RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => Topic started by: whitej on Friday 27 July 18 09:42 BST (UK)
-
Charlotte Bach, a widow, married John William Barker in Feb 1840, in London - Hanover Sq. Charlotte born London circa 1809.
John described as gentleman on marriage certificate.
Looking for them in 1841 and 51 censuses please. Thanks.
-
Have you tried https://www.freecen.org.uk/
Annie
-
A couple of questions:
Do you have them in later censuses?
Would they have children with them in either census, and if so can you give us their names and years of birth?
Thanks.
-
Hi
No I haven't looked in later censuses - thought I'd only ask for help with 41 and 51
-
sorry - forgot about second question - not aware of any children living with them.
Charlotte had a son Robert born London 1832 - but not sure where he was.
-
sorry - forgot about second question - not aware of any children living with them.
Charlotte had a son Robert born London 1832 - but not sure where he was.
Is he the Robert Bach b Oct 1832 London who was resident in Edinburgh when he got his merchant seaman’s ticket aged 16, issued at Leith on 13 December 1848?
-
yes he is the son ... I am not really interested in him at this stage. I think he must have left home and joined merchant navy etc. I am focusing only Charlotte and John in 41 and 51.
-
No I haven't looked in later censuses - thought I'd only ask for help with 41 and 51
It's actually easier tracing backwards from last known dates i.e. deaths, where they were with occupation to help.
Annie
-
Why do you assume Robert had left home - isn’t it relevant to those trying to help you find his mother and stepfather to know that Robert was based in Edinburgh in his mid-teens? Do you have reason to believe that Charlotte and John stayed in London?
I have a sense of deja vu about this family - have you had a previous thread about them?
-
I am not assuming anything.
The son, Charlotte and her marriage have all been in London so that's why I think it likely to find them there in 41 and 51.
I haven't posted about this family before.
-
I had a very quick look for them in 1841 and 1851, but couldn't easily spot them, hence my questions.
How did your research lead you to Charlotte and John? Are you descended from Robert? :-\
-
Previous thread on this family here, which tells us that Charlotte’s maiden name was Mayland (I knew these names rang a bell!):
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=739732.0
Have you looked for any Barker/mmn Mayland births after the 1840 marriage?
-
I haven't posted about this family before.
Someone else has though :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=739732.0
-
Where & when did Charlotte & John die & what was his occ.?
Tracing back is always easier but just because the son was in the Navy, doesn't mean he wouldn't/won't be on a census with them.
Annie
-
thanks all. I will contact Gill Baker to see if she has found anything. Thanks again to all for responding.
Jack
-
thanks all. I will contact Gill Baker to see if she has found anything. Thanks again to all for responding.
Jack
Gill hasn't been on rootschat for over two years, so I hope all is well and that she receives your message.
-
Yes noticed that. Sending PM, will see what happens.
Jack
-
Good luck. :)
-
No reply from Gill Baker although a relative says the following;
"Edmund Bach married Charlotte Mayland in London in 1827. A son Edmund born 1828 London. Second son Robert born Sep/Oct 1832 in London. This date according to a seamans certificate dated 1849." Edmund dies between 1832-1840 possibly London?
I know that Charlotte married John William Barker, a gentleman in 1840, Hanover Sq, London. His father was James also a gentleman.
My original request is to find Charlotte and her new husband JW Barker in 1841 and later censuses.
My view is if they married in Feb 1840 there is a good chance they were still in London in 1841. It os also likely young Robert, who would have been 8/9 is living with his mother in 1841?
Edmund the son b1828 - maybe dead by 1841 - just a hunch on my part.
Can anyone help with look-up request? Thank you.
-
Query now resolved. Not found in census after extensive search.
-
Hmm,, I think you may be giving up too soon?
Genealogy can be very fickle although fun (to some of us) i.e. variants of names & odd transcriptions can be a hurdle but one needs an open mind on those possibilities.
Have you looked for the family as Baker rather than Barker?
I'm not saying this will reveal anything but worth consideration.
Annie
-
Query now* resolved. Not found in census after extensive search.
More like "query * NOT resolved." :)
I agree with Annie. There is no reason to give up. It can sometimes take years to find people on censuses, then one day, they can appear out of nowhere. It is well worth re-visiting any stumbling blocks.
Added: Somehow I missed your last post of the 11th August. I will try to have a look for them in a day or two.
-
This might be of interest...
Bell's New Weekly Messenger
01 Dec 1839
Police
Bow Street
Robbing An Employer
A respectable looking young woman, named Charlotte Bache, attired in [deep?] mourning, and described as a milliner, was charged with stealing a number of books, a quantity of silk, lace, and other articles, from Mrs Wood, her ___ employer, who resides at Worcester. It appeared that the prisoner had been the service of the prosecutrix for eight months, and such was the confidence reposed in her, that she had the entire management of her mistress's establishment. On information being given that she had come up to London, Mrs Wood immediately started for town, and the assistance of the constable she was discovered lodging in Duke Street, Bloomsbury, with the whole of the property, which she admitted she had stolen from her mistress, who carries on the business of dress-maker and milliner at Worcester. Mr Hall, upon the prisoner declining to make any defence, ordered her to be removed to Worcester, to be examined by the proper authorities of that town.
