Author Topic: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????  (Read 288 times)

Offline stevemiller

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • James Aaron Grigg
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 06 December 17 09:40 GMT (UK) »
Thank you Shaun - great searching

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online Rattus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 06 December 17 09:41 GMT (UK) »
In 1891 at 87 Westbourne Street, St Georges Hanover Sq
Richard COX  head  40 born Stapleford CAM
Jane COX wife 34 born Stoke BKM
Alice COX dau 6 born Pimlico LDN

Looking at the census document, there are other occupants of the building. However, specifically noted as part of the Cox household (ie. "Boarder" rather than just "Lodger") is Jane BRIDGE, single, 29 years old, servant/housemaid, from Newbury BKM.

Richard, Jane & Alice Cox and Jane Bridge are living together in two rooms, unlike other lodgers in the building who are shown as occupying single rooms. Jane Bridge is a boarder, rather than servant to Richard & Jane. She is therefore a peer, possibly friend.

The two Janes are both born in Bucks. Jane Bridge would have been in her early 20s when Alice Cox was born. There isn't any evidence of Richard & Jane Cox having any other children, either before or after Alice. Jane Bridge is not living with them in 1901.

There is an Alice Bridge born in the St Pancras registration area in Q4 1886 (Vol 01B, page 118), mmn unspecified. I can't find an obvious candidate for her anywhere in Middlesex in the 1891 census, nor a particularly relevant death.

Am I chasing shadows, or is there a case to be made for Alice Cox actually being Alice Bridge?
BARTRAM - Nottingham, Derby, originally Beds (Stagsden)
PERFETT - St Pancras & Marylebone, Rugby, Nottingham
RADFORD - Nottinghamshire, also back & forth to Bury
RUDD - Margate, Bermondsey, Newcastle, Nottingham

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline stevemiller

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • James Aaron Grigg
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 06 December 17 10:31 GMT (UK) »
Rattus - thanks for picking up on Jane Bridge. I should have listed her originally, and then thought my post this morning was long enough already!

The Alice Bridge you mention was born illegitimately in St Pancras Workhouse on 11 Dec 1886, and baptised on 22 Dec. However, the mother was Emily Bridge.

I'm having no luck in finding them in subsequent censuses.

Now, of course, Newbury is not in Bucks, but rather in Berkshire.

Jane Miller's only brother, George (born Stoke Poges 1854) moved to Newbury in the mid 1880s - now am I chasing shadows? I don't recognise Bridge as a "Newbury name" and I've not found Jane Bridge apart from 1891.

Online Rattus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #12 on: Wednesday 06 December 17 10:57 GMT (UK) »
The Alice Bridge you mention was born illegitimately in St Pancras Workhouse on 11 Dec 1886, and baptised on 22 Dec. However, the mother was Emily Bridge.

Ah, good work. I knew this needed more time, but didn't want to proceed further without feedback.

Quote
Jane Miller's only brother, George (born Stoke Poges 1854) moved to Newbury in the mid 1880s - now am I chasing shadows?

I reckon this shadow is worth the chase. Might come to nothing, but there's quite a credible narrative that could be constructed to explain the lack of documentation for Alice. Jane Bridge is clearly different, somehow, to the other 'lodger' occupants.
BARTRAM - Nottingham, Derby, originally Beds (Stagsden)
PERFETT - St Pancras & Marylebone, Rugby, Nottingham
RADFORD - Nottinghamshire, also back & forth to Bury
RUDD - Margate, Bermondsey, Newcastle, Nottingham

Online Rattus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #13 on: Wednesday 06 December 17 11:16 GMT (UK) »
Now, of course, Newbury is not in Bucks, but rather in Berkshire.

Further evidence that my understanding of western Home Counties geography is as sketchy as ever. I do actually know that Newbury is in Berks, but assumed it must be somewhere near a border with Bucks and had swapped over at some point. Now I've looked at a map...  ;D
BARTRAM - Nottingham, Derby, originally Beds (Stagsden)
PERFETT - St Pancras & Marylebone, Rugby, Nottingham
RADFORD - Nottinghamshire, also back & forth to Bury
RUDD - Margate, Bermondsey, Newcastle, Nottingham

Offline stevemiller

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • James Aaron Grigg
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 07 December 17 10:30 GMT (UK) »
I've been following up the four Alice birth registrations in St Georges Hanover Square, including looking at their siblings to help with searches.

Richard Cox was born in Stapleford CAM and his father was William Cox, an ag lab. So we are looking for possible brothers who fit the bill. In addition, we shouldn't find any of these Alices in 1891, except at 87 Westbourne Street.

Alice mmn Field  Q1 1884
Baptised March 1884 at St John, Westminster.
Parents William Cox & Alice Field married Dec 1882 at St John, Westminster
Age at marriage gives Williamís birth as c1849 and he said his father was William, a cabman. In fact he might have been the illegitimate son of Amelia Cox baptised Dec 1850 at StGHSq.
In 1891 Alice is with her step grandfather, Samuel Marks at 1 William Street, Lambeth [RG12/395/31/12]

Alice May mmn Plater Q2 1884
This was the trickiest one to work on, but the Cox-Plater combination is rare..
Henry Cox married Jane Plater Q1 1882 Aylesbury BKM. They moved around quite a bit, and I havenít been able to pin down Henry himself.
However, in 1891 Alice is with her mother and siblings in Aylesbury Workhouse [RG12/1146/135/4]

Alice Elizabeth mmn Haynes Q3 1884
Baptised Oct 1884 at Holy Trinity, Westminster.
Parents Edmund Frederick Cox and Elizabeth Haynes.married Q3 StGHSq.
I think Edmund was born 1855 in Westminster and his father was Henry.
In 1891 Alice was with her widowed father at 3 Broughton Street, Battersea [RG12/424/101/26

Alice Edith mmn Goddard Q3 1886
No baptism found, but Henry Cox married Eliza Goddard May 1878 at St Martin, Kentish Town. The marriage shows he was born c1856 and his father was William Cox, labourer.
However, 1891 shows he was born in Harwell BRK. The whole family, including Alice, are at 10 Sutherland Street StGHSq [RG12/75/101/4]

So, none of the fathers appear to be brothers of Richard Cox and, crucially, all the Alices are accounted for in 1891 and they are not at 87 Westbourne Street.

Next step Ė Jane Bridge?

Offline stevemiller

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • James Aaron Grigg
    • View Profile
Re: Jane COX nee MILLER 1856-????
« Reply #15 on: Saturday 09 December 17 11:56 GMT (UK) »
Well, I've had a go at finding Jane Bridge born in Berks or Bucks and all I come up with is the 1891 entry at Pimlico !

I had another look at the St Pancras workhouse connection, including some good old fashioned browsing through the creed registers.

Emily Bridge had three daughters born here:
Alice born 11 Dec 1886 bapt 22 Dec 1886   mother admitted from 3 George St
Laura born 13 Dec 1887 bapt 30 Dec 1887  from 3 George St
Emily born 25 June 1889 bapt 12 July 1889  from 10 Thornhill Bridge Place [Islington?]

Needless to say - no sign of any of them in 1891 or after ! and no clues at the two addresses either.

It looks like this one has to go back into the unsolved cases file.