RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Hampshire & IOW Lookup Requests => Hampshire & Isle of Wight => England => Hampshire & IOW Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Mum44 on Saturday 08 March 08 16:57 GMT (UK)
-
In 1871 there is a family named PAYNE living in London:
RG10. P 654 Fol 15 Pg.22
I am specifically interested in Mrs Elizabeth Payne, says b. 1830 Titchfield, Hants. I have tracked her from 1871 to 1901, as follows:
1881 : RG11 P. 639 Fol.18 Pg. 29
Where she is a widow and living with her youngest son
1891: RG12 P. 4127 Fol 117 Pg. 75
Living as mother in family of John Lock b. 1850 Titchfield, Hants (see below)
1901: RG13 p. 1662 Fol 24 Pg. 7
Living as mother in law with family of her daughter Emily Payne now Loomes, b. 1860 Titchfield.
I cannot find this family on 1861 at all. What is more, I can't find a marriage for Elizabeth nor birth registrations for the children with the names, dates and places shown on the census 1871 onwards .
John Lock - I have his birth Q4. 1850 Fareham
In 1851 he was living in Titchfield with a Lock family which included Elizabeth Lock s. born 1830 Titchfield, she being the daughter of the house and John haveing no relationship shown.
I have a contact who maintains that Elizabeth was nee Fielder and that he is therefore related to me. He says that Elizabeth Fielder first married ??Lock and had John, and then married William Payne.
I cannot find a marriage for Elizabeth Fielder to ??? Lock, nor a marriage for Elizabeth Fielder or Lock to William Payne.
I do not think Elizabeth was a Fielder, but I can't find any evidence to prove it one way or the other. I think she was Elizabeth Lock.
Can anyone find the Paynes in 1861 ? They should, I think, be in Hampshire since Emily says born there in 1860 and Albert says born there in 1862.
Better yet - can anyone find a marriage for Elizabeth and William - although I'm convinced this is not one of my family, if I find the marriage I'll send for the certificate !
Hope this makes sense!
-
Hello Mum
Have you seen this?
RG9 651 f 6
Elizabeth Lock with daughter Emily and a lodger William Paine.
Barbara
-
And the boys John and William Lock inmates in Fareham - Union Workhouse I presume (along with John sr)
RG9/649 128 18
:)
-
Emily's birth reg
Births Sep 1859
LOCK Emily Fareham 2b 426
Elizabeth Lock is shown as unmarried in 1861 ???
Barbara
-
This may be Albert's birth reg
Births Jun 1863
PAYNE Albert Southampton 2c 14
No luck so far in finding a marriage for William and Elizabeth.
Barbara
-
As usual - you have done wonders ! I knew you would ;D ;D ;D
Thank you both very much - ;D
This seems to confirm my notion that Elizabeth might have been Miss Lock, a single lady, and not - as is maintained by the contact - Elizabeth Payne, formerly Lock nee Fielder.
Since this is not the first time I have been presented with this scenario - Elizabeth Payne nee Fielder - I am determined to get to the bottom of it this time. I think this new contact must have copied the information from the first person, they would be some sort of cousins, I think.
It had not occured to me that Elizabeth might still be a Lock in 1861; now I need to find a marriage for her to Mr Payne (or Paine) between census and Albert's arrival - unless of course he's also a Lock ! ?
Thanks both again !
-
Wow- Tati - I'd forgotten the William b. 1853 ! He must have been registered Lock as well !
I would just love to know where the Fielder thing came from - and when I've got enough proper data - I shall ask him where he found it!
-
There it is - William Lock Q2. 1853 Fareham
Wonder why they were in the workhouse in 1861 and not living with Emily ? I suppose she couldn't support all three.
Albert - Mmmm - possible - but Gosport is a way from Southampton, and I would have expected to find his under Alverstoke (which of course, it isn't!)
-
On the 1871 census Albert's place of birth is Gosport.
Still no luck with a marriage - perhaps they didn't bother!
Barbara
-
I was hoping we might find the Fielder link a generation earlier but the most likely marriage (IGI) for Elizabeth's parents seems to be Edward Lock - Sarah Gamblin 1816 Titchfield :-\
-
Hi Tati - Titchfield is a fairly small community, and over the years I've become quite familiar with the families there! Sadly, it's not on the IGI except for a scattering of those submissions :'(
There are therefore gaps in m tree - I'm well aware of them! It is not totally 100% unlikely that there was an Elizabeth Fielder in the village that I hadn't got a finger on - but I found it hard to believe, especially given the errors in the previous generation shown by this contact. I feel sure that if she had been in Titchfield and a Fielder I wouldn't have missed her and would have had her on my "strays" list.
