. George Hanover Square is split among several areas. Charles Street is found in St. George Hanover Square, Mayfair.
In my next few posts I will have a peek in the windows of each house on Charles Street in 1871. We'll soon see the real Upstairs, Downstairs.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Six degrees of separation for Dracula and Queen Victoria
Servant in St. George Hanover Square in 1871
Because Elizabeth was a widow in 1881, I went looking for her husband in the census before that. I already had a hunch that the Charles Jarrald who died in 1877 was the man I wanted, so it was reasonable to look for him to be alive in 1871.
My result: A 22-year-old Servant born in Bury St. Edmunds, married, but not living with his family on census night, Charles Jarrald can be found in the census at 27 Charles Street, St. George's Hanover Square, in London.
When I first reported that the Stokers lived on Cheyne Walk in Chelsea, I said it was a good address, fashionable now as then.
St. George Hanover Square takes us beyond fashionable. On the census pages in and around where Charles Jarrald was, there are many servants and here and there a Landowner, or Annuitant, or other wealthy person. The servants include Grooms, Butlers, and Lady's Maids, not just the more common Cook and Housemaid as the Stokers had. But the surprise for me, a mere commoner, was how many Viscounts, Earl's daughters, Lords and Ladies, etc., turned up when I did just a little digging. I don't want to give it all away now, but it is quite amazing.
Charles Street is called, in directories of the day, "Charles Street, Berkeley Square". It runs out of the south-west corner of Berkeley Square, in a westerly direction. In the census, St. George Hanover Square is split among several areas. Charles Street is found in St. George Hanover Square, Mayfair.
In my next few posts I will have a peek in the windows of each house on Charles Street in 1871. We'll soon see the real Upstairs, Downstairs.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Six degrees of separation for Dracula and Queen Victoria
Monday, February 7, 2011
Figuring out which man married which woman: Elizabeth Jarrald, cared for Bram Stoker's baby, 1881
The clues are scarce. In 1881, a widow named Elizabeth Jarrald was listed as Nurse in the Bram Stoker household. No place of birth was given, just an age, 30.
I posted last time about going through the index of deaths, and the index of marriages from 1881 backwards, one year at a time, looking for a man named Jarrald (or similar), who married a lady named Elizabeth and then died before the 1881 census.
My best guess: Charles Jarrald.
The problem is that in the marriage index, there are two possible wives for Charles Jarrald (married in Q3, Strand, London):
Emma Bloom
Elizabeth Trott.
The other husband on the same page of the register is William Charles Randall.
I had no luck finding Charles Jarrald and a wife named Elizabeth in the 1871 census. Why?
Charles Jarrald, spelled Jarrold in this case, age 22, married, was a Servant and was enumerated at his employer's house, with the other servants, not with his family. He was born in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.
The age matches; he would have been about two years older than Elizabeth the widow Nurse.
One family tree differs: what is their proof?
Here is an example of something a professional researcher working for a client would definitely look carefully at.
There is a family tree online indicating that Charles married Emma Bloom, not Elizabeth Trott. The only source shown online is the same marriage index entry I am working from. I will in due course send a note to the owner of that tree, as you never know what other information or reasons they may have had for linking Charles to Emma.
However, in the absence of more compelling proof, I am going to look for more evidence that Charles married Elizabeth.
If my hypothesis that Charles Jarrold married Elizabeth Trott in 1869 is true, and if this is the same Charles Jarrold as died in 1877, then it's reasonable to look for Charles and Elizabeth in the 1871 census. Since I didn't find them together, I went looking for them separately.
What I found out about Charles led to a whole other, unexpected, set of discoveries.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Charles Jarrald, a well-placed servant indeed
I posted last time about going through the index of deaths, and the index of marriages from 1881 backwards, one year at a time, looking for a man named Jarrald (or similar), who married a lady named Elizabeth and then died before the 1881 census.
My best guess: Charles Jarrald.
The problem is that in the marriage index, there are two possible wives for Charles Jarrald (married in Q3, Strand, London):
Emma Bloom
Elizabeth Trott.
The other husband on the same page of the register is William Charles Randall.
I had no luck finding Charles Jarrald and a wife named Elizabeth in the 1871 census. Why?
Charles Jarrald, spelled Jarrold in this case, age 22, married, was a Servant and was enumerated at his employer's house, with the other servants, not with his family. He was born in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.
The age matches; he would have been about two years older than Elizabeth the widow Nurse.
One family tree differs: what is their proof?
Here is an example of something a professional researcher working for a client would definitely look carefully at.
There is a family tree online indicating that Charles married Emma Bloom, not Elizabeth Trott. The only source shown online is the same marriage index entry I am working from. I will in due course send a note to the owner of that tree, as you never know what other information or reasons they may have had for linking Charles to Emma.
However, in the absence of more compelling proof, I am going to look for more evidence that Charles married Elizabeth.
If my hypothesis that Charles Jarrold married Elizabeth Trott in 1869 is true, and if this is the same Charles Jarrold as died in 1877, then it's reasonable to look for Charles and Elizabeth in the 1871 census. Since I didn't find them together, I went looking for them separately.
What I found out about Charles led to a whole other, unexpected, set of discoveries.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Charles Jarrald, a well-placed servant indeed
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Emmitt Smith traces his roots into the days of American slavery
On the U.S. version of the BBC TV show Who do you think you are?, episode one featured American football star Emmitt Smith reaching back to the past and breaching a few genealogical brick walls.
Being African American with several generations born in the U.S.A., Smith's research problems started with the fact that the records of vital events (births, deaths, marriages) for slaves were not kept before Emancipation.
That dry sentence hides the more emotional fact: slaves were property, not people. They had no rights.
Smith came to the personal realization of how much things have changed for African Americans when he was given an old book of records to look at. On the cover, the title included the word "Colored". Even the records were segregated in the American South for a time.
I don't know anything about Emmitt Smith other than what I saw of him on this show, but his compassion for his enslaved ancestors was genuine. That's common in family history research. Once you know your ancestors' names, you start to fill in the blanks, and they quickly become real people, not just names and dates on the page.
I'm looking forward to next week's show.
Here's a link to a little synopsis of the Emmitt Smith episode, from the BBC's website.
These books are all about tracing African American ancestry. I haven't read them so can't tell you which would be the best. Perhaps I'll get a chance later.
Being African American with several generations born in the U.S.A., Smith's research problems started with the fact that the records of vital events (births, deaths, marriages) for slaves were not kept before Emancipation.
That dry sentence hides the more emotional fact: slaves were property, not people. They had no rights.
Smith came to the personal realization of how much things have changed for African Americans when he was given an old book of records to look at. On the cover, the title included the word "Colored". Even the records were segregated in the American South for a time.
I don't know anything about Emmitt Smith other than what I saw of him on this show, but his compassion for his enslaved ancestors was genuine. That's common in family history research. Once you know your ancestors' names, you start to fill in the blanks, and they quickly become real people, not just names and dates on the page.
I'm looking forward to next week's show.
Here's a link to a little synopsis of the Emmitt Smith episode, from the BBC's website.
These books are all about tracing African American ancestry. I haven't read them so can't tell you which would be the best. Perhaps I'll get a chance later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)