RootsChat.Com

Hello all,

Let me tell you where my starting point was and that may help strengthen the coincidences. For the record I think the Richard Burgess / Letitia Forbes union is simply a red herring that relates to another family and that Lydia/Letitia Barret simply used two forenames.

Anyway, sometime in the 1950's my mum saw a document relating to her mother's purchase of a Sewing Machine on Hire Purchase. My mum's grandfather stood as guarantor for the loan and signed his name as George Macland Burgess. This name also appears on his 1955 Death Certificate. However, on all other records he appears only as George Burgess.

A quick trawl of Ancestry for 'George Macland Burgess' produces nothing, but with the addition of the 'k' into Mac(k)land, it reveals, one born around 1823 and two subsequent people with the same name. These turn out to be descendants of Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett, as is my great grandfather's grandfather, Richard Burgess b. 1815.

My George Macland Burgess' father, John, was born in 1848, so appears on the 1851 Census, as the son of Richard Burgess of Rainham and Lydia Burgess of Woolwich. The oldest surviving child is Richard b. 1842. John Burgess' Birth Certificate gives his parents as Richard Burgess junr. and Letitia Burgess, formerly Barrett. Given the small gap between 1848 and 1851 I have always presumed that Lydia and Letitia were the same people.

Having looked at the 1841 Census and finding a Richard, Lydia and George all living together (along with John Barrett) I ordered George Mackland Burgess' 1842 Marriage Certificate which gave his occupation as Paper Stainer (a match to the census) and his father as Richard Burgess, Paper Stainer. The 1851 Census gives both John and Richard as coming from Rainham and Rainham is where we find Mackland Farm, which ties in with the information I posted previously.

The two halves fit together very well and all of the individuals seem to be accounted for.

That still leaves an element of doubt about whether Richard's wife was Letitia, Lydia or (my preference) both and the Burgess/Forbes marriage, but I don't think they alter the basic foundation of Letitia/Lydia being Richard's only wife and the mother of all his children; unless something else emerges.

Hi Neil,

I completely agree - I'm satisfied that Lydia and Letitia are the same person and Richard's only wife.

I'm not convinced about the Burgess/Forbes wedding, though. Many of the details line up, except Letitia's surname and the date, and there's no clear sign of a second Richard/Letitia on the 1851. I don't think it's definitely a match, I just think there's a bit more out there to find out before all the pieces are on the table.

The search goes on!

Yes, Neil's done a splendid job  As he pointed out, there's still a few things that don't fit neatly, but he's really uncovered so much!

And Deb, I'm also glad there wasn't an obvious Burgess/Barrett marriage we just missed.

Arthur's birth cert arrived in the mail yesterday.

Eliza was the informant, and gave her name as 'Eliza Watts, formerly Watts'. Father was listed as Charles Watts, journeyman bootmaker. The family was living at 9 Goldsmith Street, St Giles in April 1893, but I can't find them there on the 1891.

Found (most) of the family on the 1871:
RG 10 221 26 44
26 Upper Chenie's Mews (?), St Pancras
George Watts,, 46, b Gloucestershire
Emily Watts, dau, 20 b Middlesex
Matilda Watts, dau, 19 b Middlesex
George Watts, son, 9 b Middlesex
Eliza Watts, dau, 7 b Middlesex

Wouldn't mind if someone else would have a quick look at the image -  I think it might say that George is a widower...

If that's the case, it looks like some of those other Christianas and other children (other than Emily, Matilda, George and Eliza) aren't matches.