RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => London and Middlesex => Topic started by: IgorStrav on Sunday 13 May 18 19:40 BST (UK)
-
I wonder if I could ask for some fresh eyes on my research on my Burton family in East London in the 19th century. They have always been difficult to pin down.
Thanks in advance to anyone reading – if you have suggestions or can point out any mistakes, I’d be really grateful.
I am starting again with them as my Ancestry DNA has pulled up a link with someone with whom I share no other matches, suggesting that the connection may be via this particular part of my maternal ancestry. My linked person doesn’t have any clues to help – her ancestry seems rooted in Suffolk and Norfolk, but of course a remote ancestor could easily have moved into London in 18th or early 19th Century.
I have my grandfather Joseph William Burton’s birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate, and I am confident these are correct.
The family have been known as BURDEN, BURDON, BARTON as well as BURTON, but by later censuses BURTON seems to be the accepted spelling.
My grandfather Joseph William Burton was born on 11/12/1876, the son of Joseph Burton (labourer, and often dock labourer) and Mary Ann formerly WILLIAMS at 9 Star Street, St George in the East. The birth cert calls him BURDEN and the baptism BURDON.
I have Joseph Snr on the 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911 censuses, and there were 4 younger children, but although his ‘wife’ was Mary Ann, she must have been a second wife as the MMN on their birth certificates/references is Mary Ann formerly BARLOW.
My first task, therefore is to find out what I can about Mary Ann WILLIAMS who was my great grandmother, and (presumably) died before 1881.
In the 1881 census there is another older child with the family, another Mary Ann, born 1868 in St Georges East. She is shown as aged 13, born in St George’s East.
Going back in history for Joseph BURTON senior, I believe I have him in the 1851 with parents William and Sarah at 10 Hungerford Street, St George’s East in the same area of London where he spent his life.
I also have William and Sarah in the same street in the 1841 ahead of Joseph’s birth.
William was born c 1815 in Bethnal Green and Sarah in c 1818 in Wapping. There is a possible marriage for William and Sarah WISEMAN on 11/6/1837 at St Dunstan’s, Stepney, but I need further evidence to confirm this is indeed them.
In the 1851, my great grandfather Joseph Burton is shown as 11 months old, and this would indicate he was born in May 1850, but I cannot see a birth reference which would give his mother Sarah’s maiden name.
He has siblings, all born in St George’s East:
Sarah aged 15 (1836)
William aged 13 (1838)
Mary aged 11 (1840)
Thomas aged 5 (1846)
Catherine aged 2 (1849)
Plus two later children shown in the 1861, when mother Sarah has married again to Francis Clark, and is shown with him and several of her children, including Joseph and younger siblings Elizabeth 1853 and Emma 1858, both also born in St George’s.
I have spent a lot of time with the GRO listings, trying to find possible birth registrations with the same MMN for all the children born after registration in 1837, but with no luck.
There is a Burton family with MMN Higham, with several children born in Shoreditch, but this is not the right family – I have seen them in other censuses with father John and mother Mary.
I am very frustrated with all this evidence not to be able to find some key facts.
If anyone can advise me with any thoughts I’d be really grateful.
Firstly, then, can anyone find
a) a marriage for Mary Ann WILLIAMS and Joseph BURTON/BURDEN/BURDON probably in East London between 1868 and 1880?
b) the birth reference of the younger Mary Ann (possibly BURTON/BURDEN/BURDON or maybe WILLIAMS) in St George’s East, or local East London in c 1868?
c) Joseph BURTON/BURDEN/BURDON or Mary Ann WILLIAMS (likely born c 1850 in East London) in the 1871 Census?
Secondly, can anyone give me any thoughts about
d) Joseph Burton Snr (1850 St George in the East) birth reference and MMN?
e) Any birth references for his siblings showing a matching MMN?
f) A marriage reference for Sarah’s marriage to Francis CLARK with whom she appears in the 1861?
If you have read all this, very very many thanks.
It's been helpful for me to write it all out again, even if no-one can help. :) :)
-
What version of the surname is the family recorded under in 1881?
-
Sorry - BARTON on Ancestry
1881 census
Joseph Barton 51 est year of birth 1850 St George in the East.
Reg district St George In The East
Sub reg district St Paul
ED 11
Piece 455
Folio 93
Page number 8
Edited - so sorry, that should of course say AGED 30 eat year of birth 1851
-
What is the 1891 census reference please?
