Happy St. Patrick's Day! In honour of the occasion I am going to post two stories connecting Henry Fleming to Ireland.
Henry Fleming's story is in turn part of a larger history and genealogy project, tracing the residents of Charles Street, Berkeley Square, London, from the 1871 census.
The Charles Street Series
Flemings and the lost Baronetcy of Slane
There is a Slane Castle and a title, Baron Slane, attached to a little corner of Ireland near Dublin.
(U2 played there in 2001.)
I expect the castle is well taken care of, but the title is going begging for want of a suitable heir.
That's not for trying.
In the 1830s, one George Bryan petitioned the House of Lords in England to have himself recognized as the lawful inheritor of the title. It was a very complex claim, and the Lords referred it to a special committee. After five years of investigation, the decision was that the claim had not been made out, but Mr. Bryan was free to come back if further evidence surfaced.
Bryan's claim was opposed by a James Fleming and his brother Henry. I have seen references to these two being of Dublin, but also to James Fleming being one of Her Majesty's counsel. I have two theories.
1. The Fleming claim was made by James Fleming, a brother of Captain Valentine Fleming, and thus the uncle of James Fleming QC and his brother Henry of No. 2 Charles Street.
or
2. The Fleming claim was made by James Fleming, QC, when he was a student or a recent graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, and thus living there, and that the Henry referred to was Henry of No. 2 Charles Street.
The latter theory seems more plausible because of the ripple effect this claim to the Baronetcy of Slane had in the generation to which James Fleming, QC, Henry of No. 2 Charles Street, and their brother Sir Valentine Fleming belonged. There is no doubt that this is the right family, it's just a question of which generation went to the House of Lords.
Sir Valentine named his second son Henry Slane Fleming.
James Fleming gave each of his children the middle name of Francis, other than the one who was actually called Francis Fleming. One of his other sons was Baldwyn Fleming. In the history of the Flemings as Barons Slane, the names Francis and Baldwyn are both prominent.
The three Fleming boys, James QC, Sir Valentine, and Henry of No. 2 Charles Street, and their sister, Emma, were perhaps raised with many tales of Irish greatness swirling in their heads, on both sides.
There is a Baron Slane today, Colonel Cyril Woods of Ontario, Canada, who was born in Ireland. Some controversy apparently surrounds the granting of arms to Colonel Woods, but without taking sides in an argument I do not pretend to understand, I think it may be safe to venture that Woods's claim may be for a slightly different title. Others can argue about the types of baronetcies and the intricacies. I am over my head.
There's another Irish story about Henry Fleming's family, but it's not quite so romantic. Since it's St. Patrick's Day, I'll post that one next.
Showing posts with label ancestry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ancestry. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
John Burgoyne Blackett at 2 Charles Street in the late 1840s
This is a listing from the Northumberland Archives, via Access to Archives, a very useful service indeed.
Here's exactly what's on the screen:
"Notebook (vol. IV) comprising copies of letters from J[ohn] B[urgoyne] Blackett, initially at 2 Charles Street, Berkeley Square, then at 10 Eaton Place to Congreve, May 1848-Dec. 1851. Concerning politics, literary matters, mutual friends, foreign affairs, university reform, possible personal insolvency, retrenchment in standard of living. A group of undated letters at the end, perhaps c.1844, predate the main section. ZBK/C/1/B/3/1/9 [n.d.]"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=155-zbk_3-1&cid=1-1-2-3-1#1-1-2-3-1
Why it matters to our story
You may notice that in 1848 when the letters started, Blackett was living at 2 Charles Street. He was also the Member of Parliament for Northumberland South from 1852 to 1856. His successor as the MP for the riding was George Ridley, who lived at 2 Charles Street later.
Maybe No. 2 was rented for whomever represented Northumberland South from time to time. But, the dates of the letters from Blackett at No. 2 don't match the dates of his time as an MP. Perhaps the connection is more to do with being from the nobility of Northumberland.
It raises the question of what Henry Fleming was doing there on census night in 1871, though. Guest of an absent MP, perhaps?
Blackett later lived at 10 Eaton Place, London, and for some reason I think I have run across Eaton Place in this research already. Will have to keep my eyes open.
Connection between Blackett and the March family (of No. 1 Charles Street, in 1871)
This is one of those "the world is a pretty small place" things, but that's what happens when you have people descended from William the Conqueror, Plantagenets, and so on.
The name "Umfreville" appears in both the Blackett and March families. For the Blacketts, it's way back around the 1500s. For the Marches, one of Thomas Charles March's sisters married a Yorkshire clergyman (of a titled family, if I remember correctly), and their sons had Umfreville as a middle name. The spelling varies, Umfreville, Umfraville.
A distant connection.
Here's exactly what's on the screen:
"Notebook (vol. IV) comprising copies of letters from J[ohn] B[urgoyne] Blackett, initially at 2 Charles Street, Berkeley Square, then at 10 Eaton Place to Congreve, May 1848-Dec. 1851. Concerning politics, literary matters, mutual friends, foreign affairs, university reform, possible personal insolvency, retrenchment in standard of living. A group of undated letters at the end, perhaps c.1844, predate the main section. ZBK/C/1/B/3/1/9 [n.d.]"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=155-zbk_3-1&cid=1-1-2-3-1#1-1-2-3-1
Why it matters to our story
You may notice that in 1848 when the letters started, Blackett was living at 2 Charles Street. He was also the Member of Parliament for Northumberland South from 1852 to 1856. His successor as the MP for the riding was George Ridley, who lived at 2 Charles Street later.
Maybe No. 2 was rented for whomever represented Northumberland South from time to time. But, the dates of the letters from Blackett at No. 2 don't match the dates of his time as an MP. Perhaps the connection is more to do with being from the nobility of Northumberland.
It raises the question of what Henry Fleming was doing there on census night in 1871, though. Guest of an absent MP, perhaps?
Blackett later lived at 10 Eaton Place, London, and for some reason I think I have run across Eaton Place in this research already. Will have to keep my eyes open.
Connection between Blackett and the March family (of No. 1 Charles Street, in 1871)
This is one of those "the world is a pretty small place" things, but that's what happens when you have people descended from William the Conqueror, Plantagenets, and so on.
The name "Umfreville" appears in both the Blackett and March families. For the Blacketts, it's way back around the 1500s. For the Marches, one of Thomas Charles March's sisters married a Yorkshire clergyman (of a titled family, if I remember correctly), and their sons had Umfreville as a middle name. The spelling varies, Umfreville, Umfraville.
A distant connection.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Who was Henry Fleming? A dandy? A heartless villain? Both? Neither? More history from Charles Street, Berkeley Square
At No. 2, Charles Street, which runs from the southwest corner of Berkeley Square in London, in 1871, there lived a bachelor, Henry Fleming, and two servants. Perhaps more people actually lived there, but that's who was home on census night.
Map, Google Street View, and the census return details for No. 2 Charles Street
Henry Fleming in 1871: Secretary of the Poor Law Board
It's there in black and white on the census form, Secretary of the Poor Law Board.
Your mind should immediately be racing to thoughts of Oliver Twist and gruel, poor people (both in the sense of lacking wealth and in the sense of suffering hardship), misery, and the workhouse.
This was 1871, about 32 years after the publication of Oliver Twist, but the poor were still liable to be taken into the workhouse, a place no one wanted to be.
Henry Fleming's involvement with the Poor Law Board dates back into the 1840s, closer to Dickensian times.
Thom's Irish Almanac and Official Directory, 1850, shows, at page 16, that the English Poor Law Board's office was at Somerset House, in London. Henry Fleming, Esq. is one of two Assistant Secretaries.
This was a time when Henry's star was rising.
A few years earlier, on July 15, 1844, Thomas Carlyle, the writer, sent a letter to his wife (one of over 9,000) mentioning callers stopping by that day.
Old Stimabile, Darwin; then after dinner, Fleming3 on horseback to ask If Mrs Carlyle was home?—perhaps by Mrs Buller's order? He would not come in, tho' I by message invited him.
(From Volume 18 of the collected letters, on The Carlyle Letters Online, a website from Duke University Press.)
The footnote says:
"Henry Fleming (d. 1876); asst. sec. of poor law board, 1848–59; permanent sec., 1859–71. Introduced into society by Charles Buller, he “made his way by his pleasant manners and amusing gossip. It was said that when Lady Palmerston wanted to know which way the political wind blew, she sent him out on a horse in the Park. He was very good-looking, and [no one could] … guess his age. He wore an undeniable brown wig, and had a lovely complexion and brilliant teeth, how much due to art no one could tell” (Mary C. M. S. Simpson, Many Memories of Many People [1898] 115).
According to another account Fleming was “a kindly little man, … commonly known as the ‘Flea.’ … He was well known in society, a friend of Charles Buller's, and an habitué of Lady Palmerston's house. He was much made up; and when Lady Ashburton was told of his house being entered by burglars, ‘It was hard on him,’ she said; ‘for he could not move, having unfortunately left his backbone on the dressing-table’” (Algernon West, Recollections 1832 to 1886 [1899] 1:86–87).
His obituary in the Times, 3 March 1876, said: “He was a welcome member of society which his official chiefs [of the poor law board] could often not aspire to enter. … As no one seemed to know his age, it was a constant subject of jocose speculation. His familiarity with Lord Palmerston was attributed to the alleged fact that Lord Palmerston had been his fag at Harrow.”
