HARRIET MORLEY, LINTON L@@K UP PLEASE

[aakarlhamo]

Hi,  I have come to a dead end with my 2nd gt grandmother HARRIET MORLEY abt 1855 Babraham/Linton. I have been unable to find her birth/bapt or any info for her parents apart from a father's name of JOHN MORLEY, wood keeper, which I got from her marriage reg. This is the info I have so far:

Marriage to GEORGE THOMAS FITCH 9 Sep 1877, St John of Jerusulem, South Hackney.  On the register she is listed as HARRIETT CAROLINE MORLEY

1881 census
b 1855 Babraham
5 Mead Cottages, Hackney
Living with husband George, children Edith and George and lodger.

1891 census
b 185? Linton Her age is difficult to read
10 Oswald St, Hackney
Living with husband George and daughters Edith and Florence

(Sorry no folio details for the census)

I have also found an 1871 census for Linton Union Workhouse:
HARRIET MORLEY b 1852  a general servant
Brother JOHN b 1856 both born in Linton Union. 
There is no sign of the parents. I suppose that this looks like it could be my Harriet with her brother John being named after the father but not sure?

I also found a birth on free bmd for a HARRIET MORLEY  b Mar 1853 Linton  3b 597. However, I also asked for a 3 yr search at the GRO to see if they could find HARRIET'S birth with a father JOHN MORLEY for Babraham/Linton between 1852-1854 and they couldn't, which makes me wonder if this 1953 birth record is for my Harriet?

That is all the info that I have on her.  As yet I haven't been able to find her death record or the 1901 and 1911 census.  Her married name was HARRIET FITCH and her husband GEORGE FITCH died July 1894 Bethnal Green.

Thanks
Carole 

[MargP]

Hi

Who were the witnesses on the marriage

Margp

[aakarlhamo]

Hello Margp

The witnesses were Edward Palmer and Miss Emily Dawe.
I hoped that it might have been a family member!
It looks like the father John Morley was living because he didn't have deceased next to his name.

Carole

[KGarrad]

I don't think you can assume that John was still alive, just because it doesn't state "deceased"!

I also think that, due to the lack of a Harriet Morley on the 1861 census, that she may have been illegitimate?
And that she may have "invented" the name of a father?

[Lostris]

Looks like she married again ..


Marriages Mar 1896   
Fitch,  Harriet
@ Hackney  1b 475

to Galpin.  Albert James

 

[MargP]

Hi

1861 Census Union Workhouse 1029/66/44

H Morley b 1853 Linton, Pauper, Female
F Morly b 1853 Linton, Pauper Male, I did check to see if this was a J but it looks like an F to me

So they were in the workhouse at a young age, and I agree that the father on the marriage may be fictitious, and the BC for Harriet b 1853 may be the right one

Margp

[MargP]

Looks like she married again ..


Marriages Mar 1896   
Fitch,  Harriet
@ Hackney  1b 475

to Galpin.  Albert James

 

This Harriet is 24 and a spinster so not your Harriet,

[Lostris]

Pity, it would have fitted being post 1894 and in the Hackney District. No sign of that couple in 1901 anyway! 

[aakarlhamo]

Yes, you could both be right about the father although on the 1871 census  RG10; Piece: 1592; Folio: 105; Page: 54; GSU roll: 829810    there is what looks like a sibling called John and they were both born in the union? 

I suppose there are lots of scenarios and it might just be a case of biting the bullet and sending off for the 1853 certificate.  Although with the new marriage maybe I can get a better idea of dates from the census and her death?

I'm just having a look to see if the marriage register comes up for the Gaplin marriage or the later records for her - that was a curved ball that I didn't think of ha ha.

Thanks for all your help