Globe
06 Dec 1839
It having been discovered by Mrs Hood, dress-maker, of the College-yard, that her forewoman, Charlotte Bache, who had recently quitted her service and gone to reside in London, had carried on a system of extensive depredations upon her property, and purloined a considerable quantity of valuable silks, velvets, &c., Mr Hood, her husband, having by deposition of a witness, taken before Mr Sidebottom, satisfactorily ascertained the fact. proceeded to London by mail on Tuesday evening, the 26th ult., and having procured, immediately on his arrival, the aid of a police-sergeant of the F division, in plain clothes, went straight to the lodgings of the suspected party, and apprehended her. The property was found in a box at her lodgings, but the considerations of her previous good character, the fact of her being a widow with two children, and the extreme contrition she expressed for her offence, coupled with the knowledge that any proceedings taken against her would implicate a female of respectable connections, and whose character has hitherto been unsullied, induced Mr Hood generously to forego a prosecution, and the prisoner was liberated. She was a female possessing considerable personal attractions, and was shortly to have been married to a highly respectable young man residing in London. On Thursday morning Mrs Hood received a communication from her, stating that before it reached her she (Bache) would be no more, and on the following morning Mrs Hood received another letter from her intended husband, stating that after much research he had discovered her in a hospital, whither she had been conveyed on its having been ascertained that she had taken a large dose of laudanum with the intention of poisoning herself. The occurrence has given great pain to the family of Mr Hood, and ought to be a warning to all how they yield to temptation. Mr Hood has replied to the last letter, but no answer has yet been received from the young man, to who she was on the eve of being united.
Worcestershire Chronicle
-
Fantastic. Where did you find this?
-
I am fairly certain this is Charlotte. Need to prove it.
I think generally I am very scunnered at not finding her/them in 1841 or 51. Your right I must persevere. Just fed up with brick walls at the moment.
-
You'll find the articles in the British Newspaper Archive (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/).
It does look a lot like your Charlotte but proving may it be tricky; it would have been nice if the articles had given her age. It's probably worth you having a more thorough search of the newspapers, it can be surprising what you can find.
-
That looks very promising cuffie. Well found! :) If it is your Charlotte you know she still had two children in 1839.
Added: I still can't find them in 1841/51. Where was Charlotte born? (it may have already been mentioned but I can't recall)
-
Agree, cuffie's find is very promising indeed.
Can you tell us what the initials of JW stand for?
"My original request is to find Charlotte and her new husband JW Barker in 1841 and later censuses"
Many people changed their names to avoid scrutiny or other such things i.e. if cuffie's find is correct, it may be possible for them to have changed their forenames a little e.g. Charlotte to Lottie/JW to WJ ???
What sites are you using for the census' as possibly searching surname only may produce something but as Ruskie mentioned, later (up-to-date) census' will give her PoB which may help for at least 1851?
Annie
-
Annie ... John William Barker. :)
Concentrating the search on Edmund should make finding Charlotte easier as the name is not so common, though I would also search Edwin and Edward, to cover all bases. I also considered the possibility that Edmund might be away at school somewhere.
It is frustrating that all of them are missing .... so possibly a bad mistranscription or maybe the whole family are in Scotland. :-\
-
thanks to all for posting. I've been looking at FindMyPast Census and Scotlandspeople for 41 and 51.
Interesting comment in the article that Charlotte was dressed in widows clothes. That could mean her first husband, Edmund died early 1839?
It is also ties in with ref to the young man. She married Mr Barker in Feb 1840. There are addresses on the marriage cert. but they are not at same addresses in 1841.
-
How old was John Barker when he married Charlotte in 1840? What were their addresses?
The trouble with the Scottish censuses on the pay sites is that they are transcriptions and often leave a lot to be desired.
It is frustrating that none of them can be found on two censuses. :(
-
Hi
According to Gill Baker their addresses on marriage in 1840 are Conduit St and Maddox st both London.
There are Barker's with same first names in 41 and 51 for England but boy can I identify which if any are mine!
-
I am going to buy a sub to Ancestry or FindMyPast. Not just because of this but for other research.
-
How old was John Barker when he married Charlotte in 1840? What were their addresses?
On the marriage record of John William Barker and Charlotte Bach both their ages are simply 'full age'.
Of Charlotte's siblings the only one I can find in 1841 is her sister Sarah, married to John Stone and living in Stepney. After that point Ann Elizabeth, Alexander Philip and Emma Mary are all fairly easy to trace (apart from Priscilla, who I can't find any trace of).
It looks like both Charlotte's parents, Alexander Philip and Ann, were both buried at Whitefield's Memorial Church, off of Tottenham Court Road, not far from St George Hanover Square. Alexander was buried in 1833, aged 49, and Ann was buried in 1838, aged 51. There's a death registration for Ann, so it's possible one of the children registered her death and their address is recorded.
GRO death registration:
1838 Q1 Death - Ann Mayland; 51 (born c1787); Strand Union; 01; 400
Whitefields Memorial Church
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.5205&lon=-0.1354&layers=163&b=7
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103313021#zoom=5&lat=9611&lon=11556&layers=BT
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.52107/-0.13538
EDITS:
1) Corrected burial date of Alexander Philip Mayland. It should have been 1833 and not 1883.
-
Cuffie - really interesting info. Thanks very much for posting it. It gives me lots to follow up on.
-
Just found this is London Gazette for Edmund the first husband;
Bath, Edmund, formerly of Charles-Street, Hatton-Gardcn,
then of Francis Street, Pentoniille, Town Traveller to a
Glover and Dealer in Silk Handkerchiefs, then of No. 18,
Bartholomew-Close, City, then of Stacey-Street, Compton-
Stveet, Soho, then of Fiercer-Street, Long-Acre, then of
New Compton-Strcet, Soho, General Dealer, and late ot
J<fo. 18, Upper llathbone-l'lacefl Oxford -Struct, and also of
. No. 15, Tottenham-Street, Toitenhaui-Court-lloud, all in
.Middlesex, General Dealer and Coal and Potatoe-Dealer.