End of the footnote.
In fact, there are about 20 letters on the Duke University Press Carlyle website where Thomas or Jane (his wife) mentions Henry Fleming.
Our peek at the houses of Charles Street, Berkeley Square in 1871 began at No. 1: Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria.
Before that, we started with the Stoker family: Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next time: what the Carlyles said about Henry. Thomas Carlyle and his wife Jane mentioning Henry Fleming in their letters to each other. (For what it's worth, I found it pretty funny what they had to say, and how fragrantly they could throw mud at people.)
Map, Google Street View, and the census return details for No. 2 Charles Street
Henry Fleming in 1871: Secretary of the Poor Law Board
It's there in black and white on the census form, Secretary of the Poor Law Board.
Your mind should immediately be racing to thoughts of Oliver Twist and gruel, poor people (both in the sense of lacking wealth and in the sense of suffering hardship), misery, and the workhouse.
This was 1871, about 32 years after the publication of Oliver Twist, but the poor were still liable to be taken into the workhouse, a place no one wanted to be.
Henry Fleming's involvement with the Poor Law Board dates back into the 1840s, closer to Dickensian times.
Thom's Irish Almanac and Official Directory, 1850, shows, at page 16, that the English Poor Law Board's office was at Somerset House, in London. Henry Fleming, Esq. is one of two Assistant Secretaries.
This was a time when Henry's star was rising.
A few years earlier, on July 15, 1844, Thomas Carlyle, the writer, sent a letter to his wife (one of over 9,000) mentioning callers stopping by that day.
Old Stimabile, Darwin; then after dinner, Fleming3 on horseback to ask If Mrs Carlyle was home?—perhaps by Mrs Buller's order? He would not come in, tho' I by message invited him.
(From Volume 18 of the collected letters, on The Carlyle Letters Online, a website from Duke University Press.)
The footnote says:
"Henry Fleming (d. 1876); asst. sec. of poor law board, 1848–59; permanent sec., 1859–71. Introduced into society by Charles Buller, he “made his way by his pleasant manners and amusing gossip. It was said that when Lady Palmerston wanted to know which way the political wind blew, she sent him out on a horse in the Park. He was very good-looking, and [no one could] … guess his age. He wore an undeniable brown wig, and had a lovely complexion and brilliant teeth, how much due to art no one could tell” (Mary C. M. S. Simpson, Many Memories of Many People [1898] 115).
According to another account Fleming was “a kindly little man, … commonly known as the ‘Flea.’ … He was well known in society, a friend of Charles Buller's, and an habitué of Lady Palmerston's house. He was much made up; and when Lady Ashburton was told of his house being entered by burglars, ‘It was hard on him,’ she said; ‘for he could not move, having unfortunately left his backbone on the dressing-table’” (Algernon West, Recollections 1832 to 1886 [1899] 1:86–87).
His obituary in the Times, 3 March 1876, said: “He was a welcome member of society which his official chiefs [of the poor law board] could often not aspire to enter. … As no one seemed to know his age, it was a constant subject of jocose speculation. His familiarity with Lord Palmerston was attributed to the alleged fact that Lord Palmerston had been his fag at Harrow.”
End of the footnote.
In fact, there are about 20 letters on the Duke University Press Carlyle website where Thomas or Jane (his wife) mentions Henry Fleming.
Our peek at the houses of Charles Street, Berkeley Square in 1871 began at No. 1: Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria.
Before that, we started with the Stoker family: Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next time: what the Carlyles said about Henry. Thomas Carlyle and his wife Jane mentioning Henry Fleming in their letters to each other. (For what it's worth, I found it pretty funny what they had to say, and how fragrantly they could throw mud at people.)
Friday, February 25, 2011
No. 2 Charles Street Berkeley Square, Mayfair, London, in 1871
The last seven posts, starting with
Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria
have looked closely at the family who occupied No.1 Charles Street according to the 1871 census.
Charles Street runs from the south west corner of Berkeley Square, and from what I've seen, it was a pretty good neighbourhood back in 1871.
We continue the exploration with the second house on the street. Here's the Google Maps image as it now is.
View Larger Map
And the current Google Street View picture, with No. 1 on the right (Thomas C. March house in 1871) and No. 2, the blue one, on the left.
View Larger Map
Link in case map isn't visible: 2 Charles Street, Mayfair, and the link to the Street View.
Living at No. 2, in 1871, the census says this.
No. 2: Henry Flemming, 59, unmarried, Civil Servant, Secretary of the Poor Law Board
1 Family, namely Henry himself.
2 Servants, James Austen, 50, and Martha Newman, 17, both unmarried.
Citation from Ancestry.co.uk: Class: RG10; Piece: 102; Folio: 75; Page: 31; GSU roll: 838762.
There's a mention here on p. 522 of The British Medical Journal, May 23, 1868:
"IO. Mr. Flemming, Secretary of the Poor-law Board, acknowledges
on February 20th, I867, the receipt of Mr. Trevor's last letter."
The spelling of "Flemming", however, is not consistent in the records. In the majority of cases I've seen so far, it's been spelled with only one "m", "Fleming".
Henry Fleming was a rather interesting fellow, from another interesting family. This family will take us to the poorhouse and to the last gasps of the slave trade.
Our peek at the houses of Charles Street, Berkeley Square in 1871 began at No. 1: Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria.
Before that, we started with the Stoker family: Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Who was Henry Fleming? A dandy? A heartless villain? Both? Neither? More history from Charles Street, Berkeley Square.
Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria
have looked closely at the family who occupied No.1 Charles Street according to the 1871 census.
Charles Street runs from the south west corner of Berkeley Square, and from what I've seen, it was a pretty good neighbourhood back in 1871.
We continue the exploration with the second house on the street. Here's the Google Maps image as it now is.
View Larger Map
And the current Google Street View picture, with No. 1 on the right (Thomas C. March house in 1871) and No. 2, the blue one, on the left.
View Larger Map
Link in case map isn't visible: 2 Charles Street, Mayfair, and the link to the Street View.
Living at No. 2, in 1871, the census says this.
No. 2: Henry Flemming, 59, unmarried, Civil Servant, Secretary of the Poor Law Board
1 Family, namely Henry himself.
2 Servants, James Austen, 50, and Martha Newman, 17, both unmarried.
Citation from Ancestry.co.uk: Class: RG10; Piece: 102; Folio: 75; Page: 31; GSU roll: 838762.
There's a mention here on p. 522 of The British Medical Journal, May 23, 1868:
"IO. Mr. Flemming, Secretary of the Poor-law Board, acknowledges
on February 20th, I867, the receipt of Mr. Trevor's last letter."
The spelling of "Flemming", however, is not consistent in the records. In the majority of cases I've seen so far, it's been spelled with only one "m", "Fleming".
Henry Fleming was a rather interesting fellow, from another interesting family. This family will take us to the poorhouse and to the last gasps of the slave trade.
Our peek at the houses of Charles Street, Berkeley Square in 1871 began at No. 1: Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria.
Before that, we started with the Stoker family: Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Who was Henry Fleming? A dandy? A heartless villain? Both? Neither? More history from Charles Street, Berkeley Square.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Applying some Jane Austen logic to the marriage of Thomas Charles MARCH, Queen Victoria's Pay-master
I've been tracing the residents of Charles Street, Berkeley Square, based on the 1871 census. This started with the family of Bram STOKER, the author of Dracula, but it is not he who lived on Charles Street. I looked at the Bram Stoker household beginning in 1881, their first appearance in the English census, including examining the three women servants they had then. One, Elizabeth JARRALD, was a widow in 1881, but I found her (assumed) husband, Charles JARRALD in 1871. Even though Elizabeth and Charles were already married then, he, a 22-year-old servant, was at his employer's house on census night in 1871. That house was No. 27 Charles Street.
A little nosing around at who Charles's employer might be quickly showed that Charles Street was full of the upper classes, and so I decided to detour a bit away from the STOKERs, but don't worry, we will get back to Mr. Dracula eventually.
To keep the connection with Drac going, I am now playing two concurrent games:
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria
and
Six Degrees of Dracula.
The Head of the household at No. 1 Charles Street in the 1871 census, Thomas Charles MARCH, has a Queen Victoria number of 1. In a couple of posts from now, I'll reveal his Dracula number, which may surprise you.
Here's a recap of the 1871 census return for No. 1 Charles Street, from the post "Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria".
At home: Thomas, age 50, married, Clerk Lord Chamberlain's Office, born in Marylebone.
His wife, Arabella S. MARCH, 32, born in Basingstoke.
Daughter, Arabella MARCH, 14, born in London St. Luke's Chelsea.
Son, Thomas C. MARCH, 3, born in London, St. George's [Hanover Square].
Thomas and Arabella got married some time after the 1861 census.
There are two little nits about the details of that marriage that make it less straightforward than at first appears.
The first is the name of Thomas's wife. In the 1871 census she is Arabella S. MARCH. I haven't found a matching lady named Arabella in a search for the marriage in the Ancestry.co.uk database (which searches the GRO Index and Free BMD, among others). The closest match I've found hangs on the "S": Sarah COOPER. Her age and place of birth match Arabella S. MARCH from the 1871 census, so I have provisionally assumed them to be the same person. There is no other likely Thomas Charles MARCH who matches nearly so closely.
