RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: philipsearching on Friday 14 September 18 19:06 BST (UK)

Title: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: philipsearching on Friday 14 September 18 19:06 BST (UK)
I'm trying to figure out the ESSEN family and would greatly appreciate a fresh perspective.

1892 birth of Charles Francis ESSEN.  Born Acton or Willesden (as per 1901/1911 censuses)
1911: Living in Duncombe Street, Fenny Stratford, Bucks with family (father a coal hawker)
1912: Marriage Dec qtr Newport Pagnell vol 3a p2016 ESSEN Charles F, HILL Alice R
1913: Birth Jun qtr Newport Pagnell vol 3a p2504 ESSEN Charles E mmn HILL
1919: Birth Dec qtr Orsett, Essex, vol 4a p1260 ESSEN Charles A mmn SMITH
1921: Birth 26 Feb Grays, Essex (reg dist is Orsett) ESSEN George Joseph, father Charles Francis, dock labourer, mother Alice formerly SMITH
1939: Charles F (born 17 Feb 1892, coal hawker) and Alice R (born 5 Dec 1893) living in Bletchley, Bucks - 2 closed records on register at same address.
1940 Charles Arthur ESSEN died age 20 (WW2) - CWGC names parents Charles & Alice
1945: George Joseph ESSEN died (WW2) - reported in local paper with matching address.

I have a problem and can't see an answer:  I haven't found an ESSEN/SMITH marriage so is Alice R HILL the same person as Alice SMITH?

Possible prior marriages for Alice SMITH to Mr HILL are:
Sep 1908,    HILL Frank, Solihull vol 6d p1143
Jun 1910, HILL John Edward, Basford vol 7b p386
Jun 1911 HILL Joseph, Pontefract    vol 9c p223
Dec 1911 HILL Fred, Nottingham vol 7b p553
Jun 1912 HILL Samuel, Stoke T. vol 6b p383

but none of these are anywhere near Buckinghamshire and I haven't found any obvious deaths to match these spouses.

Any ideas?

Philip

Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 00:43 BST (UK)
I can't see any birth reg for an Alice R Hill in either the Dec qtr 1893 or March qtr 1894 but there are 2 Alice Rose Smith births in March 1894 and an Alice Rosie in Dec 1893

You could check with GRO to see if any were illegitimate births then look for a Smith/Hill marriage in the same RD

I wonder was she born Smith - mum married Hill and she took that name when she married

Have you found her under Hill in 1911



Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 00:46 BST (UK)
Quote
and Alice R (born 5 Dec 1893)

Her death reg has 5.12.1894 - Alice Rose

2 x Alice Rose Smith births March qtr 1895 and nothing under Hill
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: philipsearching on Saturday 15 September 18 07:53 BST (UK)
I can't see any birth reg for an Alice R Hill in either the Dec qtr 1893 or March qtr 1894 but there are 2 Alice Rose Smith births in March 1894 and an Alice Rosie in Dec 1893

You could check with GRO to see if any were illegitimate births then look for a Smith/Hill marriage in the same RD

I wonder was she born Smith - mum married Hill and she took that name when she married

Have you found her under Hill in 1911

CaroleW - a thousand thanks!  You have opened up a possibility I hadn't considered.

So, it seems that Alice was born as Alice Rose (or Rosie) SMITH "somewhere in England" and allowing for the 1893 or 1894 uncertainty there's only around half a dozen possibles to work through to explain the HILL surname.

