Help with a document please......

[diana2646]

Hi,

Could anyone help me with the attached document please and explain what the meaning of it is.  I am researching this Robertson family on behalf of a family member.  It seems Henry Robertson's daughter   Elizabeth suffered from fits and was in prison on a couple of occasions and also tried to take her own life more than once. 

I understand that removal orders can mean that the person has become dependant on the Parish and can no longer support themselves and the Parish wants them removed back to their original Parish.  (If I have got that right).  But I don't really understand what this document is saying.

I have been trying to find a birth for Henry who I thought was born around 1803, although going by this document, it looks more like 1806.  On the 1851 census, it says he was born Bloomsbury, but I can't find any record of a Baptism to confirm that.  I know his father was George, as it states that on his marriage cert.  There are a couple of trees on Ancestry who have his father, George Robertson, born Stevenage, Herts circa 1777.  George then re appears living in Enfield in 1851, so I am not inclined to take notice of these trees until I can confirm those details.  Plus, if Henry's father George was born in Stevenage and then lived in Enfield, how would Henry Robertson come to be born in Bloomsbury. 

Any help appreciated.

Thanks, Diana

[horselydown86]

It can be inferred that Elizabeth Robertson, aged about 22 years, is an inmate of this workhouse.

The document is entirely about determining the parish in which this Elizabeth has her settlement.

The statement - She has never been married or done any act to gain a sett(lemen)t in her own right - is standard wording.

It means what it says - she doesn't have a settlement of her own - and the corollary is that therefore her settlement will derive from that of her natural father.

The section from Her father Henry Robertson... down to ...at the corner of Queens Head Passage has the purpose of establishing the legitimacy of Elizabeth's relationship to Henry and the place of her birth.

The remainder, where the writing changes, is clearly the transcript of an interview with Henry, although this is not stated explicitly.

In essence the interview is to establish his own settlement.  This will become Elizabeth's settlement.

So they track back through his places of residence looking for one which will establish a settlement by virtue of his having rented a property worth £10 per year or having paid the same in taxes.

In this case it appears that Henry's settlement derives from his occupation of the house 15 Craven Buildings, for which he paid 16 pounds yearly + taxes.

Having found a settlement qualifier, they don't go further.  If they didn't find one through rents, they might look at where and with whom he served an apprenticeship.

The only direct genealogical information here is the details of Henry's marriage in 1828 or 1829 (there seems to be a difference between his testimony and the records) and that Elizabeth is the natural daughter of those parents.

[Annette7]

I wonder if part of the problem was that Elizabeth had not been baptised - in fact, looking at the children of Henry and Elizabeth can find no baptisms for 4 of them, plus only one seems to have been baptised at the relevant time, and 2 others baptised when they were 10 and 14!

Children:

Elizabeth bc.1831
Henry bc.1834
Sarah b.10/11/1835, bp.31/1/1836 Hoxton, bur.3/7/1837 Shoreditch
Alfred b.12/3/1837, bp.8/11/1847
Sarah b.9/8/1840, bp.8/10/1854
Frederick bc.1842
Edward bc.1845

You say that Henry's father shown as George when he married in 1829 BUT this just shows that one of the witnesses was named George Robertson who could have been a brother (or other relative).

However, when the Sarah baptised 1836 (died 1837) the following entry was for a George Robertson b.11/1/1836 and baptised like Sarah on 31/1/1836, son of George and Sarah.   Both Henry and George shown as Shoemakers (although I note that later your Henry shown as Boot Maker).

My gut feeling is that these 2 are brothers and that the George at Henry's wedding was his brother, not father.

Looking at this George on the census he is shown as bc.1809 Westminster - there are in fact 2 possible marriage entries for him to a Sarah but by comparing births of children on GRO site I was able to determine which one was them:

George Robertson married Sarah Kemp 25/12/1834 West Hackney

So, is this a case of 2 brothers marrying 2 sisters?

A George Robertson bp.25/12/1809 Westminster, son of George and Ann.

A George Robertson married an Ann Hardie (transcribed on ancestry as Mardie) 8/10/1809 St. George, Bloomsbury.   If this couple are the parents of both George and Henry then from his age it would appear Henry was born before his parents married which could explain why you've had difficulty tracing his baptism.

Something to ponder on anyway. 

Annette
 

[diana2646]

Firstly, thank you very much Horselydown for all the detailed explanations you have given me.  It is very much appreciated.  Did all this mean that Henry and Elizabeth were being admitted into the workhouse, or just Elizabeth?

Thank you also very much Annette, you have given me so much to get my teeth into.  You mentioned Henry's father, well Henry married his first wife Elizabeth Kemp in 1829, but he married again on 20th July 1856 in Hoxton, to Sarah Susannah (another) Kemp and it gives his father's name as George William deceased.  Sorry, I forgot to put the William down. It says that Sarah is a widow, as is Henry so I thought perhaps she was previously married to Henry's first wife's brother!  You have found so much out, I am very grateful, as I have been going round in circles.  Some people have this tree on Ancestry, but when I contacted one of them, they said they copied the tree from someone else, without checking out any of the information it seems, so I was none the wiser.

Thank you very much for all this amazing help,

Diana

[Annette7]

Diana, I have now viewed the marriage certificate of Henry Robertson and Sarah Susannah Kemp (widow) in 1856 and the father of Henry is not George William - father is George Robertson, deceased and I 'think' his occupation says 'Cellarman'.   The copy certificate on Ancestry is not very clear.

Annette

[horselydown86]

Did all this mean that Henry and Elizabeth were being admitted into the workhouse, or just Elizabeth?

It reads that it is only Elizabeth, although we can't be certain without checking the workhouse's Admissions Register.

There may be useful information as to Elizabeth's circumstances in a section of (what I think is) "workhouse shorthand" at the top.  I can't read it.

It says:  As to Elizabeth Robertson ? ? ?: ? - from 19 Boot St Hoxton.

I would suggest asking for help to read it on the Handwriting board.  Include the words "workhouse shorthand" in the Subject.

[Bookbox]

There may be useful information as to Elizabeth's circumstances in a section of (what I think is) "workhouse shorthand" at the top.  I can't read it.

It says:  As to Elizabeth Robertson ? ? ?: ? - from 19 Boot St Hoxton.

As to Elizabeth Robertson In Wkho: Insane (= in workhouse)

[diana2646]

Thank you Annette. I have had another look at the marriage record and as you say, it is very difficult to read.  I think you are right about what it says......George Robertson.  I had seen that marriage record once before, but didn't realise at first that it was "my" Henry, as I think he dies in 1858, but not certain, although I can't find him on 1861 census.

Thank you also Horselydown for your reply.  I was going to put the document on the hand writing deciphering page but Bookbox has beaten me to it, so thank you for the information.  Poor Elizabeth - insane.  She sounds like a very troubled woman.  Poor Henry must have had his hands full looking after her.  I did think when I saw them on the 1851 census, that Henry having lost his wife, Elizabeth would have been looking after the family, but not so it seems. 

Thank you all for your help.

Diana

[diana2646]

Hi,

I have a question for Annette please.

I have been looking up the information you gave me re the Robertson family and I found the record for the marriage of George Robertson and Ann 'Mardie' on Ancestry, on 8th October 1809.  I was wondering if you could please tell me how you found out that Ann's name was in fact Hardie and not Mardie, as on Ancestry it just gives the Mardie name.

Thanks, Diana