Making assumptions in a blog post doesn't bother me. I try to make it very clear when I am crawling out on a limb, and I hope anyone reading this who has more information, will tell me. In the meantime I hate to let the absence of concrete proof of the facts get in the way of a good story.
The parish marriage register for the Parish of St. Thomas Portman Square (shown in Ancestry.com's database as St. Thomas Marylebone), shows:
On March 23, 1867, Thomas Charles MARCH, of full age, bachelor, Gentleman, of 93 Wimpole Street, Father's name Thomas MARCH (deceased), Gentleman,
married
Sarah COOPER, of full age, spinster, of 93 Wimpole Street, Father's name William COOPER, Gentleman.
The relevant entry is #425, found on page 213.
Source citation, from Ancestry: London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Thomas, Saint Marylebone, Register of marriages, P89/TMS, Item 006
The second nit is about Thomas's daughter, also called Arabella. On the one hand, she would appear to have been named for her mother, or at least, for the name her mother used in the 1871 census and later, but on the other hand, her birthdate is from the 1850s, before Thomas and Sarah (later Arabella) got married in 1867.
Arabella MARCH, Thomas's daughter in every census from 1871 on, was reportedly born around 1857, about 10 years before her parents' marriage.
I tend to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that single mothers in the second half of the 19th century were ostracized by society. Given that Thomas was working in the household more noted than any in English history for its propriety, Queen Victoria's, he is literally one of the last people I would expect to do anything remotely unconventional or scandalous.
This leads to some conclusions and assumptions.
The first assumption is that Arabella COOPER, later known as Arabella MARCH, the daughter, was born to married parents.
Given that, then the question is, were Sarah and Thomas actually married already when they got married in 1867? That seems unorthodox too, and is not my preferred hunch.
The second choice is that Arabella had either a different father, or a different mother, or both, and that one or both parents was either divorced or widowed. I rejected divorce, again because of propriety. It's something I wouldn't rule out conclusively, but it's low on the list of assumptions.
Then we consider: which parent was widowed? To conclude that either was, we have to assume that the marriage register was in error in calling the couple a bachelor and spinster. That does not seem likely, given who we're talking about, but I did look for evidence that either party had been married before. I found no evidence and decided to start a different line of inquiry: that Sarah gave birth to Arabella without marrying Arabella's father or that Sarah is Arabella's mother by adoption.
The out of wedlock birth seems almost inconceivable (pun intended and apologized for). Still, it was something I had to check out.
I searched in Ancestry.co.uk for a census return in 1861 for a woman born about 1838 in Basingstoke, with a daughter named Arabella.
Lo and behold, there emerged Sarah COOPER, unmarried, born about 1838 in Basingstoke with a daughter, Arabella COOPER, born about 1856 in St. Luke's Chelsea. Bingo! This doesn't prove Sarah to be Arabella's biological mother, but it does provide more clues. I would like to work more on the adoption hypothesis some time.
There is also the possibility that Sarah COOPER died and Thomas MARCH remarried between 1867 and 1871. I have not found evidence of such a death or such a remarriage, but my search has not been exhaustive. However, when Sarah COOPER, then Sarah MARCH died in 1888, the name under which probate was granted to her spinster daughter Arabella MARCH, was simply Sarah MARCH, no mention of Arabella.
And now, dear reader, cast your mind to the immortal words of Jane Austen as spoken by the insufferable Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."
It is probably a truth also universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a husband.
Sarah COOPER in 1861 lived with her daughter and one servant (Louisa HIGGS, b. 1843 in Cornwall), at 78 Sloane Street, Chelsea. Her occupation was "House and Funded Proprietor". Ka-ching! I think I hear the sound of the accountant's mind jumping into gear as Thomas MARCH meets the younger, apparently wealthy woman with a daughter, Sarah COOPER.
Or am I too cynical?
Regardless of the reasons, Thomas and Sarah I think we can safely conclude, are the people I've identified as Thomas and Arabella in later years. How Sarah became a Sloane Ranger and the mother of Arabella, and whether Thomas was taking a social risk by marrying her, are questions upon which someone else can base a good Victorian romance, but that won't be me. Believe it or not, I have focus, and it's Thomas I came here to talk about today.
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: The end of Thomas Charles March, his wife and children, apart from one important detail
A little nosing around at who Charles's employer might be quickly showed that Charles Street was full of the upper classes, and so I decided to detour a bit away from the STOKERs, but don't worry, we will get back to Mr. Dracula eventually.
To keep the connection with Drac going, I am now playing two concurrent games:
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria
and
Six Degrees of Dracula.
The Head of the household at No. 1 Charles Street in the 1871 census, Thomas Charles MARCH, has a Queen Victoria number of 1. In a couple of posts from now, I'll reveal his Dracula number, which may surprise you.
Here's a recap of the 1871 census return for No. 1 Charles Street, from the post "Thomas March of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria".
At home: Thomas, age 50, married, Clerk Lord Chamberlain's Office, born in Marylebone.
His wife, Arabella S. MARCH, 32, born in Basingstoke.
Daughter, Arabella MARCH, 14, born in London St. Luke's Chelsea.
Son, Thomas C. MARCH, 3, born in London, St. George's [Hanover Square].
Thomas and Arabella got married some time after the 1861 census.
There are two little nits about the details of that marriage that make it less straightforward than at first appears.
The first is the name of Thomas's wife. In the 1871 census she is Arabella S. MARCH. I haven't found a matching lady named Arabella in a search for the marriage in the Ancestry.co.uk database (which searches the GRO Index and Free BMD, among others). The closest match I've found hangs on the "S": Sarah COOPER. Her age and place of birth match Arabella S. MARCH from the 1871 census, so I have provisionally assumed them to be the same person. There is no other likely Thomas Charles MARCH who matches nearly so closely.
Making assumptions in a blog post doesn't bother me. I try to make it very clear when I am crawling out on a limb, and I hope anyone reading this who has more information, will tell me. In the meantime I hate to let the absence of concrete proof of the facts get in the way of a good story.
The parish marriage register for the Parish of St. Thomas Portman Square (shown in Ancestry.com's database as St. Thomas Marylebone), shows:
On March 23, 1867, Thomas Charles MARCH, of full age, bachelor, Gentleman, of 93 Wimpole Street, Father's name Thomas MARCH (deceased), Gentleman,
married
Sarah COOPER, of full age, spinster, of 93 Wimpole Street, Father's name William COOPER, Gentleman.
The relevant entry is #425, found on page 213.
Source citation, from Ancestry: London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Thomas, Saint Marylebone, Register of marriages, P89/TMS, Item 006
The second nit is about Thomas's daughter, also called Arabella. On the one hand, she would appear to have been named for her mother, or at least, for the name her mother used in the 1871 census and later, but on the other hand, her birthdate is from the 1850s, before Thomas and Sarah (later Arabella) got married in 1867.
Arabella MARCH, Thomas's daughter in every census from 1871 on, was reportedly born around 1857, about 10 years before her parents' marriage.
I tend to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that single mothers in the second half of the 19th century were ostracized by society. Given that Thomas was working in the household more noted than any in English history for its propriety, Queen Victoria's, he is literally one of the last people I would expect to do anything remotely unconventional or scandalous.
This leads to some conclusions and assumptions.
The first assumption is that Arabella COOPER, later known as Arabella MARCH, the daughter, was born to married parents.
Given that, then the question is, were Sarah and Thomas actually married already when they got married in 1867? That seems unorthodox too, and is not my preferred hunch.
The second choice is that Arabella had either a different father, or a different mother, or both, and that one or both parents was either divorced or widowed. I rejected divorce, again because of propriety. It's something I wouldn't rule out conclusively, but it's low on the list of assumptions.
Then we consider: which parent was widowed? To conclude that either was, we have to assume that the marriage register was in error in calling the couple a bachelor and spinster. That does not seem likely, given who we're talking about, but I did look for evidence that either party had been married before. I found no evidence and decided to start a different line of inquiry: that Sarah gave birth to Arabella without marrying Arabella's father or that Sarah is Arabella's mother by adoption.
The out of wedlock birth seems almost inconceivable (pun intended and apologized for). Still, it was something I had to check out.
I searched in Ancestry.co.uk for a census return in 1861 for a woman born about 1838 in Basingstoke, with a daughter named Arabella.
Lo and behold, there emerged Sarah COOPER, unmarried, born about 1838 in Basingstoke with a daughter, Arabella COOPER, born about 1856 in St. Luke's Chelsea. Bingo! This doesn't prove Sarah to be Arabella's biological mother, but it does provide more clues. I would like to work more on the adoption hypothesis some time.
There is also the possibility that Sarah COOPER died and Thomas MARCH remarried between 1867 and 1871. I have not found evidence of such a death or such a remarriage, but my search has not been exhaustive. However, when Sarah COOPER, then Sarah MARCH died in 1888, the name under which probate was granted to her spinster daughter Arabella MARCH, was simply Sarah MARCH, no mention of Arabella.
And now, dear reader, cast your mind to the immortal words of Jane Austen as spoken by the insufferable Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."
It is probably a truth also universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a husband.