I'm off to check through the 1911 Census, then FreeBMD and GRO with a smile on my face and a song in my heart  :) :) :)

Philip

Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 12:03 BST (UK)
Something I hadn’t noticed last night.  Her death is registered twice on the GRO index.  Both Dec qtr 1982 and same ref.  One entry is just Alice and the other Alice Rose

You may have to splash out on the 1912 marriage cert to see if a father is named
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: philipsearching on Saturday 15 September 18 13:10 BST (UK)
Five potential births found for Alice Rose (or Rosie) SMITH:
Dec qtr 1893 Portsea mmn PEARSON.  Matches marriage 1893 Portsea John W & Alice E and sibling births - family in Portsea in 1911
Mar 1894 Camberwell mmn BOWN.  Matches marriage Southwark 1891 Walter & Mary and sibling births - family in Camberwell in 1911
Mar 1894 Reading mmn TOTT.  Still looking (possibly 1911 daughter of Elijah & Emma, but can't match mmn))
Mar 1895 Hendon mmn JACKSON.  Still looking.
Mar 1895 Hackney no mmn.  Still looking.

1911 Census: Alice Rose, age 16 born Wexham, Bucks with father John Henry (60 b Warwick) , mother Emma (49 b Luton) and sibs born Wexham living in Slough - looks interesting.


I am wary about buying the 1912 marriage cert as I have seen "imaginary" fathers on some of mine!  But I don't know how else to solve this one.  Without a definite parent's name SMITH (or HILL) is not very traceable.

Philip
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: Tickettyboo on Saturday 15 September 18 13:46 BST (UK)
The 1921 birth for George Joseph, as you have the full details I assume you have the cert.
Who registered the birth?

I have seen a few where, despite it being the same mother, the maiden name in the register and therefore on the cert is different (perhaps because she had been married before).

It can depend on what question was asked and who gave the info
 for example -
 Registrar asks for mother's maiden name and is given her birth surname - as the informant is aware of it

Registrar asks what the mother's name was before she married the father - and is given her previous married surname - maybe the informant misunderstood or her previous married name is the only one they were aware of

Expensive to prove in England as you would have to have all the birth certs to see who registered it and what MMN they gave, but my scenario was in Ireland and, bless them,  the birth registers are online for my favourite price of free :-)

Boo
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 14:07 BST (UK)
I considered whether she was previously a Smith married to a Hill then widowed but she was only 18 or 19 in 1912. (depending which birthyear is correct) which makes it less likely.

There are 3 Alice Smith marriages with a male Hill on the same page between 1909 - 1911 none in Bucks
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: Tickettyboo on Saturday 15 September 18 14:14 BST (UK)
I considered whether she was previously a Smith married to a Hill then widowed but she was only 18 or 19 in 1912. (depending which birthyear is correct) which makes it less likely.

There are 3 Alice Smith marriages with a male Hill on the same page between 1909 - 1911 none in Bucks

Sorry, I wasn't inferring she had been married before, but as it seems highly possible that she had a birth surname and another by which she was known prior to her marriage, the same scenario about what question was asked and what the person who supplied the answer actually knew about, would apply.

Especially as the birth registration in 1921 has a MMN which seems to be a contender for the mother's birth name.
If she registered the birth herself  then I'd say it lent a bit of weight to the theory that Alice Smith is the same person as Alice Hill. Others ( a neighbour, etc) may not have been aware of her birth surname and may have given the surname Hill?

Boo



Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: Christine53 on Saturday 15 September 18 14:16 BST (UK)
There are several newspaper reports , dated May 1914 , which state that Alice Rose Essen took her husband Charles Francis Essen to court to obtain a separation order on the grounds of cruelty , citing in particular an assault on May 6th. One of the reports mentions her mother , Mrs Hill , and her brothers Percy and Bert Hill  , who were accused of assault by Charles Essen. One report also mentions an argument about custody of a child.

This family in Newport Pagnell looks likely :
1901 census

John Hill 39
Lucy Hill 37
Charles Hill 12
Alice Rose Hill 10
Percy Hill 7
Herbert Hill 4
Cyril Ralph Hill 2
Albert John Hill 1

 RG13; Piece: 1360; Folio: 94; Page: 18

The Hill family , including Alice Rose Hill emigrated to Canada in 1920 and can be found on the 1921 census in Toronto.

