RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: kizmiaz on Friday 16 March 07 15:00 GMT (UK)
-
Hello
I have just been given details of a fascinating family rumour which seems to have been told on more than one occassion. My dad always told me that he thought there was Italian and Irish connections in the family, and that my nan was always being spoiled by a rich 'uncle'. Now I think I can see why.
The rumour suggests that my great-great-grandmother Emily Alger and her sister Amelia were the illegitimate daughters of a certain Lord Russell and an Italian girl. She married an Irish man who sold their birthright for beer money!
Not having a clue about who Lord Russell was, I looked him up and it seems the only one who used that title at the time was the former Prime Minister, John Russell. He would have been in his late seventies at the time, so either he was a randy old goat, or possibly, if the rumour has any truth, it may have been his son, the Viscount Amberley, who seems to have been a bit more Bohemian.
Anyway, the very little I know is that Emily was born in 1866-1867, and all the census returns for her have her place of birth as Shoreditch. Amelia was born a couple of years later.
In 1871 they are listed with Henry and Martha Alger living in St Leonards Shoreditch (RG10/463 23 39). Martha would appear to have been Martha Wise, born 1842
In 1881 the girls are living with Martha Wise born in Devizes in 1821, and are listed as her nieces (RG11/402 12 17)
Emily married George Frederick Day in 1885 and appears with him for the other censuses.
It all looked perfectly normal and hunky-dory till I got the shocking news of their scandalous birth. I hadn't even given this side a moments thought really, and had just used the census returns for details, but looking closer, some things don't appear quite as normal as I thought.
Not really sure how to prove anything as yet, but does anyone know anything at all about Lord Russell (or his son) which could possibly be used to substantiate or refute any of this? Any detailed biographies that anyone knows of?
It would be a great addendum to an otherwise fairly mundane and earthy family tree to have such a scandal!
Regards
Glen
-
What does her birth/marriage certificate suggest?
I see in 1871 they are listed as children of Henry and Martha Alger. And this Martha would appear to be possibly the daughter of Thomas and Martha Wise (judging by 1861) - the same Martha they're living with in 1881?
However, if they were children of Henry and Martha Alger they should be listed as her grandchildren.
One possibility: they're the grandchilden and the 1881 is mistaken.
Another: They were children of either Thomas Wise or Martha Wise (nee?)'s sister, and Henry and Martha Alger took them in as they had no children of their own.
I note that Henry Alger + Martha Sarah Wise probably married in 1863. There's a possible death in late 1871 for a Henry Alger aged 32 in London on freebmd. I can't find any record of Martha; I wonder if she was the one who married the Irishman?
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10980 - project Gutenberg has a memoir of Lord John Russell's wife online.
Note that several members of the extended family of Lord John Russell would have used 'Lord' at various times, see the children and grandchildren of John Russell 6th Duke of Bedford:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Russell%2C_6th_Duke_of_Bedford
-
I am also a descendant, illegitimately, of Lord Russell. I was told this as a child and my grandfather's middle name was Russell, after him. Also my great grandfather, who may have been his son or his grandson via his mother, Mary Horn, of Southwark in London, seemed to suddenyl retire from his jon as a salesman for Unilever and retire to a grand house on the Isle of White. None of his 8 siblings spoke to him except for one, either because they thought he was up his own arse (though apparently he was incredibly humble) or because perhaps they were jealous of the money left to him in chancellory. We also have a collection of Georgian silver marked Edinburgh and Lord Russell was a known collector of Scottish silver and the pieces are particularly fine, not the sort our family would have been able to afford.
So like you, I have a mystery and am unable to find it through birth certificates. In fact I was told that my GGGgrandfather was Lord John Russell but no one mentioned the illegitimacy and I had to work that one out for myself. I'd say it was a bullshit story but my uncle and grandfather have a strong likeness to the Russell's and my brother has inherited both the political and philosophical talent of Lord Russell and Bertrand Russell.
I would like to find out the truth and the only other fact I know is that my great grandfather was born very near to Chesham Place in Chelsea and I suspect that his mother may have worked at the house as it is walking distance.