Sarah COOPER in 1861 lived with her daughter and one servant (Louisa HIGGS, b. 1843 in Cornwall), at 78 Sloane Street, Chelsea. Her occupation was "House and Funded Proprietor". Ka-ching! I think I hear the sound of the accountant's mind jumping into gear as Thomas MARCH meets the younger, apparently wealthy woman with a daughter, Sarah COOPER.
Or am I too cynical?
Regardless of the reasons, Thomas and Sarah I think we can safely conclude, are the people I've identified as Thomas and Arabella in later years. How Sarah became a Sloane Ranger and the mother of Arabella, and whether Thomas was taking a social risk by marrying her, are questions upon which someone else can base a good Victorian romance, but that won't be me. Believe it or not, I have focus, and it's Thomas I came here to talk about today.
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: The end of Thomas Charles March, his wife and children, apart from one important detail
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Thomas MARCH of 1 Charles Street: One degree from Queen Victoria
How did we get to Charles Street? Well, it started with a look at the 1881 census for the Bram Stoker family over in Chelsea, including the servants. One servant, Mary JARRALD, was a widow. In trying to find information about her husband, I followed a possible trail for Charles JARRALD. Since he died before 1881, I looked at 1871, and found him working as a servant on Charles Street.
Then I discovered just what kind of people lived on Charles Street and thought it was worth a little digging.
Eventually, we will get back to Bram.
In the meantime, I made up two games:
Six Degrees of Dracula
and
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria.
OK, on with the show.
Charles Street Berkeley Square in 1871 Census (In St. George Hanover Square, Mayfair, ED11. Starts at Ancestry p. 31.)
Cited as: Class: RG10; Piece: 102; Folio: 75; Page: 31; GSU roll: 838762.
Link to page 31
Some of the links I use may require you to sign in to Ancestry.com to see the item. That is for the convenience of Ancestry users. If you don't use it, don't despair. I will give as much information as needed to tell the story.
No. 1: Thomas C. MARCH, marr, 50, Clerk Lord Chamberlain's Office, born London, Marylebone
4 Family
3 Servants
On the first pass, I almost disregarded this household entirely. Clerk? That doesn't sound very high-falutin'. Mistake! I'm glad I went back for a closer look.
Thomas Charles MARCH was 50 in 1871. He was born on July 4, 1819 in Marylebone and christened there on August 14, 1819. Link to image of christening register. His father, Thomas MARCH, was an "Esquire", a gentleman, though I don't know his occupation. Thomas had at least two brothers, George Edward MARCH and William Gonne MARCH. His mother's name was Mary Ann GONNE. The parents, Thomas and Mary Ann, were British Subjects born in Portugal.
The 1871 census is the first time Thomas appears in his own home, at least the first time since 1851, when he was 30.
Thomas C. MARCH turns out to be, by the end of his life, one of the top people on the staff of the Royal Household of Queen Victoria. At various points, he was in the Lord Chamberlain's office, and also the Lord Steward's office. These two offices were for a time combined. The way some people describe it, the Lord Chamberlain's office deals with formal matters while the Lord Steward is concerned with "below stairs": the servants who make the day-to-day matters of living go smoothly.
The Lord Chamberlain's office dealt with the awarding of the Royal Warrant to approved suppliers of goods and services, and with organizing state funerals, to give two examples.
As Chief Clerk of the Department of the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, Thomas was alone in the second carriage of mourners who brought the remains of the Duke of Wellington from Walmer Castle in Kent, by horse-drawn carriage and then by special train from Deal, to London for the state funeral in 1852. The Duke's son was in the first carriage.
Here is an extract from the Order of Service for the funeral and the attendant arrangements.
I have lots more to say about Thomas and his family coming up in the next post.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
With this article we move a little away from Dracula for a while and focus on the residents of Charles Street in 1871. An amazing collection, really.
Next: Thomas Charles March, and his rise through the ranks at Queen Victoria's household
Then I discovered just what kind of people lived on Charles Street and thought it was worth a little digging.
Eventually, we will get back to Bram.
In the meantime, I made up two games:
Six Degrees of Dracula
and
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria.
OK, on with the show.
Charles Street Berkeley Square in 1871 Census (In St. George Hanover Square, Mayfair, ED11. Starts at Ancestry p. 31.)
Cited as: Class: RG10; Piece: 102; Folio: 75; Page: 31; GSU roll: 838762.
Link to page 31
Some of the links I use may require you to sign in to Ancestry.com to see the item. That is for the convenience of Ancestry users. If you don't use it, don't despair. I will give as much information as needed to tell the story.
No. 1: Thomas C. MARCH, marr, 50, Clerk Lord Chamberlain's Office, born London, Marylebone
4 Family
- Thomas C. MARCH
- Arabella S. MARCH, wife, marr, 32, born Basingstoke
- Arabella MARCH, daughter, 14, born St. Lukes Chelsea
- Thomas C. MARCH, son, 3, born London, St. Georges [Hanover Square?]
3 Servants
- Agusta GERY, Servant, unmarr, 22, Domestic Servant, Lady's Maid, born Hanover (not a B.S.) [not a British Subject?] The spelling of both names looks suspicious. On this romp through the census I am not going to research the servants, even though it was a servant who led us here. Perhaps later.
- Anne COOK, Servant, unmarr, 52, Cook, born Chicester.
- Anne COOK, Servant, unmarr, 14, Housemaid, born London, Poplar.
On the first pass, I almost disregarded this household entirely. Clerk? That doesn't sound very high-falutin'. Mistake! I'm glad I went back for a closer look.
Thomas Charles MARCH was 50 in 1871. He was born on July 4, 1819 in Marylebone and christened there on August 14, 1819. Link to image of christening register. His father, Thomas MARCH, was an "Esquire", a gentleman, though I don't know his occupation. Thomas had at least two brothers, George Edward MARCH and William Gonne MARCH. His mother's name was Mary Ann GONNE. The parents, Thomas and Mary Ann, were British Subjects born in Portugal.
The 1871 census is the first time Thomas appears in his own home, at least the first time since 1851, when he was 30.
Thomas C. MARCH turns out to be, by the end of his life, one of the top people on the staff of the Royal Household of Queen Victoria. At various points, he was in the Lord Chamberlain's office, and also the Lord Steward's office. These two offices were for a time combined. The way some people describe it, the Lord Chamberlain's office deals with formal matters while the Lord Steward is concerned with "below stairs": the servants who make the day-to-day matters of living go smoothly.
The Lord Chamberlain's office dealt with the awarding of the Royal Warrant to approved suppliers of goods and services, and with organizing state funerals, to give two examples.
As Chief Clerk of the Department of the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, Thomas was alone in the second carriage of mourners who brought the remains of the Duke of Wellington from Walmer Castle in Kent, by horse-drawn carriage and then by special train from Deal, to London for the state funeral in 1852. The Duke's son was in the first carriage.
Here is an extract from the Order of Service for the funeral and the attendant arrangements.
I have lots more to say about Thomas and his family coming up in the next post.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
With this article we move a little away from Dracula for a while and focus on the residents of Charles Street in 1871. An amazing collection, really.
Next: Thomas Charles March, and his rise through the ranks at Queen Victoria's household
Six degrees of separation for Dracula and Queen Victoria
What began as a look at Bram Stoker's family in the English census returns has grown into a look at his servants, and their families. That's the beauty and the fun of looking at the census. You just never know where it will lead.
A few years back, I did a little research about a prominent family in Calgary, where I live, in the days before the First World War. Well, by the time I was done researching the history of a church they had helped to build, I was convinced that everyone in Calgary then was either related to each other, or about to be.
Of course, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but on the other hand, there's a lot of truth to it. The idea of "six degrees of separation" has been around for a while now. The theory is that you can connect anyone to anyone else via a chain of six intermediates or fewer.
For example, I have a friend (degree no. 1) whose husband (degree no. 2) is an executive producer on a great TV show, 30 Rock. I assume he's in one way or another acquainted with the stars of the show, so that makes me three degrees away from Tina Fey. Who knew?
If you use LinkedIn, you'll already know how easy it is to connect two people at the 3rd degree level, particularly if one of your 1st degree people has thousands of connections.
Rather than "six degrees of separation", I prefer "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", a Web game where people trace anyone who's had anything to do with any movie at all, back to actor Kevin Bacon. I wonder if Kevin Bacon ever feels a bit odd about that. Must be strange to be the centre of the universe.
Anyway, after a little nosing around in the census returns, I've decided to make my own Six Degrees. In the next heartbeat, I decided to do two, because I came across a person who fits both.
Get ready to find out:
Six Degrees of Dracula
and
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria.
I'll try to include rankings for everyone I write about in this series if I can. I don't know how many 1-1s (only 1 degree from each) there will be, but we shall see.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Thomas MARCH of 1 Charles Street, One degree from Queen Victoria
A few years back, I did a little research about a prominent family in Calgary, where I live, in the days before the First World War. Well, by the time I was done researching the history of a church they had helped to build, I was convinced that everyone in Calgary then was either related to each other, or about to be.
Of course, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but on the other hand, there's a lot of truth to it. The idea of "six degrees of separation" has been around for a while now. The theory is that you can connect anyone to anyone else via a chain of six intermediates or fewer.
