Henry FOY - Coachman/Groom.

[Webby]

Hi, still trying to find out what happened to Henry Foy. 

He keeps appearing and disappearing in Census'!!.  His wife Leah appears, as well as his MIL and daughter but not him!.

But the last mention of him was the 1891 census at Victoria Road stables as Coachman/Servant aged 45yrs and born in London.


Any thoughts on where else to look? 

Cheers
Webby

[louisa maud]

His marriage 15/12/1867 he is listed as TOY , born circa 1846 ?

perhaps he has been miss transcribed on census, being a coachman he could have been almost anywhere

What other information do you have

Louisa Maud

[CaroleW]

Who was his daughter and where and when was she born?

Presume you have checked freebmd for deaths for Henry & Leah?

[CaroleW]

Full 1891 entry to help with search - living in Surbiton Surrey

Henry Foy 45 b London
Leah 50 b  Brighton Sussex
Constance 22 b St Marylebone

Have you ruled out the 1891 death in I o W for Leah Foy aged 49?

[avm228]

Possible death for Leah Foy aged 49, Sep qtr 1891 Isle of Wight.

[avm228]

Daughter Constance Lilian Foy married Frederick Purkiss 9 Mar 1892 St Luke, Kingston - abode Penrhyn Lodge, Surbiton (where her father was employed in the stables in the 1891 census).

Father: Henry Foy, coachman.

[Webby]

Hi, everyone....you are all correct with your information. 

I also think the Leah Foy who died on the IOW is 'my' Leah.  She was listed as being a holiday maker when she fell down some steps and consequently died, have nothing else on her after this date. There certainly weren't many Leah Foy's or Green (her maiden name) around that time.

Also looked at various spellings of Foy in Census' but nothing pops up regarding Henry. 

Wondered whether he just didn't make those Census' due to his job?  Perhaps he was 'on the road' with his employer (whom I don't know) on the night of the Census?




Constance didn't say if he was 'deceased' at the time of her marriage - so I assume he was still alive at that time.

[avm228]

The fact that a father isn’t noted as “deceased” on a marriage record doesn’t necessarily imply that he was alive (it wasn’t required information & was sometimes noted but sometimes not).

However in this case the fact that his daughter was still living at the place where he had been in service suggests to me that he was still living in March 1892 and still working for the same family; if not, the tied residence would likely have been passed on to his successor rather than accommodating his daughter.