I googled illegitimacy and Lord Russell just to see as my mother said that there wasn't any stain on Russell's reputation, well he had the money to ensure there wasn't! Now it appears we aren't the only ones and seems likely that if your family say so then it is true. The question we must ask ourselves is why would they lie? They wouldn't would they?
Elizabeth
-
You might be able to track some hints down via wills if the family were left any money or property or perhaps some mention of the silver pieces you have. Unusually large bequests left to servants, for example (compared with those left to children or grandchildren). Long-serving employees might sometimes be given an item or two but getting a large collection might be a red flag.
You could check up on the address of the house on the Isle of Wight as well, to see if there's a connection to the address. There may be some documents belonging to the family that have passed into public archive hands, allowing you to check whether or not your relatives did work there.
Not to cast aspersions upon anybody's ancestors, but people did lie/exaggerate, particularly where illegitimacy was concerned. Stories also got muddled through the years - you have to think of it as a 150 year old game of telephone (you might even find a connection to the Russell family, just not the branch of it you were expecting!). That said, the 2nd Earl Russell certainly acquired quite the reputation, so there were some wild ones in the family, and you may well be able to trace at least circumstantial evidence of a connection via the silver and property.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/default.asp
- you can search here for papers belonging to a given family or person that are in archives.
-
Prior to Tony Blair Lord Russell was the last Prime Minister to father a child whilst Prime Minister. As in the Victorian era a man was usually considerably older before he became pm, it is certainly possible that he was the randy old goat referred to in a previous posting. Good luck in your search.
-
Hi,
I am looking into a similar family rumour regarding one of my ancestors being an illegitimate child of Lord Russell.
I have discovered that she was known as Louisa Windmill and is in the 1841 Census as living with John and Anne Windmill in Chelsea. John is listed as a paper stainer.
However, it surprised me to also discover this same Louisa Windmill (aged 10) recorded in the 1941 Census as living at Cumberland Lodge in Hyde Park(!) with a youngish woman and Mrs Windmill's aged parents.
Anyone shed any light on this? I find it interesting about the Hyde Park Lodges from a historical point of view. What were they for? What sort of people were designated as Lodge keepers and by whom were they designated?
-
I am looking into a similar family rumour regarding one of my ancestors being an illegitimate child of Lord Russell.
I have discovered that she was known as Louisa Windmill and is in the 1841 Census as living with John and Anne Windmill in Chelsea. John is listed as a paper stainer.
The Chelsea household in 1841 is in fact headed by John and Mary (rather than Anne).
This seems likely to be the corresponding baptism:
Baptism, St Luke Chelsea, 19 June 1831
Louisa, (born 17 May 1831) daughter of John & Mary WINDMILL (he a paper stainer), of Keppel Street.
-
I've found a similar rumor in my family. We bear a strong resemblance to Lord John Russell and his near antecedents. I assume we are illegitimate; if we were legitimate, our connection would be well-traced, although I leave open the option that something highly unusual happened. This is not a spotless world where everything goes according to custom.
Using portraits, I can trace the Russell-Keppel resemblance back to an ancestor named Mary Frances Hubbard (1836-1907), an American who lived in Anderson, South Carolina (for what it's worth, she named one of her daughters Amelia). Her parents were a landlord named William Hubbard (birth and death dates unknown) and Martha Waddell (the name Martha should ring a bell for you). William was probably a son of William Hubbard (1761-1858) and Jane Reeder (1759-1835), both born in Virginia, although there is no surviving documentation of this. Martha, according to our family tradition, was a daughter of Isaac Waddell (b. 1780 in Virginia) and Ann Middleton. Ann Middleton is our connection to the United Kingdom, as she appears to be descended from Lieutenant-Colonel Jabez Mackenzie (alias Clark), a grandson of the Earl of Cromarty and a stepson of Henry Middleton of South Carolina. The fact that she is named Middleton and not Mackenzie suggests to me that she was illegitimate, although her family may have assumed its step-ancestor's name for the status it would have brought them in South Carolina.
I am aware that William Russell, 8th Earl of Bedford had women in his life. Much of his personal life is a mystery, but is known that he took the alias Johnson for the sake of a lover. Might he have taken Hubbard as another alias? And Alger?
-
The term "What a tangled web we weave-------" springs to mind in this connection, makes conventional genealogy an impossibility, but a potential boon for DNA links.