For example, I have a friend (degree no. 1) whose husband (degree no. 2) is an executive producer on a great TV show, 30 Rock. I assume he's in one way or another acquainted with the stars of the show, so that makes me three degrees away from Tina Fey. Who knew?
If you use LinkedIn, you'll already know how easy it is to connect two people at the 3rd degree level, particularly if one of your 1st degree people has thousands of connections.
Rather than "six degrees of separation", I prefer "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", a Web game where people trace anyone who's had anything to do with any movie at all, back to actor Kevin Bacon. I wonder if Kevin Bacon ever feels a bit odd about that. Must be strange to be the centre of the universe.
Anyway, after a little nosing around in the census returns, I've decided to make my own Six Degrees. In the next heartbeat, I decided to do two, because I came across a person who fits both.
Get ready to find out:
Six Degrees of Dracula
and
Six Degrees of Queen Victoria.
I'll try to include rankings for everyone I write about in this series if I can. I don't know how many 1-1s (only 1 degree from each) there will be, but we shall see.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: Thomas MARCH of 1 Charles Street, One degree from 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
Sunday, February 6, 2011
A brick wall: Elizabeth Jarrald, widow, Nurse to Bram Stoker's baby son in 1881
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
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
Thursday, February 3, 2011
17 St Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea: Bram Stoker's family home in 1891
The 1891 census is the first time we see the Stokers living on St Leonards Terrace. In 1881, they had been on Cheyne Walk. Both places are in Chelsea, both fashionable.
It is at No. 18 St Leonards Terrace where there is a blue plaque for Bram Stoker (link). In 1891, the Stokers lived at No. 17, but in No. 18 there was no one designated the Head of the household. The occupants were two women, referred to as Servant in Charge, in the Occupation column. The open question is whether the Stokers had an interest in No. 18 in 1891, or whether that came later.
St Leonards Terrace is about a block from the Royal Hospital and the grounds of the Chelsea Flower Show. One website lists it as one of the 200 most expensive streets in Britain.
A piece of trivia: Sir Laurence Olivier, in another time and with two different wives, also lived on Cheyne Walk and moved (eventually) to St Leonards Terrace.
Here is a picture of (approximately) No. 17 St Leonards Terrace, Chelsea, courtesy of Google Street View. No. 18 is the white house on the end of its block. We can't tell from this picture whether No. 17 is on the right or the left. My guess would be the right but that is just a guess.
View Larger Map
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: After Dracula: Bram Stoker and family in the 1901 English census
It is at No. 18 St Leonards Terrace where there is a blue plaque for Bram Stoker (link). In 1891, the Stokers lived at No. 17, but in No. 18 there was no one designated the Head of the household. The occupants were two women, referred to as Servant in Charge, in the Occupation column. The open question is whether the Stokers had an interest in No. 18 in 1891, or whether that came later.
St Leonards Terrace is about a block from the Royal Hospital and the grounds of the Chelsea Flower Show. One website lists it as one of the 200 most expensive streets in Britain.
A piece of trivia: Sir Laurence Olivier, in another time and with two different wives, also lived on Cheyne Walk and moved (eventually) to St Leonards Terrace.
Here is a picture of (approximately) No. 17 St Leonards Terrace, Chelsea, courtesy of Google Street View. No. 18 is the white house on the end of its block. We can't tell from this picture whether No. 17 is on the right or the left. My guess would be the right but that is just a guess.
View Larger Map
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: After Dracula: Bram Stoker and family in the 1901 English census
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Dracula's author, Bram Stoker, and family in the 1891 English census
If you have already had a look at the Stoker family in the 1881 census (link), you will know that they were living at 27 Cheyne Walk in Chelsea, London. Bram and Florence, their son Irving, and Bram's brother George lived there with three servants: a nurse, a cook, and a parlourmaid.
Some changes have come about, which you will quickly notice in the 1891 census.
Reference: Class: RG12; Piece: 63; Folio 43; Page 12; GSU roll: 6095173.
Link to Ancestry.com image of the census page (may only work if signed in to Ancestry.com. Don't worry, the information is all here.)
Address: 17 St Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London
1 inhabited house
Household 103 on census form
Abraham Stoker, Head, Married. Male, age 43. Barrister, Theatrical Manager, Author. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Florence A. L. Stoker, Wife, Married. Female, age 27. Occupation is blank. Born in Cornwall, Falmouth. [Falmouth, Cornwall].
Mary A. Drinkwater, Servant, Single. Female, age 28. Cook (Domestic Servant). Born in Oxford, Milford. [Milford, Oxfordshire]
Ada V. Howard, Servant, Single. Female, age 22. House parlourmaid (Domestic Servant). Born in London.
That is the end of No. 17. However, at No. 18, there is no new Head of household, only two servants. It may be that the Stokers had both houses, particularly if these were side by side. In case this is of interest later, here are the details.
Address: 18 St Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London
Household 104 on census form.
Julia Abbott, Servant, Single. Female, age 25. Servant in charge. Born in Great Yarmouth.
Mary Kerr, Servant, Single. Female, age 22. Servant in charge. Born in Dumfries Lockabie [possibly Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland].
_______________________________________________________
The family has moved from Cheyne Walk to St Leonard's Terrace. Is that a move up or down?
Son Irving and Bram's brother George are both absent. George may very well have set up his own household, but where is the boy? He would be about 11 years old now.
Instead of three servants, there are only two, a Cook and a House parlourmaid. This is the same as in 1881, when the family also had a Nurse to care for the boy. The servants are new, though, not the same people as ten years ago. It makes me wonder whether there were very many others in between.
Bram's occupation was Theatrical Manager M.A. in 1881. Here in 1891, he is Barrister, Theatrical Manager, Author. Perhaps the M.A. is his law degree. Showing his occupation to include Author suggests he's already had some success in publishing his work. What has he written to date, and how well has he done as an author?
Florence was shown as an Artist in 1881. Why not now? Has she given it up? How does she spend her time?
There are the same questions about the servants as in 1881, boiling down to who are they, and how did they get here, and what became of them?
Finally, there is the question of the house next door. Has it got anything to do with the Stokers at all, or are the servants looking after it while the owner is absent?
And, a question that no census is going to tell us, has Bram started to think about Dracula yet?
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: 17 St Leonards Terrace, Chelsea: Bram Stoker's family home in 1891
Some changes have come about, which you will quickly notice in the 1891 census.
Reference: Class: RG12; Piece: 63; Folio 43; Page 12; GSU roll: 6095173.
1891 England Census for London, Chelsea, Chelsea South, District 2, Page 12, Household 103
Link to Ancestry.com image of the census page (may only work if signed in to Ancestry.com. Don't worry, the information is all here.)
Address: 17 St Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London
1 inhabited house
Household 103 on census form
Abraham Stoker, Head, Married. Male, age 43. Barrister, Theatrical Manager, Author. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Florence A. L. Stoker, Wife, Married. Female, age 27. Occupation is blank. Born in Cornwall, Falmouth. [Falmouth, Cornwall].
Mary A. Drinkwater, Servant, Single. Female, age 28. Cook (Domestic Servant). Born in Oxford, Milford. [Milford, Oxfordshire]
Ada V. Howard, Servant, Single. Female, age 22. House parlourmaid (Domestic Servant). Born in London.
That is the end of No. 17. However, at No. 18, there is no new Head of household, only two servants. It may be that the Stokers had both houses, particularly if these were side by side. In case this is of interest later, here are the details.
Address: 18 St Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London
Household 104 on census form.
Julia Abbott, Servant, Single. Female, age 25. Servant in charge. Born in Great Yarmouth.
Mary Kerr, Servant, Single. Female, age 22. Servant in charge. Born in Dumfries Lockabie [possibly Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland].
_______________________________________________________
The family has moved from Cheyne Walk to St Leonard's Terrace. Is that a move up or down?
Son Irving and Bram's brother George are both absent. George may very well have set up his own household, but where is the boy? He would be about 11 years old now.
Instead of three servants, there are only two, a Cook and a House parlourmaid. This is the same as in 1881, when the family also had a Nurse to care for the boy. The servants are new, though, not the same people as ten years ago. It makes me wonder whether there were very many others in between.
Bram's occupation was Theatrical Manager M.A. in 1881. Here in 1891, he is Barrister, Theatrical Manager, Author. Perhaps the M.A. is his law degree. Showing his occupation to include Author suggests he's already had some success in publishing his work. What has he written to date, and how well has he done as an author?
Florence was shown as an Artist in 1881. Why not now? Has she given it up? How does she spend her time?
There are the same questions about the servants as in 1881, boiling down to who are they, and how did they get here, and what became of them?
Finally, there is the question of the house next door. Has it got anything to do with the Stokers at all, or are the servants looking after it while the owner is absent?
And, a question that no census is going to tell us, has Bram started to think about Dracula yet?
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
Next: 17 St Leonards Terrace, Chelsea: Bram Stoker's family home in 1891
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
27 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London, former home of Bram Stoker (1881)
Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, lived with his family at 27 Cheyne Walk in Chelsea in 1881 when the census was taken. Details of the household (the Stokers, Bram's brother George, and three servants) are in this post:
Bram Stoker and family in the 1881 English census (link).
