1
The Common Room / Re: Unusual 'Relationship to Head' on 1861 Census
« on: Wednesday 05 June 19 21:27 BST (UK) »
Thank you all for your informative replies.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
The Common Room / Unusual 'Relationship to Head' on 1861 Census
« on: Wednesday 05 June 19 19:06 BST (UK) »
I'm back after a long break from family history. Thought I'd make a start with some Ancestry hints. The first one I come across and I'm already looking for some advice from you good people.
John Conboy (row 5) is shown as 'prisoner' on the 1861 Census along with another 4 people but the location does not appear to be a prison. However the first two names are a police constable and a police sergeant, who are shown as 'lodgers'. Two of the prisoners appear to be prostitutes.
Is it likely the policemen were holding these 5 prisoners in the policemen's own home and it was just coincidental that the enumerator happened to call at the exact same time or had the policemen come to arrest the 5 but had to be included in the Census just because they were in the building? If it were the latter case, I would have expected to see the police shown as 'visitors'. I cannot see any mention of any other police on the page before so assume it was not a Police Station?
I know that any replies will probably be speculative but I would be interested in hearing other views as it's not something I've come across before. Thank you in anticipation.
John Conboy (row 5) is shown as 'prisoner' on the 1861 Census along with another 4 people but the location does not appear to be a prison. However the first two names are a police constable and a police sergeant, who are shown as 'lodgers'. Two of the prisoners appear to be prostitutes.
Is it likely the policemen were holding these 5 prisoners in the policemen's own home and it was just coincidental that the enumerator happened to call at the exact same time or had the policemen come to arrest the 5 but had to be included in the Census just because they were in the building? If it were the latter case, I would have expected to see the police shown as 'visitors'. I cannot see any mention of any other police on the page before so assume it was not a Police Station?
I know that any replies will probably be speculative but I would be interested in hearing other views as it's not something I've come across before. Thank you in anticipation.
3
Census Lookup and Resource Requests / Can anyone help with my Brick Wall???
« on: Monday 08 February 10 15:16 GMT (UK) »
I have hit a brick wall with this one and wonder if you can help 
. I suspect that the name has been mis-transcribed (as has been the case quite often in this family) but I am stuck for 1841, 51 & 61 Cenuses.
I am looking for George Sumner from Kingland, Hackney London who I believe to have been born c 1841. I KNOW that he married Eliza Hoather of Lewes on 19.04.1868 at Hackney Parish Church and that his father was called Henry.
I have found a number of Georges with Fathers called Henry in the area and followed dead end trails. The latest one that I am hoping to be the right one is Henry Sumner b c 1795 in Holborn who married Kitty Halfhide on 02.10.1832. They had a son George (and other children), who was Baptised in Hackney Church on 04.07.1841.
My only, and very tenuous, reason for thinking this might be the correct George, other than the location, is that Henry & Kitty had a Daughter, Catherine (confirmed from IGI Index), Catherine married William John Browett in 1858 and her Father Henry's Occupation was shown as Bricklayer on the Marriage Record. 'My' George married in 1868 and his Father Henry's Occupation also showed as Bricklayer and the Marriage Record.
I accept that it wasn't a particularly unusual occupation but Eliza's Father was a Master Bricklayer who supposedly had a major role in building Lewes Prison.
I have a marriage record for Henry Sumner to Kitty Haldhide and she has always been 'Kitty' not Kate, Catherine or anything else. They appear to have lived in the Islington/Hackney/Kingsland/ Blackfriars/ Shoreditch areas on all the records I have. Henry died after George's Marriage in 1868 and Kitty in 1865.
My problem is that I don't have any hard evidence to link them to 'my' George as I cannot find Henry & Kitty on any Censuses. Other records for them have been found under the names of SUMMER, SUMMERS, SIMMER, LUNNER so that is why I am guessing there may be a mis-transcription. Another of their Daughters was Priscilla Sumner b 1843 which I thought may help being a more unusal name, but no luck so far.
Any help to prove that this is the correct George would be much appreciated.
Thanks in anticipation..
Kristina
. I suspect that the name has been mis-transcribed (as has been the case quite often in this family) but I am stuck for 1841, 51 & 61 Cenuses.I am looking for George Sumner from Kingland, Hackney London who I believe to have been born c 1841. I KNOW that he married Eliza Hoather of Lewes on 19.04.1868 at Hackney Parish Church and that his father was called Henry.
I have found a number of Georges with Fathers called Henry in the area and followed dead end trails. The latest one that I am hoping to be the right one is Henry Sumner b c 1795 in Holborn who married Kitty Halfhide on 02.10.1832. They had a son George (and other children), who was Baptised in Hackney Church on 04.07.1841.
My only, and very tenuous, reason for thinking this might be the correct George, other than the location, is that Henry & Kitty had a Daughter, Catherine (confirmed from IGI Index), Catherine married William John Browett in 1858 and her Father Henry's Occupation was shown as Bricklayer on the Marriage Record. 'My' George married in 1868 and his Father Henry's Occupation also showed as Bricklayer and the Marriage Record.
I accept that it wasn't a particularly unusual occupation but Eliza's Father was a Master Bricklayer who supposedly had a major role in building Lewes Prison.
I have a marriage record for Henry Sumner to Kitty Haldhide and she has always been 'Kitty' not Kate, Catherine or anything else. They appear to have lived in the Islington/Hackney/Kingsland/ Blackfriars/ Shoreditch areas on all the records I have. Henry died after George's Marriage in 1868 and Kitty in 1865.
My problem is that I don't have any hard evidence to link them to 'my' George as I cannot find Henry & Kitty on any Censuses. Other records for them have been found under the names of SUMMER, SUMMERS, SIMMER, LUNNER so that is why I am guessing there may be a mis-transcription. Another of their Daughters was Priscilla Sumner b 1843 which I thought may help being a more unusal name, but no luck so far.
Any help to prove that this is the correct George would be much appreciated.
Thanks in anticipation..
Kristina
4
The Common Room / Re: Death at Sea
« on: Thursday 06 August 09 01:04 BST (UK) »
Thanks for your very prompt response - very much appreciated.
Tina
Tina
5
The Common Room / Death at Sea-NOW SORTED
« on: Thursday 06 August 09 00:06 BST (UK) »
I am told that one of my relatives, George Mead, died at sea on the SS Cormorant in December 1887 age 55. The ship appears to have been wrecked off the Isle of Wight but I cannot find any record of fatalities, nor a record of his death in the normal BMD Indexes.
Can anyone suggest anywhere else that I can look online (I do not live in the UK).
Thanks
Can anyone suggest anywhere else that I can look online (I do not live in the UK).
Thanks
Pages: [1]