-
Definitely, DNA testing is the way to go. William Hubbard had a son named Robert Hayne Hubbard (presumably named after the politician Robert Young Hayne) who in turn left sons. So far as I've been able to trace their descendants via the US Census, William Hubbard's Y chromosome remains living.
His other son Arthur Paul Hubbard left no children who survived infancy.
-
A caveat about DNA, I am one of eleven people with the same or similar rareish surname in UK, Canada and USA, who have taken a Y chromosome DNA test. So far we have 11 separate lines.
-
It turns out that one of the Lords Russell who would later become the Duke of Bedford (I assume John, the 6th Duke) sold Chesham-Woburn manor to a Rev. Mr. Hubbard...was this to keep Mr. Hubbard quiet about an affair he was having with Mrs. Hubbard or his sister Miss Hubbard?
William Hubbard, supposedly the son of William Hubbard (1761-1858) and Jane Reeder, was born at an odd interval from their other children and well after their marriage, which has led me to doubt that he was their son at all (you would think they would give the name William to an older son). It seems more likely that William was their grandson. Or he may have been illegitimate.
A sister of the senior William Hubbard, Christina, is thought to have had at least two children out of wedlock.
-
I have spent the past couple months investigating the family rumor. The Hubbards who purchased the Bedford property were most likely the family of Rev. John Hubbard who married Anna Maria Chippendale in England, 1788, and had several children. These do not appear to be related to my Hubbards who were in America as early as 1762.
But I did find evidence, based on a few birth records, that a certain Ann Parsons had a child with a certain William Middleton in the mid-1780s. I have searched for a marriage record for William and Anne, but have not found one, which leaves open the possibility that they were not married.
It is well-known that the courtesan Nancy Parsons began an affair with Francis Russell, 5th Duke of Bedford in 1784, about the same time that this William Middleton was producing children with an Ann Parsons who does not appear to have been his wife.
The Nancy Middleton I descend from was apparently the mistress of Mr. Waddell and the wife of Rev. Isaac Wells. If so, US Census records indicate she was born about 1784.
-
Finally found the marriage record of William Middleton and Ann Parsons. It indicates, to me, that this is not Nancy Parsons, Viscountess Maynard.
Back to the drawing board.
-
There were two Martha Wises born near the same area in the early 1840s. One was the daughter of Thomas Philpott Wise and Martha Wells Epsley. The other was the daughter of a different Thomas Wise and Martha, whom I suggest could be Thomas Wise and Sarah Hubbard who married in Buckingham in 1837. Sarah in the marriage record is given as a daughter of John Hubbard.
Martha Sarah Hubbard was christened 29 Oct 1805 as a daughter of John Hubbard and Ann.
Rev. John Hubbard, married to Anna Maria Chippendale, occupied the mansion house at Chesham-Woburn. This house was the property of the Dukes of Bedford.
I think it is not at all unlikely that Anna Maria Chippendale was the mistress of a Russell who sold her husband Chesham-Woburn to pacify him.
Rev. John Hubbard and Anna Maria Chippendale had a large family. Their children were, as far as I know:
Anna Maria, 1789
Clarissa, 1790
John Ladbrooke, 1792
Augustus Ladbrooke, 1793
Henrietta, 1794
Arthur, 1795
Henry Alexander, 1797
Caroline Matilda, 1799
Francis, 1800
Henry, 1803
Martha Sarah, 1805
William Frederick, 1809
Frederick John, 1810
Selina Amelia, 1810
I have yet to find any record of the family after 1810 until the marriage of Sarah.
-
A caveat about DNA, I am one of eleven people with the same or similar rareish surname in UK, Canada and USA, who have taken a Y chromosome DNA test. So far we have 11 separate lines.
Update, we now have 12 people but breakthrough still 11 separate lines. Amazing for my lot!!
-
It appears I am not alone in being told the story of a Duke of Bedford. Although I can find no evidence. I have long line of Russell’s all living in Edinburgh. Did the Dukes have any connection to Edinburgh? I’m currently at the end of the 1600s. The only outstanding thing so far is that they were clearly sticklers for registering everyone’s birth, marriage etc and for that time I think that is pretty impressive.
Many thanks in advance for any input