I don't have any more time at present as I have to go out. I'm sure someone else will pick this up.
There's obviously more to this .  ;D

Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 14:26 BST (UK)
Her son Charles Francis Essen married in Toronto in 1934 (to Mary Waldrum) - his mother’s maiden name was given as Alice Rose Hill, but a marriage witness was Alice Rose Davis of 38 Howick Ave, same address as Charles’.  (I note that this is the address of John & Lucy Hill in 1921, including daughter Alice Rose Hill, 29, “single”’).

She does seem to have died in Bucks as Alice Rose Essen, though (in 1982) ???
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 14:32 BST (UK)
Divorce file from 1917: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C8012886
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 14:40 BST (UK)
Or maybe the mother of the “Essen mmn Smith” children was someone else, and she’s the one who died in Bucks.  Was she really called Alice Rose or did she step into her predecessor’s name as well as her marriage?
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 14:44 BST (UK)
Alice Rose Hill, daughter of John & Lucy, was 3mo old in 1891, birth registered Mar qtr 1891, so consistent with a 5 December birthday but if so it was in 1890 and not later.
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: heywood on Saturday 15 September 18 14:48 BST (UK)
There is a marriage Alice Rose Essen, Ontario but no other details, sorry.
That’s on a subscription site but FS shows lots of Essens so maybe not. :-\
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 14:59 BST (UK)
The 1939 entry referred to by Philip does show Charles F Essen and Alice.

A green R has been inserted at some later date against Alice making her Alice R.  This could be a result of the double death reg.

1939 birthdate has same day and month as death reg but 1939 shows birthyear 1893 and death reg 1894

In view of the marital situation, I wonder if the children b 1919 and 1921 were not Charles children??
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 15:32 BST (UK)
The fact that the last Essen child was born in Essex in 1921, when the first Alice was settled in Canada, suggests to me that there are two Alices.

Alice 1, nee Hill, being the mother (only) of the first Charles, who also migrated to Canada at some point, and married there in 1934. (Alice may have remarried to a Mr Davis at some point between 1921-1934).

Alice 2 (nee Smith?) being the mother of the latter two Essen children, who are the redacted entries in 1939.
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: CaroleW on Saturday 15 September 18 16:33 BST (UK)
There is no other Essen marriage to an Alice (apart from the 1912) which could be attributed to the Essex births
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: Christine53 on Saturday 15 September 18 16:39 BST (UK)
There are several newspaper reports , dated May 1914 , which state that Alice Rose Essen took her husband Charles Francis Essen to court to obtain a separation order on the grounds of cruelty , citing in particular an assault on May 6th. One of the reports mentions her mother , Mrs Hill , and her brothers Percy and Bert Hill  , who were accused of assault by Charles Essen. One report also mentions an argument about custody of a child.

This family in Newport Pagnell looks likely :
1901 census

John Hill 39
Lucy Hill 37
Charles Hill 12
Alice Rose Hill 10
Percy Hill 7
Herbert Hill 4
Cyril Ralph Hill 2
Albert John Hill 1

 RG13; Piece: 1360; Folio: 94; Page: 18

The Hill family , including Alice Rose Hill emigrated to Canada in 1920 and can be found on the 1921 census in Toronto.

I don't have any more time at present as I have to go out. I'm sure someone else will pick this up.
There's obviously more to this .  ;D

Tidying this up a bit , here is a link to the 1921 census :
http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1921&op=pdf&id=e003055831
The last family member listed is Clifford Hill , aged 8 , Grandson . Could this be Charles E Essen, taken out of England by his mother under a different name ?

Link to the 1920 Passenger list :

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2HGD-31R
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: philipsearching on Saturday 15 September 18 17:13 BST (UK)
Well, my gast is being well and truly flabbered!



