Martha Cox 1881 Census; Albert Edward Cox/Collins on passenger records 1896?

[lucymags]

If this is the correct death entry for James

Jun 1879 Islington   1b   225
James Cock age 45 (c1834)   

Could this be Emily although her birth year is a couple of years out 

Jun 1895 Islington 1b 121
Emily Cox  age 49  (c1846)

Hmmm, yes, that does look like a likely candidate! Thanks again Ladyhawk. (I thought I'd searched well enough to cover Coxes as well, but obviously missed that one.) Being in the June quarter, she may not have had her (May) birthday yet - and her age has been variously reported on different sources anyway...

There is one thing against it, and that is the information given by Annette in Reply#10, that he gave his sister Kate as NOK when he enlisted, which must have been before this Emily Cox had died - but perhaps he thought it safer to give his sister, if his mother was sickly. In favour, is the fact that he used Cox for his sister's name too too, and also that it's also Islington, same as her husband James.

I wonder if the death record would yield any useful information which would confirm or refute this idea? Might be worth the money just to make sure.

Btw I found the GRO record pertaining to (Emily) Kate's daughter Emily Kate's birth in 1891 which gives MMN as Cox (the other day; I can't remember if I've already mentioned that).

[ShaunJ]

There is one thing against it, and that is the information given by Annette in Reply#10, that he gave his sister Kate as NOK when he enlisted,

We don't know when he named his sister as NOK. The only surviving document containing that information is his military history sheet which looks to have been prepared in 1893, completed in late June 1895, and the NoK information appears to have been added in a different hand at some point. 

[lucymags]

We don't know when he named his sister as NOK. The only surviving document containing that information is his military history sheet which looks to have been prepared in 1893, completed in late June 1895, and the NoK information appears to have been added in a different hand at some point. 

Oh, I see - thanks, Shaun. Well I think that in that case it seems worthwhile ordering a copy of her death certificate, and possibly husband James' too. Perhaps both of the women decided to start using Cox because the name was more common in the London area and/or Cock was embarrassing (and Albert changed his name to Collins for the same reason)? And it seems that Emily and William moved around a bit - first to Forest Gate (Stratford area) around 1895 and then West Ham by 1904.

It'll take a few days, but I'll report back when I get something substantial.

(Edit: I've removed Martha Cox from the header, as this is no longer relevant.)

[lucymags]

If this is the correct death entry for James

Jun 1879 Islington   1b   225
James Cock age 45 (c1834)   

Could this be Emily although her birth year is a couple of years out 

Jun 1895 Islington 1b 121
Emily Cox  age 49  (c1846)

I've received the PDF from the GRO for Emily Cox and unfortunately this couldn't be her. She was an unmarried schoolmistress in Upper Holloway, daughter of a William John Cox. So back to the drawing board on that one too!

[ShaunJ]

At Canonbury, London, on Saturday, Nov 8th, Mr. James Cock, formerly of Truro, to Miss Emily Woollcott, daughter of the late W. Woollcott, Esq

(Royal Cornwall Gazette, 14 November 1862)

[lucymags]

At Canonbury, London, on Saturday, Nov 8th, Mr. James Cock, formerly of Truro, to Miss Emily Woollcott, daughter of the late W. Woollcott, Esq

(Royal Cornwall Gazette, 14 November 1862)

So - as per your query in the other thread - does this confirm that I have the correct one? Where did you see other people's tree naming James as son of William? (I looked in FamilySearch but couldn't see any there.)

[ShaunJ]

The online trees that I mentioned are on Ancestry. They don't have the 1862 marriage details either so the parentage is presumably guesswork.

[lucymags]

Oh, I see.

I've just discovered that I've also made notes on Emily's entry:
Scans of marriage records for Emily and James can be viewed here via Free BMD: http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=TaLEkHoDTyrOzFiKZM8gbQ&scan=1 and here https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=34711644:0719&d=bmd_1508773079&scan=1
- spelt "Woollcott".
Dec 1862 Islington 1b 460; Woollcott Emily

However, looking at those entries doesn't actually show the marriage certificate, and I don't know if there's any way of getting to it?

Edit: The matching entry (1b 460) is for James Cock of Islington (although I also notice a James of Redruth, and a William of Truro...).

[lucymags]

I have just found these records pertaining to James Cock son of William and Betsy:

Baptism - "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N5HX-6JM : 6 December 2014, James Cock, 23 Jun 1833); citing SAINT CLEMENT,CORNWALL,ENGLAND, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 916,885.

1851 Census: "England and Wales Census, 1851," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGT4-3CT : 29 July 2017), James Cock in household of William Cock, Lambeth, Surrey, England; citing Lambeth, Surrey, England, p. 20, from "1851 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO HO 107, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.

In the census, he and his brother are errand boys and his father a painter, living in Lambeth. I think that the other James Cock would be a better fit for Emily - educated and at least aspiring middle class... I cannot now recall whether I found anything else definitive or decided on this basis at the time, but in the absence of absolute proof to the contrary, still prefer my James at this point.