Cheyne Walk is a desirable place to live today, and has been fashionable for a long time. Here's a link to a picture of No. 4 Cheyne Walk (link) in 1881.
The Google Timeline of Cheyne Walk (search "Cheyne Walk" on Google.com, then select the Timeline option for results) gives an interesting perspective on the street over the years. Modern day residents have included Mick Jagger and David Bowie, with their respective partners. Sir Hans Sloane was a prominent figure there in the 1700s.
Link to a picture of Cheyne Walk, Chelsea (London) from about 1800.
And here is how it looks today, courtesy of Google Street View, below (may take a moment to load).
View Larger Map
This article is one of an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, in public records: BMD (birth, marriage, death).
Next: Emma Barton, Bram Stoker's 15-year-old parlourmaid in 1881
Bram Stoker and family in the 1881 English census (link).
Cheyne Walk is a desirable place to live today, and has been fashionable for a long time. Here's a link to a picture of No. 4 Cheyne Walk (link) in 1881.
The Google Timeline of Cheyne Walk (search "Cheyne Walk" on Google.com, then select the Timeline option for results) gives an interesting perspective on the street over the years. Modern day residents have included Mick Jagger and David Bowie, with their respective partners. Sir Hans Sloane was a prominent figure there in the 1700s.
Link to a picture of Cheyne Walk, Chelsea (London) from about 1800.
And here is how it looks today, courtesy of Google Street View, below (may take a moment to load).
View Larger Map
This article is one of an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, in public records: BMD (birth, marriage, death).
Next: Emma Barton, Bram Stoker's 15-year-old parlourmaid in 1881
Monday, January 31, 2011
Bram Stoker and family in the 1881 English census
Bram Stoker, famous as the author of Dracula was born Irish but lived much of his life in England. Here is a snapshot of his family and household on census day in 1881.
The link to the census here is via Ancestry.com and may only work if you are signed in to Ancestry. However, the information in this post is complete.
Reference: 1881 Census of England and Wales
RG11/74/78/0656
London, Chelsea, Chelsea South, District 9a, Page 1, Household 4
Address: 27 Cheyne Walk
1 inhabited house at this address
Living there:
Bram Stoker, Head. Married, male, age 33. Theatrical Manager M.A. [I'm assuming the M.A. means Master of Arts - Jill]. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Florence Stoker, Wife. Married, female, age 21. Artist. Born in Falmouth [Cornwall, England].
Irving N. Stoker, Son. Unmarried, male, 15 months. [Occupation is blank.] Born in London.
George Stoker, Brother. Unmarried, male, 26. Physician & Surgeon. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Elizabeth Jarrald, Servant. Widow, female, 30. Nurse. [Place of birth is blank.]
Harriett Daw, Servant. Unmarried, female, 21. Cook. Born in Middlesex, Nottinghill. [Notting Hill, part of London.]
Emma Barton, Servant. Unmarried, female, 15. Housemaid. Born in Essex, Woodford. [Woodford, Essex.]
_________________________________________________________
What does this snapshot tell us? What questions does it raise?
Beyond the obvious, here are a few things it makes me think about. And I will tell you right away that the answers to some of these questions are easily found with a Web search. However, I like to find things from scratch, for myself, and to make up my own questions. Then I can check with what others have done and see if we agree.
Of course, when I hit a dead end or get tired of looking, I cheat and search the Web like everyone else!
27 Cheyne Walk: This is a famous part of Chelsea. Who were the neighbours? Who lives there now? What was the house like? Is it still standing?
Bram Stoker's education: Does M.A. stand for Master of Arts or is it something else entirely? If it is the university degree, when and where did he get it? When and how did he become a Theatrical Manager? Who employed him?
Florence Stoker's occupation: What kind of art did she do? Is any of her work still around? Was she good? Was it unusual for a woman of that time to list her occupation as "Artist"? How did a young woman from Cornwall end up married to a Theatrical Manager from Dublin, 12 years her senior?
Irving N. Stoker's name: Was he named for Henry Irving, the actor?
George Stoker: A doctor, so we have two prominent men from the same family in Dublin. Was the Stoker family well-off? Prominent? Were there any doctors in the family already? And how long did George live with his brother? Did he get married, have children, do anything notable?
The servants: Three servants in a family of three adults and a baby, was this normal? What social class does this indicate? How did the servants get selected, hired, and trained? What was their pay? Where did they stay? What was the work like? How long did they stay with the family? Where did they come from, and was this job a step up or down for each of them? What happened to them after they left the Stokers?
Elizabeth Jarrald, the Nurse: She would have been there to care for the baby, Irving. She was a widow at the age of 30. What happened to her husband? Did she have children of her own? Would she have been working if her husband was alive? What was her maiden name? Was the baby attached to her as he grew a little older?
Harriett Daw, the Cook. At age 21, she was responsible for feeding everyone. Was that normal for a cook to be so (relatively) young? Was she a good cook? Did the Stokers have a lot of guests? Given the number of well-known people they must have associated with through the theatre, did Harriett play a role in maintaining their reputation as good hosts? Or were they?
Emma Barton, the Housemaid. If Harriett seems like a young Cook at 21, Emma at 15 is even younger to be out working. It's not that this is shocking, but it's not what we see done today. How old was Emma when she went into service?
So many questions, and this is only the beginning.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
The next article is: 27 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London, former home of Bram Stoker (1881).
The link to the census here is via Ancestry.com and may only work if you are signed in to Ancestry. However, the information in this post is complete.
Reference: 1881 Census of England and Wales
RG11/74/78/0656
London, Chelsea, Chelsea South, District 9a, Page 1, Household 4
Address: 27 Cheyne Walk
1 inhabited house at this address
Living there:
Bram Stoker, Head. Married, male, age 33. Theatrical Manager M.A. [I'm assuming the M.A. means Master of Arts - Jill]. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Florence Stoker, Wife. Married, female, age 21. Artist. Born in Falmouth [Cornwall, England].
Irving N. Stoker, Son. Unmarried, male, 15 months. [Occupation is blank.] Born in London.
George Stoker, Brother. Unmarried, male, 26. Physician & Surgeon. Born in Dublin [Ireland].
Elizabeth Jarrald, Servant. Widow, female, 30. Nurse. [Place of birth is blank.]
Harriett Daw, Servant. Unmarried, female, 21. Cook. Born in Middlesex, Nottinghill. [Notting Hill, part of London.]
Emma Barton, Servant. Unmarried, female, 15. Housemaid. Born in Essex, Woodford. [Woodford, Essex.]
_________________________________________________________
What does this snapshot tell us? What questions does it raise?
Beyond the obvious, here are a few things it makes me think about. And I will tell you right away that the answers to some of these questions are easily found with a Web search. However, I like to find things from scratch, for myself, and to make up my own questions. Then I can check with what others have done and see if we agree.
Of course, when I hit a dead end or get tired of looking, I cheat and search the Web like everyone else!
27 Cheyne Walk: This is a famous part of Chelsea. Who were the neighbours? Who lives there now? What was the house like? Is it still standing?
Bram Stoker's education: Does M.A. stand for Master of Arts or is it something else entirely? If it is the university degree, when and where did he get it? When and how did he become a Theatrical Manager? Who employed him?
Florence Stoker's occupation: What kind of art did she do? Is any of her work still around? Was she good? Was it unusual for a woman of that time to list her occupation as "Artist"? How did a young woman from Cornwall end up married to a Theatrical Manager from Dublin, 12 years her senior?
Irving N. Stoker's name: Was he named for Henry Irving, the actor?
George Stoker: A doctor, so we have two prominent men from the same family in Dublin. Was the Stoker family well-off? Prominent? Were there any doctors in the family already? And how long did George live with his brother? Did he get married, have children, do anything notable?
The servants: Three servants in a family of three adults and a baby, was this normal? What social class does this indicate? How did the servants get selected, hired, and trained? What was their pay? Where did they stay? What was the work like? How long did they stay with the family? Where did they come from, and was this job a step up or down for each of them? What happened to them after they left the Stokers?
Elizabeth Jarrald, the Nurse: She would have been there to care for the baby, Irving. She was a widow at the age of 30. What happened to her husband? Did she have children of her own? Would she have been working if her husband was alive? What was her maiden name? Was the baby attached to her as he grew a little older?
Harriett Daw, the Cook. At age 21, she was responsible for feeding everyone. Was that normal for a cook to be so (relatively) young? Was she a good cook? Did the Stokers have a lot of guests? Given the number of well-known people they must have associated with through the theatre, did Harriett play a role in maintaining their reputation as good hosts? Or were they?
Emma Barton, the Housemaid. If Harriett seems like a young Cook at 21, Emma at 15 is even younger to be out working. It's not that this is shocking, but it's not what we see done today. How old was Emma when she went into service?
So many questions, and this is only the beginning.
This article is one in an ongoing series, starting with Bram Stoker, author of Dracula in public records: BMD (Birth, Marriage, Death).
The next article is: 27 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London, former home of Bram Stoker (1881).
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Hint for doing family history online: leave a lot of clues around.
Sometimes looking up family history and doing genealogy research online seems to take a lot of time and get nowhere. Other times you find so much information you can barely handle it. But sometimes, when you are really lucky, you get amazing results.
The latest happened to me just this week, but it's because of something I posted online about four or five (?) years ago.