-
Precise birthdates for William & Sarah’s early children (from baptisms at Christ Church, Watney St):
20 Aug 1835 Sarah Burton*
21 Jul 1837 William Burton*
04 Sep 1839 Mary Burton*
04 Jan 1841 Thomas Burton* (likely death aged 4, Jun qtr 1845 St George East)
17 Feb 1846 Thomas Burton**
27 Apr 1848 Catherine Burton**
* Baptised together on 07 Feb 1844
** Baptised together on 21 May 1848
-
1891
12 Hungerford St
Joseph Burton age 31(I think an error, wife shown as 40)
Birth c 1860 London
Class RG 12
Piece 286
Folio 27
Page 7
With wife Mary, and children Eliza, Charlotte, William, Alice and Joseph all the right sort of age.
-
Just seen the baptisms - thank you!
Surely if baptised will have matching birth regs with matching MMN.
Will look!
-
In the early days of civil registration, some parents thought baptism or registration were equally valid alternatives to each other. I just had a look for Catherine's GRO reg and nothing jumps out at me. Also if children were baptised in "batches", that suggests to me that the parents may have been a bit "relaxed" about such things.
-
In the early days of civil registration, some parents thought baptism or registration were equally valid alternatives to each other. I just had a look for Catherine's GRO reg and nothing jumps out at me. Also if children were baptised in "batches", that suggests to me that the parents may have been a bit "relaxed" about such things.
This is the conclusion I'd previously come to - though it's fantastic to have the baptisms.
I've got a spreadsheet of possible birth registrations where I've looked up lots of variations on names and tried to relate them to dates and see if any MMN jump out. They don't.
I believe they were 'relaxed' about marriages, also.
But given the circumstances where they were living - both Star Street and Hungerford Street feature in the most appalling descriptions of abject poverty in reports at the time - I'm not one to judge. :( :o :'(
-
Another baptism:
St John, Limehouse
20 Sep 1862
Emma, born 02 Feb 1858, illegitimate dau of Francis (Clarke), labourer, & Sarah Burton, of 2 Union Terrace.
Privately baptised.
-
A Limehouse birth would fall into Stepney registration district.
So could Emma be Emma Clark, mmn Wayling, birth reg Mar qtr 1858 Stepney?
-
Gosh, good find - in fact Emma does appear, I think, on a census under Clark, and I did wonder if she was the daughter of Francis Clark.
I will need to get that birth cert to see if father is Francis.
If it is, then Sarah's maiden name is Wayling.
Just off to have a look at Wayling families in Wapping, which is apparently where she was born....
-
For what it is worth, I can’t see evidence of a rival Clark*/Wayl* couple who might be parents of the registered Emma.
-
Well that's great avm, that's brilliant to have a good chance of my gx2 grandmother being Sarah WAYLING.
It also adjusts the search parameters for the death of William Burton to before 1858.
-
If anyone is following this, I have found Emma Clark as Emma Osborne in the 1891, by searching the 1939 register for Emma born 2/2, then backtracking to find Florrie Osborne, her daughter's birth ref in 1888 as Florence Rowena Osborn with MMN Clark.
Emma is with her husband John Osborne and children, in Regents Row, Shoreditch.
Whether this will help with anything else, who knows, but I am keen to follow every line in this family for clues.
EDITED
Ignore this 1891 census ref, as it may be wrong. This family is very frustrating!
Yes - all wrong!! Please ignore
-
Have you found Francis, Sarah & Emma after 1861?
-
There is an Emma Clark in the 1871 who is a housemaid, born c1857 in St George in the East in the Penninger family in St George Hanover Square.
Reg district: St George Hanover Square
Sub-reg: Hanover Square
ED: 19
Household schedule: 205
Piece: 97
Folio: 40
Page: 36
This Emma Clark isn't still with the Penningers in the 1881.
I haven't researched other possible Emma Clarks this could be, and to be honest, I am doubtful it is my Emma as her background in St George's is not such that she would be able to be an upmarket housemaid in Hanover Square. My family tend to be factory workers, or lower class servants.
Otherwise no, haven't found Francis, Sarah or the other children after the 1861 except my g grandfather Joseph and his brother Thomas Burton (1846) who handily married someone called Caroline Stiffell and also registered his children so that I can follow them through the censuses.
Thank you for your interest!