I'm also fairly confident that there isn't a Fielder married to a Lock in that era - but - you never know!
-
I tried looking for an Albert only in Alverstoke 1862 and came up with Albert Pine - I'm off to see if he appears on a census any-where !
-
Well, there isn't an Albert Pine b. 1862 Alverstoke or Gosport in 1871 or 1881, only one anything like is our Albert.
There isn't an Albert Payne born southampton either - but there is a death Q4 1865 Albert Payne Southampton no age, of course!
I think therefore Albert Pine = Albert Payne, although typed indexes seen.
Still looking for the marriage!
-
If it's any use, an Elizabeth Lock was baptised in Titchfield 10 Jul 1831, parents Edward & Sarah Lock.
Nothing remotely resembling the name Fielder.
Nell
-
Hi everyone
Going back to the 1851 Census, the transcript doesn't list a relationship, but looking at the image for John, in the relationship column it reads Do (or ditto), the line above being Mary Jane Lock, grand-daughter.
And this Elizabeth's parents are shown as Edward and Sarah in this Census.
Kind regards
Gaie
Sorry, should have added this: HO107 1661 439 12
-
Thanks Nell
I think I've got enough to back to this guy and say I think he's got it wrong - or at least ask for his proof - which I shall be surprised if he's got, because the person he has as Elizabeth's Fielder father did not, so far as I am aware, have a daughter named Elizabeth!
It is still remotely possible - I don't have his marriage, only his wife's name from the census, so they may have had children before those with them on the 1841 which were born 1833 and 1836 - but - surely Elizabeth Fielder would also have been home then? Or somewhere else nearby -
I hate to tell someone I think half his line is wrong - but I can't fix it the way he's got it - the Elizabeth Lock / William Payne marriage would be a wonderful thing to find, but I don't think it exists!
Thanks again Nell - if you see a likely marriage lying about - please direct me to it!
Mary
-
Hello Gaie -
I admit I hadn't noticed the ditto - I was too absorbed with Elizabeth being single - I half expected her to be Mrs Lock up to that point.
Thinking about it, if this other person thought Elizabeth Fielder had married a Lock, he ought to know Mr Lock's first name ? But he has Unknown Lock as her first husband.
Weird - I really wonder why he apparently plucked Fielder out of nowhere - and then gave her my family as ancestors! (and got most of that wrong too!)
-
Who does he reckon Elizabeth's father is?
There are two Elizabeth Fielders born in Titchfield. The first is too old (born in 1815, parents Henry and Charlotte) and the second was was born in 1823, parents Robert and Elizabeth.
Nell
-
Hello Mary
Yes, if we all plucked ancestors out of nowhere, then there'd be no need for Rootschat, subscriptions etc. You do know I'm the rightful Queen of England, don't you....!
Regal regards
Gaie
-
That, Nell, is exactly what I've got and the 1815 Elizabeth is my great grandmother.
He says this Elizabeth born 1830 was the daughter of Henry Fielder b. 1809 and Jane. He also says Henry's parents were Robert and Elizabeth.
Now, I don't have the marriage of Henry and Jane, but I do have the marriage of Robert and Elizabeth Brock in 1812 - three years later. I have Henry b 1809 as son of Henry Fielder and Charlotte Cawte. So far as I am aware he and Jane had two children - Henry and Caroline, but I have to say I can't prove that because I don't know when he was married.
As I said a few posts back, I'm sure I'd know about a stray Elizabeth Fielder b. Titchfield 1830 !
-
edited out
Mum44
-
Too late, I read it! Off with her head :-*
This might help your contact:
1841 HO107 390 10 23 11
Looks like Sainsbury, Titchfield
Henry Fielder 30 Fisherman, born county
Jane 35, not born county
Henry 8, born county
Caroline 5, born county.
No Elizabeth.
Henry and Jane show up in later censuses as well with no Elizabeth.
Kind regards
Gaie
-
Thanks - I'll send him that - it's Sarisbury - next little village along, separate then, but all joined up now, altough it still has it's own little church.
Do you agree if they had an Elizabeth she'd have been there in 1841?
Sarisbury and Titchfield parish records were together back then.
