1891 census Surrey for Langley, please

[gazania]

Could someone please lookup the 1891 census for John Langley born c 1833, Camberwell, plasterer, possibly in the Camberwell area.  A likely death for him is in Camberwell district in1896 aged 57.  The entry in the census index may be mispelled but I cannot find him using Ancestry.com at my local Mormon centre.  Another clue may be finding also his youngest child, George, b c 1878, ie about 13 years, b Camberwell.

In the 1871 & 1881 census, John was living with his wife, Jane, and family. But by 1888 according to a will, his wife, Jane, had moved out and in the 1891 census she was living with her future second husband, William Rodford, & calling herself Rodford.

Thank you, Gazania

[AMBLY]

Hi Gazania

I was wondering if they were at the same address in both 1871 & 1881  - I can see 1881 at 42 Chiswell St  but where were they in 1871 

Cheers
AMBLY

[gazania]

Thanks Ambly,

In 1871, they were at 4 Chiswell St., which is probably the same.
In the will dated 1888, Jane Langley was living 22 Boundary Rd., and Wm Rodford was living 6 Brisbane St but was then referred to as "now of" 22 Boundary Rd.  William, a plasterer & builder, was the executor of the will of Jane's Aunt.  Gazania

[AMBLY]

Hi Gazania

I think this could be them  mis-enumerated as LANLEY (or could be LANKEY, but I think LANLEY)

1891 Peckham, Camberwell St John the Divine, London
RD: Camberwell , REF:  RG12 - 487 / F55 /  Pg21
ADDRESS: 38 Crown Street
Head: Charloitte GODFREY 67, Wid, Prowner? of horse fleet ? b Camberwell
Boarder: John LANLEY 58, married, Plasterer, b Camberwell
Son: George LANLEY 14, Plasterer, b Camberwell
Dau: Nancy GODFREY 36, unm, Laundry Work, b Camberwell

Cheers
AMBLY

[gazania]

Thank you very much, Ambly.  You must have a lot of patience and skill.  I had thought he may have been in an institution under his initials! I am so pleased I decided to give the sharp eyes of a R Chatter a go before I accepted that theory. It is good to find George as well.  Thank you again Gazania

[AMBLY]

Your're welcome    I often come across some amazing enumeratuion mis-names (and some mind-boggling mis-transcriptions of the right names on various sources) but I was just thinking yesterday, wow, we are looking back from 2006 to 1841, 51, 61 etc and I forget just how long ago that was - I mean, 1906 was 100 years ago, and from a searching point-of view, it's like yesterday!

It's amazing that we CAN so often find our people, clearly named and aged and everything, from cradle to grave !  I feel funny sometimes, when I see a baby aged 1, and then a little later see him/her with grandchildren and in his/her old age 

Cheers
AMBLY

[gazania]

Hi Ambly,

I couldn't agree more.   That's how I felt when I found the death of Jane Langley's Mum aged 92 in 1904 and who was the wife of a convict who was sent to Moreton Bay.  When the indexes came out, I was able to track her despite mis- transcriptions right through to the 1901 census, which was a huge surprise to me.  She outlived mostly everyone. And to me 1904 is not all that long ago.

Also, I remember a time & not so long ago before the censuses were indexed and how frustrating it was.  Now I get frustrated because I cannot get instant success with the click of a button on an index.  We genealogists are never satisfied.

Thanks again, good job well done, Gazania.