-
One of the Clark children marries in 1861
Joseph Clark
Gender Male
16 Sep 1861
St Thomas, Stepney Tower Hamlets, England
Father Francis Clark
Spouse Sarah Ann Tupman
-
Another baptism:
St John, Limehouse
20 Sep 1862
Emma, born 02 Feb 1858, illegitimate dau of Francis (Clarke), labourer, & Sarah Burton, of 2 Union Terrace.
Privately baptised.
At the same church 26th July 1862, Elizabeth Burton, daughter of William and Sarah - text only on Ancestry, so no confirmation that this is Emma's half sister, the last child of William Burton and Sarah.
ADDED: I see I can select this record set and look at the images, so am doing that now No I can't, the pages are missing for this section of 1862 :(
avm, how were you able to see the text of Emma Burton/Clark's baptism?
-
Just wanted to thank you for your help with this one.
I have just got the PDF of the birth cert of Emma Clark for 2nd Feb 1858 and it confirms she is the daughter of Francis Clark and Sarah Clark "late Burton formerly Wayling" which has confirmed my great great grandmother's maiden name - yay!
She was born (apparently, according to the 1851) in Wapping, Middlesex, but I cannot as yet find a baptism for her or see any other likely Wayling family members.
More research required, but many thanks for tracking down another surname. :)
-
Another baptism:
St John, Limehouse
20 Sep 1862
Emma, born 02 Feb 1858, illegitimate dau of Francis (Clarke), labourer, & Sarah Burton, of 2 Union Terrace.
Privately baptised.
At the same church 26th July 1862, Elizabeth Burton, daughter of William and Sarah - text only on Ancestry, so no confirmation that this is Emma's half sister, the last child of William Burton and Sarah.
ADDED: I see I can select this record set and look at the images, so am doing that now No I can't, the pages are missing for this section of 1862 :(
avm, how were you able to see the text of Emma Burton/Clark's baptism?
If you still haven't found images of the two, they are both viewable on Ancestry:
Emma - http://www.rootschat.com/links/01m3o/
Elizabeth - http://www.rootschat.com/links/01m3n/
-
Thanks, smudwhisk, both your links are for Elizabeth Burton's baptism, I think, but paging onwards I did find Emma's baptism as Burton or Clark just as previously advised, a couple of pages further on!
That's great - added to the birth cert, I can have a better guess at William Burton's death date - still haven't found a definite one for him as yet.
I'm surprised that the baptism for Emma points out that she is illegitimate - I don't think Sarah ever married William Burton and there is no mention of illegitimacy on the baptisms of children from that marriage.
Do you think that perhaps Francis was known at the church and the clergyman knew they weren't married, as he hadn't married them?
Or could this indicate that William Burton was still alive and they couldn't marry? Francis definitely legitimised the marriage to his first wife.
And secondly what constitutes a 'private baptism'?
Any suggestions welcomed :)
-
I think a "private baptism" is when a baby is so poorly, it's not expected to survive for very long. The baptism can then be performed at home by anyone (I think). Later on, a note can be made in the parish register so that the child's baptism is recorded just like any other child's.
-
Thanks, smudwhisk, both your links are for Elizabeth Burton's baptism, I think, but paging onwards I did find Emma's baptism as Burton or Clark just as previously advised, a couple of pages further on!
No they both go to the correct images. Emma is Image 81 and Elizabeth is Image 80 and each links to the correct page. I checked them anyway when I posted and have just checked again.
As alpinecottage says a private baptism takes place when there is the risk that a child won't be able to have a public baptism because of sickness. They are normally, at least in those days, done at home. Then, if they survive, they are received publicly into the church at a later date with an amendment added to the original or a separate entry in the register. The latter sometimes state publicly baptised rather than received into the church but this is for the same reason.
-
Apologies, smudwhisk - I tried it several times, or thought I did, and got page 80 all the time.
However, just tried again and, as you say, got pages 81 and 80. Thank you very much for pointing me to them. :)
In terms of private baptism, thanks for your comments - I've done a bit more research myself, and it does seem odd that both Elizabeth and Emma were baptised privately a relatively long time after birth. Elizabeth was 10 and Emma 4, so that 'unlikely to survive long' reason is slightly more unlikely, unless of course they were both ill at the time.
Some suggestions I have read for private baptisms are that godparents aren't available, or that there is no money for the very small celebrations you might have after a church baptism.
The second would certainly apply in this family, who lived in the particularly poorest bits of East London.
-
If they hadn't been baptised and were ill, that would be another reason why they may have been baptised privately. Generally it applied to newborn but not always.