-
Well, according to your contact she'd have been about 10 for the 1841 Census; she could be with relatives in another house, even in another county, but as you know the 1841 isn't very revealing about people born out of counties (or even within them!).
I guess you're going to have to ask him for his sources.
Kind regards
Gaie
-
Henry Fielder married Charlotte Cawte 31 Aug 1806 in Titchfield.
Seven children born after 1813, not sure how many prior to that, includes Eliza as well as Elizabeth (baptised same day) :-\ Since I have found marriages later for both an Eliza and an Elizabeth, this is probably true.
Henry Fielder marrying Jane is proving elusive at the moment. It doesn't seem to have been in Hampshire, which would fit with the info that Jane was born out of county. Except Jane says she was born in Southampton on the 1851 census. ???
Nell
-
Hello Nell
So far as we know, Henry and Charlotte had 11 children; the first four were Harriet 1807, Henry 1809, Mary Ann 1812. Joseph 1813; Eliza and Elizabeth were twins - so far we have 19 known sets of twins from Henry and Charlotte's children! Eliza had twins - Elizabeth obviously didn't have the gene since there are NO twins in the Reed family, which is my line.
None of us researching the family - I have four or five known Fielder cousin contacts - have ever found Henry and Jane's marriage - not for the want of looking, as you may imagine. So we don't know her maiden name, and since their two known children were born pre-1837 we haven't managed to find it that way either!
I am sure this chap is in error - I'm writing to ask him for his sources - I'll bet he can't give them!
Thanks for your continuing help, Nell, the Henry Jane marriage remains elusive, then - one day .......
-
I am pleased to be able to tell you that the gentleman who claimed to be a relation of mine through the Fielder line has now conceded that he is not so ;D
I sent him a full page precis of the findings you had all provided and told him I was sorry but I couldn't make his connection work; I asked him for his sources and gave him the census refs. and bmd data found on the Paynes (or not as the case may be!)
This morning I received this reply:
Hello Mary
Thank you for your message regarding the Fielder family.
The information that I have came from Susan **** and I have checked the information you gave and agree that I have been given incorrect information by her.
I now will have to try and correct my tree, which will take some sorting.
Thank you for pointing out the problem
Regards
****
So THANK YOU to all of you who helped me prove my sanity and resolve this - I'm very grateful :-* :-* :-*
-
Well :o I never did :o :o
You might be interested to know that I have just received another "possible match " contact from another descendent of Emily Loomes nee Lock - with exactly the same errors on the tree which caused me to start this thread 6 months ago ;D ;D
I have therefore once again sent the results of all your work to another non-relative ;D
Thank you all again ;D ;D
Good think RC doesn't delete old threads - I'd have had to do it all again ;D
-
Oh dear Mum44 - there must be so many cases like this. I am involved in one at the moment. Don't think that the other researcher is really interested that her tree is incorrect and misleading.
Will be interesting to see what the latest researcher says!
Barbara
-
Hi Barbara :)
I'll be sure to let you know the response :)
The trouble is - so many people just assume that it's right - without making any checks at all themselves.
Strangely, on another branch of the Fielder tree I had a similar case two days ago - son attributed to James and Jane, when his bap - which is on the IGI - states parents Henry and Mary; he was living with James and Mary :(
-
Hi Mum44
Glad you were able to help your contact sort himself out tree-wise ;D
Kind regards
Gaie
-
Well, Gaie - he seems to have got the message - however, he doesn't seem to have passed it on :( :o I suspect this new contact today got hers from the same wrong place as he did >:(
-
Well, Gaie - he seems to have got the message - however, he doesn't seem to have passed it on :( :o I suspect this new contact today got hers from the same wrong place as he did >:(
Hi maybe i am too late to comment on this thread. 1861 census Henry Fielder aged 52 married to Jane Born in Devonshire maybe this is where the marriage took place. Also living next door was a Elizabeth Lock also born in Torquay Devonshire. I think these two people are related.
By the way Robert Fielder b. 1786 was my 4 x g. grandfather.
-
Hi
My great grandfather is John Lock born abt 1850 , married to a Sarah Elizabeth born abt 1873 had two sons John Frederick 1894 and my grandad Alfred Earnest 1897 all in Titchfield Hants.
When I lived in a flat below two elderly sisters whose surname was Payne (Gravesend), my said that we had relatives on my grandad's side that were Payne's. Is this a coindence or the same family?
Cheers Jax (now in Milton Keynes)