So it looks like we now have:
1911 Charles ESSEN, single, living with parents in Fenny Stratford/Bletchley
1912 Charles Francis ESSEN married Alice Rose HILL (Reg Dist covers Fenny Stratford/Bletchley)
1913 Charles F ESSEN mmn HILL born (Reg Dist covers Fenny Stratford/Bletchley)
1914 - newspaper reports marriage breakup - violence, custody etc
(Charles moves to Essex and becomes a dock labourer)
1917 Charles F and Alice R divorced
1919 Charles Arthur ESSEN mmn SMITH born(Reg Dist covers Grays, Essex)
1920 Alice Rose emigrates to Canada with mother Mrs HILL and (presumably) son Charles.
1921 George Joseph ESSEN born Grays, Essex, son of Charles Francis and Alice (formerly SMITH)
(Charles Francis moves back to Bletchley/Fenny Stratford with new family)
1939 Charles F and Alice R in Fenny Stratford/Bletchley.  2 closed records (sons?) on 1939 Register.

It's pretty conclusive that Alice Rose HILL is not Alice SMITH - which solves my original question. 

Whether or not SMITH was Alice's real name is unclear.  The middle name Rose was not shown on George's birth cert, so she may not have had a middle name at all (even though the middle initial R is on the 1939 Register).

A thousand thanks to all the Rootschatters who helped with advice and information to solve this problem.

Philip

(MODIFIED as per above post from avm228)
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 18:59 BST (UK)
 A couple of tweaks to your chronology:

First, Charles (not George) was the emigrating son.

Secondly, there was the divorce in 1917.  Here is more on that, confirming that there was “another woman” in the picture, in Grays, Essex:

A Bletchley Divorce Suit

In the Divorce Court, on Tuesday, Justice Horridge granted a decree nisi to Mrs Alice Rose Essen, Sympson, Bletchley, because of the cruelty and misconduct of her husband.  Petitioner gave evidence. The marriage was at Newport Pagnell, and soon after a child was born.  The husband treated her cruelly, and she summoned him before the Fenny Stratford magistrates.  Later he sent her photographs of a lady, saying she was the girl he intended to live with.  Evidence was given proving misconduct at Grays, Essex.

Buckingham Advertiser and North Bucks Free Press, Saturday 8 December 1917.
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 19:02 BST (UK)
The divorce papers might well name the “other woman” - I’d be intrigued to know whether she really was an Alice Rose, or whether she assumed that name so as in some way to step into her predecessor’s shoes.  As CaroleW says, she doesn’t seem to have married Charles Essen, so was she already married I wonder?
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: philipsearching on Saturday 15 September 18 19:24 BST (UK)
A couple of tweaks to your chronology:

First, Charles (not George) was the emigrating son.

Secondly, there was the divorce in 1917.  Here is more on that, confirming that there was “another woman” in the picture, in Grays, Essex:

A Bletchley Divorce Suit

In the Divorce Court, on Tuesday, Justice Horridge granted a decree nisi to Mrs Alice Rose Essen, Sympson, Bletchley, because of the cruelty and misconduct of her husband.  Petitioner gave evidence. The marriage was at Newport Pagnell, and soon after a child was born.  The husband treated her cruelly, and she summoned him before the Fenny Stratford magistrates.  Later he sent her photographs of a lady, saying she was the girl he intended to live with.  Evidence was given proving misconduct at Grays, Essex.

Buckingham Advertiser and North Bucks Free Press, Saturday 8 December 1917.


Thank you for the correction, and the extra information.

This material is for mini-biographies of the sons Charles Arthur (1919-40) and George Joseph (1921-45) named on my local War Memorial.  I think I'll just write that they were sons of Charles Francis Essen and Alice Smith.  I don't think it would be diplomatic to write "sons of Charles Francis, a wife-beater, cad, bounder and jolly rotten egg" :o :o  'Silence is golden'!

Philip
Title: Re: ESSENtially confused over this family!
Post by: avm228 on Saturday 15 September 18 19:34 BST (UK)
Fair enough  :D