One of my ancestors was the landlord of a London pub. It's no longer a pub; it's been converted to flats.
I posted some notes about my family history related to that pub, on a website about the history of London pubs. Of course, I included my email address.
Lo and behold, from out of the blue comes an email bringing me news of a fairly close relative I never thought I would find. I won't put their full names here but Norman and Anne, I am so glad you took the time to get in touch. Now we can compare notes about our family from both sides of the Atlantic.
The lesson is, plant seeds and one day you may harvest the fruit.
Good luck with your own family history research.
The latest happened to me just this week, but it's because of something I posted online about four or five (?) years ago.
One of my ancestors was the landlord of a London pub. It's no longer a pub; it's been converted to flats.
I posted some notes about my family history related to that pub, on a website about the history of London pubs. Of course, I included my email address.
Lo and behold, from out of the blue comes an email bringing me news of a fairly close relative I never thought I would find. I won't put their full names here but Norman and Anne, I am so glad you took the time to get in touch. Now we can compare notes about our family from both sides of the Atlantic.
The lesson is, plant seeds and one day you may harvest the fruit.
Good luck with your own family history research.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tracing ancestors when two people have the same name
It happens all the time. You go searching merrily along and find your ancestor in every census, in the BMD (birth, marriage, and death) index, and you feel pretty proud of yourself. Then, wham! Suddenly SKS (Some Kind Soul in Internet-language) tells you the John SMITH you're so happy about is their relative, not yours at all. And then you scratch your head and wonder how it all went so wrong.
How to track two people who are about the same age
This advice uses an English example, but like most of my examples, I hope the lessons might be just as good for other countries.
It's not usually a big problem trying to distinguish between people with the same name but from different generations. The age difference makes it pretty easy to know if you've got the right ones.
But when there are two (or even more) people about the same age, with the same name, you have to unravel them carefully. If you want to do it without buying any birth, marriage or death certificates, you're probably going to have to work a little harder.
John CORKER, b. 1862 in Manchester, Lancashire, and his namesake born around the same time
The John CORKER I'm interested in was the son of William CORKER and Mary Ann (nee KNOWLES).
One problem I'm having is that I cannot find him in the 1871 census. This is important because he was young and the facts – his age, name, date and place of birth – are more likely to be correct because those events have a very good chance of being fresh within the memory of the person who gives the information to the census-taker.
Because it's proving difficult to find the family in 1871, I am going to have to look at 1881. I want to find "my" John CORKER and the one with the same name and similar place and date of birth, so I can start making notes of the points where they differ, and where they are the same. I want to build up a little checklist for telling them apart.
How to track two people who are about the same age
This advice uses an English example, but like most of my examples, I hope the lessons might be just as good for other countries.
It's not usually a big problem trying to distinguish between people with the same name but from different generations. The age difference makes it pretty easy to know if you've got the right ones.
But when there are two (or even more) people about the same age, with the same name, you have to unravel them carefully. If you want to do it without buying any birth, marriage or death certificates, you're probably going to have to work a little harder.
John CORKER, b. 1862 in Manchester, Lancashire, and his namesake born around the same time
The John CORKER I'm interested in was the son of William CORKER and Mary Ann (nee KNOWLES).
One problem I'm having is that I cannot find him in the 1871 census. This is important because he was young and the facts – his age, name, date and place of birth – are more likely to be correct because those events have a very good chance of being fresh within the memory of the person who gives the information to the census-taker.
Because it's proving difficult to find the family in 1871, I am going to have to look at 1881. I want to find "my" John CORKER and the one with the same name and similar place and date of birth, so I can start making notes of the points where they differ, and where they are the same. I want to build up a little checklist for telling them apart.
Friday, July 2, 2010
1911 England census for Mary Ann BUNTING, formerly ROYLE, formerly BROWN, formerly CORKER, nee KNOWLES
This is about a lady who outlived her four husbands. I can only imagine her grief and maybe some kind of inevitable acceptance of the transience of life by the time the third one died. Did she scream and cry and fall down weeping when husband number four died? She was about 75 at the time. Did it feel the same as when she lost her first husband, at age 34, after having four children with him?
I don't know but it's very sad.
Family relationships shown in the census return
The census for every decade operates pretty much the same way: each household is a unit. There is a head of the household, and every other person there is named and described by their relationship to the head.
Sometimes, this isn't quite right, especially when two generations live together, but it's a starting point.
The Richard BROWN family of Salford, Lancashire, in 1911
From the address page, we get the house address: 52 Stowell Street, Salford.
Today, on Google Earth, that address looks like a fairly new housing estate. It would be interesting to find out when and why the old houses were replaced. Could have been bombed, could have been "urban renewal", who knows? But with a little digging, I could find out. I would want to know the reason if it happened to have taken place during or not long after my ancestors lived there.
From the census return page that the head of the household filled out:
Richard BROWN, Head, age 32, Married. The marriage has lasted 10 years, Occupation: Warehouseman, Industry: Ship Canal Co., a Worker (not an Employer), born in Manchester, Lancashire.
Emma BROWN, Wife, age 31, Married 10 years. For the wife in a married couple, there is added information: 3 children born alive to the present Marriage; 3 children still living. The Occupation is left blank. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Frank BROWN, Son, age 9, Occupation: School. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Edna BROWN, Daughter, age 7, Occupation: School. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Arthur BROWN, Son, age 3, Occupation blank (too young). Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Mary Ann BUNTING, Mother, age 72, Widow. Birthplace: Oldham, Lancashire.
How reliable is this census information?
Every piece of information comes from somewhere. You have to figure out whether the person providing the information knew the truth, and if so, whether that person also told the truth.
Here there is an intact family, and all the children have the same parents. The family is still living in Salford, where the children were born. Because the children are so young, we have a very good chance of seeing the correct ages and birthplaces on this return. When you see a census for an older person, and especially when that person isn't giving the information about themselves, there is room for doubt.
The census is not an official record like a birth certificate is, but it is a very good indicator of where to look for more information.
Questions this census return suggests to me:
1. What was the neighbourhood like? (And when and why was the house taken down?)
2. What was it like working at the Manchester Ship Canal in 1911?
3. Did any other family members (Mary Ann had four children older than Richard) live nearby?
This is a bit of a cheat, but I know that Richard, Emma, and the children emigrated from England to Canada before the First World War, probably not long after this census date in fact. Mary Ann, Richard's mother, didn't go with them. She died in 1919. Who looked after her during those eight years, which included the whole period of the War? This poor woman had lost four husbands and then had to see her son and his family leave, perhaps never to be seen again.
I don't know but it's very sad.
Family relationships shown in the census return
The census for every decade operates pretty much the same way: each household is a unit. There is a head of the household, and every other person there is named and described by their relationship to the head.
Sometimes, this isn't quite right, especially when two generations live together, but it's a starting point.
The Richard BROWN family of Salford, Lancashire, in 1911
From the address page, we get the house address: 52 Stowell Street, Salford.
Today, on Google Earth, that address looks like a fairly new housing estate. It would be interesting to find out when and why the old houses were replaced. Could have been bombed, could have been "urban renewal", who knows? But with a little digging, I could find out. I would want to know the reason if it happened to have taken place during or not long after my ancestors lived there.
From the census return page that the head of the household filled out:
Richard BROWN, Head, age 32, Married. The marriage has lasted 10 years, Occupation: Warehouseman, Industry: Ship Canal Co., a Worker (not an Employer), born in Manchester, Lancashire.
Emma BROWN, Wife, age 31, Married 10 years. For the wife in a married couple, there is added information: 3 children born alive to the present Marriage; 3 children still living. The Occupation is left blank. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Frank BROWN, Son, age 9, Occupation: School. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Edna BROWN, Daughter, age 7, Occupation: School. Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Arthur BROWN, Son, age 3, Occupation blank (too young). Birthplace: Salford, Lancashire.
Mary Ann BUNTING, Mother, age 72, Widow. Birthplace: Oldham, Lancashire.
How reliable is this census information?
Every piece of information comes from somewhere. You have to figure out whether the person providing the information knew the truth, and if so, whether that person also told the truth.
Here there is an intact family, and all the children have the same parents. The family is still living in Salford, where the children were born. Because the children are so young, we have a very good chance of seeing the correct ages and birthplaces on this return. When you see a census for an older person, and especially when that person isn't giving the information about themselves, there is room for doubt.
The census is not an official record like a birth certificate is, but it is a very good indicator of where to look for more information.
Questions this census return suggests to me:
1. What was the neighbourhood like? (And when and why was the house taken down?)
2. What was it like working at the Manchester Ship Canal in 1911?
3. Did any other family members (Mary Ann had four children older than Richard) live nearby?
This is a bit of a cheat, but I know that Richard, Emma, and the children emigrated from England to Canada before the First World War, probably not long after this census date in fact. Mary Ann, Richard's mother, didn't go with them. She died in 1919. Who looked after her during those eight years, which included the whole period of the War? This poor woman had lost four husbands and then had to see her son and his family leave, perhaps never to be seen again.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
1911 England census
Today I'm going to leave the VERNELLs and SANDERS briefly and sniff around in the 1911 census for various families. Some are in my family, some aren't. I'm interested in them all, but the reasons vary.
Finding the 1911 UK census online
The website I'm using is 1911census.co.uk.
