1841/51 census lookup please

[EddieW]

Thanks wozzle
Would love the entry for Fanny, would like to find out how many of the family were born at Rockfield and if any were born at St Pancras

Don't these transcriptions rock you sometimes, most of the time the transcribers do a great job but it is hard when there is that big a difference.

[wozzle]

first off here is the marriage enry
name; fanny emily james.
y.o.r. 1853
qtr. apr/may/jun.
dist; st.pancras
vol. 1b
page; 21
on the same page; william frederick turner.

here is the 1861 census entry
RG9/24/67/1
william frederick turner age 31. b. st.anns,middx. occ. smith. head.
fanny emily turner age 28. b. monmouthshire. wife.
fanny charlotte tuner age 7. b. marylebone,middx. daughter.
living at; st.pauls,hammersmith,middx.
reg.dist. kensington.

[wozzle]

could this possibly be george james in 1861
he is living in he same area as burton james was in 1861
1861
RG9/3830/91/19.
william james age 35. b. cheltenham. occ. joiner(employing 6 people). head.
elizabeth age 36 b. marylebone. wife.
frank age 10. b. ditto. son.
hubert age 2. b. kensington. son.
george james age 23. b. monmouth,wales. occ. joiner. lodger.
living at;20,richmond street,all saints,newcastle upon tyne.

[EddieW]

Thanks for that, i love how these second names keep popping up.
That certainly looks like George.
At first glance i thought that was his brother William but born Cheltenham is wrong, the age is right and being a joiner would follow from his father being a carpenter.
William is not with his parents in 1851 and by the age of the first child he could have been with Elizabeth then, would be interesting to see what he put down for his birthplace then.

[wozzle]

1851
HO107/1488/486/47.
william james age 24. b. gloucestershire. occ. carpenter. head.
elizabeth age 25. b. st.marylebone. wife.
frank  age 7mnths. b. ditto. son.
living at;6,east street,marylebone,middx
reg.dist. marylebone.

[wozzle]

in the 1871 william still puts place of birth as cheltenham,gloucs
he is back in kensington area then
RG10/42/21/36.

[EddieW]

Going off that they are not brothers, must have been just one of the six William employed.
Must have been a lot more work in London for Tradesmen and Tailors etc at that time.

Thanks
Eddie