RootsChat.Com

I thought I was seeing double in the indexes, but no, the births of my great great grandmother and her twin sister really were registered twice, by different people, in different districts and as having happened on different days!

They were born at the Lying-In Hospital at Old Street, London in Oct 1841.  First the hospital's Matron recorded them as born on 7th, registered in the hospital's district of City Road, Saint Luke.  I believe Lying-In hospitals always registered their births, but I don't think their mother knew this, because she went along on 18th Nov and registered them again in the district for her home address (only a mile or two away but enough to put it under Islington East). 

And she thought they'd been born a day later on 8th - well, maybe it was hard to remember by then, or perhaps the Matron got it wrong because they were both born in the early hours of the day.  And was it because hospital births were still quite rare that her local registrar just assumed they'd been born at her home address? - because that's what he put.

But the parents' details and the twins' combination of names leave no doubt that it's the same twins.  Although even with the names, you can see how errors creep in to records: the Matron's version is for a Sarah Mary Ann and Harriet Meriner while their mother (or the registrar) gave them as Sarah Marianne and Harriet Merener.  And  here's us relying so much on these things.

Has anyone else come across any multiple records like this??

(The Merener name - with more variant spellings - was strong through several generations of the family, till my great aunt came up against a registrar with firm views in the 1940s.  He wouldn't accept a name spelled like that so my cousin has the middle name Marina instead - a shame to see it go - it's made finding them much easier).

I'm curious how they came to be born in hospital and whether the family needed a sponsor or if there was a bill to be paid?  The hospital was for married women only, principally “the wives of poor industrious Tradesmen” or of soldiers or sailors, and admission seems to have been by discretion of the Governor.  Their father was a groom, from their address it doesn't look like he was attached to any particular domestic household.  And I don't think people could tell in advance they were having twins then, could they? - that might have given them some sort of priority. 

Any thoughts?

The 1915 Post Office London directory (part 2) lists a likely Barbers at North End Road: "417, 419, 421, 423 and 426  Barber Fred Holgate & Co.  Linen drapers". 

North End Road is quite long and a major commercial street in Fulham and the shop was on the east side, near its southern end, between Armadale Road and Eustace Road, (I guess you could find this on Multimap or similar?).  Even today it's quite dangerous as heavy traffic has to squeeze down a road too narrow to cope.  There's a street market squashed in down the east side too, it's been there since the 1880s - so unless it happened outside market hours (I think it has one day a week off), or its layout has changed, any lorry mounting the pavement on that side may well have smashed through stalls too.

I found it on Leicester University's site for historical directories: http://www.historicaldirectories.org
Search by London, cycle through till you find "Part 2 Street Directory" of the 1915 one, then go to "streets L-Z" and image (not page number) 371.  Squint at the tiny print and it's near the top of the middle column.  I couldn't see any other Barber reference in the street, (unless another one opened up later).














 

Hello, am new to this board and while browsing, came across your quest.  Didn't look like you'd got anywhere with Shaw's Gardens?  I live in St Giles, know it's history pretty well and have searched the local history society's very detailed book "Street of St Giles", plus a 1748 indexed map.  No sign of Shaw's Gardens at all - which leads me to wonder whether it could possibly have been Short's Gardens - which is quite a prominent street, although in a very poor area for much of the 17 & 1800s, (the workhouse was on it from the late 1700s).  It's existed from about 1720 and is still here.

Depending on how your source came to be recorded, I'm wondering if it could have simply been misheard when written down? - Shaw's being rather more common Shorts.

If you have access to a current map, it runs westwards from the northern end of Drury Lane.  Today the name continues all the way to the junction with Monmouth St, but before 1906 the name only applied as far as Neal St.  I think it must have been renumbered because today the lowest numbers are in the western-most section that was Queen St before 1906. The odd numbers are all on the north side.  A site that searches maps by postcode will get you to the street with WC2H 9AP.

There's a very helpful local history unit that may be able to tell you if they're aware of a Shaw's Gardens : www.camden.gov.uk/localstudies   

Sharon

I'm new to this board, was browsing backwards and found your post.  Didn't look like anyone got back to you about 5 Calabria Road?  The street still exists, is close to Highbury & Islington tube station and runs east from Highbury Place, (which borders the eastern edge of Highbury Fields open space).

I happened to drive along it last night and there is still a no.5.  It's on the north side of Calabria Rd, very close to the junction with Highbury Place.  A local history book says the street was first occupied about 1890 which fits with the late Victorian appearance of no. 5.  Does that fit with the period you're interested in?

If so, I may be able to get along to take a photo for you, can't quite promise when!

Sharon