You can search for free, but to see the results you need to pay.
Another site I haven't tried yet is offering subscriptions to the 1911 census, in fact, they have every census from 1841 to 1911. It's findmypast.co.uk.
I've already purchased some credits and done a few searches in the 1911census.co.uk site and it worked very well.
A 1911 census search for Mary BUNTING nee KNOWLES formerly CORKER formerly BROWN formerly ROYLE
Yes, married four times and apparently outlived them all! This lady's name was Mary Ann KNOWLES until the first marriage, as indicated by the word "nee" (French for "born"). She married men whose surnames were, in order, CORKER, BROWN, ROYLE, and BUNTING. It's been quite the wild goose chase trying to track her down, because I had no idea she had any husbands after BROWN.
Without too much trouble, using her name and a birth date with not "Exact" but plus or minus 5 years for the date, there she is, in Salford.
Finding the address in the 1911 census
It's really easy to use the 1911 census site to get both the census form for the household and the cover page showing the address. There are clear boxes to check.
Although it's a little cheaper to see a transcript, I always go look at the original. Too many mistakes crop up in transcribing records. I want to see them for myself.
The cost: transcripts are 10 credits each, originals are 30 credits for the set of images (the household return, and the address page for the household, and the cover page showing the enumeration district details.
Credits: 6.95 pounds for 60 credits (12 pence per credit, good for 90 days) or
24.95 pounds for 280 credits (9 pence per credit, good for a year)
I paid for and downloaded the records I wanted to see for Mary Ann BUNTING and then I looked at them closely.
The census address page shows Mr. BROWN as head of the household, and the address as 52 Stowell Street, Salford.
I didn't know anything about England when I first started researching and had no clue where Salford was. It's part of Greater Manchester. If you live there, you will probably make a finer distinction than that, but the bottom line is, if you're looking for Salford, find Manchester city centre, and then look across the River Irwell to the west.
View Larger Map
Links to some interesting titles
THE GENERAL STRIKE IN SALFORD IN 1911
Haven't read it but it was the same year as the census. Must find out more about this strike.
In Search of Your British and Irish Roots: A Complete Guide to Tracing Your English, Welsh, Scottish, & Irish Ancestors
One of the first family history books I bought was by Angus Baxter and I found his advice very useful. I wonder if I still have his books. I should go back to basics and read what he had to say about conducting research.
More resources for Manchester and Salford history, from Amazon's catalogue
Finding the 1911 UK census online
The website I'm using is 1911census.co.uk.
You can search for free, but to see the results you need to pay.
Another site I haven't tried yet is offering subscriptions to the 1911 census, in fact, they have every census from 1841 to 1911. It's findmypast.co.uk.
I've already purchased some credits and done a few searches in the 1911census.co.uk site and it worked very well.
A 1911 census search for Mary BUNTING nee KNOWLES formerly CORKER formerly BROWN formerly ROYLE
Yes, married four times and apparently outlived them all! This lady's name was Mary Ann KNOWLES until the first marriage, as indicated by the word "nee" (French for "born"). She married men whose surnames were, in order, CORKER, BROWN, ROYLE, and BUNTING. It's been quite the wild goose chase trying to track her down, because I had no idea she had any husbands after BROWN.
Without too much trouble, using her name and a birth date with not "Exact" but plus or minus 5 years for the date, there she is, in Salford.
Finding the address in the 1911 census
It's really easy to use the 1911 census site to get both the census form for the household and the cover page showing the address. There are clear boxes to check.
Although it's a little cheaper to see a transcript, I always go look at the original. Too many mistakes crop up in transcribing records. I want to see them for myself.
The cost: transcripts are 10 credits each, originals are 30 credits for the set of images (the household return, and the address page for the household, and the cover page showing the enumeration district details.
Credits: 6.95 pounds for 60 credits (12 pence per credit, good for 90 days) or
24.95 pounds for 280 credits (9 pence per credit, good for a year)
I paid for and downloaded the records I wanted to see for Mary Ann BUNTING and then I looked at them closely.
The census address page shows Mr. BROWN as head of the household, and the address as 52 Stowell Street, Salford.
I didn't know anything about England when I first started researching and had no clue where Salford was. It's part of Greater Manchester. If you live there, you will probably make a finer distinction than that, but the bottom line is, if you're looking for Salford, find Manchester city centre, and then look across the River Irwell to the west.
View Larger Map
Links to some interesting titles
THE GENERAL STRIKE IN SALFORD IN 1911
Haven't read it but it was the same year as the census. Must find out more about this strike.
In Search of Your British and Irish Roots: A Complete Guide to Tracing Your English, Welsh, Scottish, & Irish AncestorsOne of the first family history books I bought was by Angus Baxter and I found his advice very useful. I wonder if I still have his books. I should go back to basics and read what he had to say about conducting research.
More resources for Manchester and Salford history, from Amazon's catalogue
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
What does the 1871 census tell us about the family?
What does a census return tell you?
What good is it in doing family history?
The census return is one of the best family history records
I am going to dwell on the 1871 census return for one particular family for a while, to see what information can be coaxed out of it.
With all the resources available on the Internet, not to mention in libraries and in the research others may have done, there is no reason to be too hasty! Of course we all like to get on with the chase and find more ancestors, but it's also important to stop and think about them.
For one thing, this respects them as people and not just names on a page. (In a hundred years, which would you rather be?)
Also, by studying at least a little bit of the context in which our ancestors lived, we can often come up with clues about who, what, where, when, and that marvellous question: Why?
The address of the home in the 1871 census of England and Wales
You would think it would be easy to figure out the family's address if you have been lucky enough to locate them by name in the census returns. In England, and especially in London, I find it rather confusing!
The John VERNELL #2 family is a great example.
Lucky for us, the address is legible. They often aren't. Here it's 23 Fenwick Row, written in the space to the left of the name of the head of the household. But Fenwick Row where?
Up at the top of the census form there are eight different boxes to identify a location:
- Civil Parish (or Township)
- City or Municipal Borough
- Municipal Ward
- Parliamentary Borough
- Town
- Village or Hamlet, etc.
- Local Board (or Improvement Commissioners' District)
- Ecclesiastical District.
Some of these are mutually exclusive. For example, you don't expect a place to be both a town and a village at the same time. (But never rule these things out! Maybe we should have a contest for the first person to find a census return where are eight things are filled out with no repetition.)
In the John VERNELL #2 case, there is no mention in any of the eight boxes of "London", yet that is where we would think this family lived, especially those of us who don't live in the UK and aren't familiar with the twisty, turny, plate of spaghetti that London is and was.
What the census form shows for the VERNELLs is:
- Civil Parish (or Township): St Giles
- City or Municipal Borough: Camberwell
- Municipal Ward: No 6 Ward
- Parliamentary Borough: Lambeth
- Town: (blank)
- Village or Hamlet, etc.: (blank)
- Local Board (or Improvement Commissioners' District): East Dulwich
- Ecclesiastical District: St John [in] the East.
How can you find out where exactly the ancestors lived if you know the address?
That's the next question. I think it's time to talk about a few great resources: maps and reference books.
What good is it in doing family history?
The census return is one of the best family history records
I am going to dwell on the 1871 census return for one particular family for a while, to see what information can be coaxed out of it.
With all the resources available on the Internet, not to mention in libraries and in the research others may have done, there is no reason to be too hasty! Of course we all like to get on with the chase and find more ancestors, but it's also important to stop and think about them.
For one thing, this respects them as people and not just names on a page. (In a hundred years, which would you rather be?)
Also, by studying at least a little bit of the context in which our ancestors lived, we can often come up with clues about who, what, where, when, and that marvellous question: Why?
The address of the home in the 1871 census of England and Wales
You would think it would be easy to figure out the family's address if you have been lucky enough to locate them by name in the census returns. In England, and especially in London, I find it rather confusing!
The John VERNELL #2 family is a great example.
Lucky for us, the address is legible. They often aren't. Here it's 23 Fenwick Row, written in the space to the left of the name of the head of the household. But Fenwick Row where?
Up at the top of the census form there are eight different boxes to identify a location:
- Civil Parish (or Township)
- City or Municipal Borough
- Municipal Ward
- Parliamentary Borough
- Town
- Village or Hamlet, etc.
- Local Board (or Improvement Commissioners' District)
- Ecclesiastical District.
Some of these are mutually exclusive. For example, you don't expect a place to be both a town and a village at the same time. (But never rule these things out! Maybe we should have a contest for the first person to find a census return where are eight things are filled out with no repetition.)
In the John VERNELL #2 case, there is no mention in any of the eight boxes of "London", yet that is where we would think this family lived, especially those of us who don't live in the UK and aren't familiar with the twisty, turny, plate of spaghetti that London is and was.
What the census form shows for the VERNELLs is:
- Civil Parish (or Township): St Giles
- City or Municipal Borough: Camberwell
- Municipal Ward: No 6 Ward
- Parliamentary Borough: Lambeth
- Town: (blank)
- Village or Hamlet, etc.: (blank)
- Local Board (or Improvement Commissioners' District): East Dulwich
- Ecclesiastical District: St John [in] the East.
How can you find out where exactly the ancestors lived if you know the address?
That's the next question. I think it's time to talk about a few great resources: maps and reference books.
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)