Help Please! Drawing a blank on Banwell Family

[BenStevens87]

Thanks so much!  some of these gaps and bits of extra info are really helpful - especially the glaringly obvious (now!) bit about Old Congreve being a Farmer on the marriage certificate so more likely the father.

RE: Camilla Bennett b. 1844 Stowe - I saw she was recorded as Bennett but let myself believe it was just messy handwriting! The extra connections round there are helpful.

@Mckha489 I also considered whether the ages had been changed, but it would have required her to stay 14 from one census to the next! I keep thinking if I could find that missing census record for Helen Elizabeth from 1861 that would unlock it.

Also, if I've understood correctly that Mary Hadland (who married William Hadland in 1839) was born Mary Banwell, then that explains the Neice connection to Helen Elizabeth. I can't remember if I found proof that Mary Ann Banwell was born Hadland or had just made an assumption, but that might unlock different possibilities...

[BenStevens87]

The thing I keep bumping on which casts doubt over so much are the overlapping Helens!

We've got:

• Helen Banwell: b. 1838 - d. 1865
• Helen Elizabeth Banwell: b. 1857 - d. 1932
• Helen Maude Banwell: b. 1872 - d. 1877

We now assume Old Congreve was her father, so that would mean Helen b. 1838 had the same father (and potentially mother if we follow Tazzie's logic of death in childbirth)

As Tazzie said, Helen Elizabeth might have been born Ellen - especially as the 1871 Census entry has her as Elan Elizabeth and maybe that was changed afterwards (when she was in her twenties?) but by 1888 and for the rest of her life she was solidly know as Helen.

[mckha489]

I think Camilla did die in Childbirth, but the child was a son, James. b & d 1855

[mckha489]

What about

Sanford    Ellen Elizabeth        Headington    3a   479.

  I think Headington is the correct reg district.

A tree on ancestry does have “old” Congreve with a Rebecca Sanford, but not this child, (GRO still down)  added, but I was suspicious because of the other Rebecca. Off to check again.

Added. Ellen Sanford dau of Rebecca Sanford, single woman baptised privately 23 Sept 1857.

[BenStevens87]

Ooo now that's interesting! Headington definitely the right area, and a cursory glance doesn't reveal her in a Census subsequent to 1857...

[rosie99]

You should not assume that either Congreve is her father just because he is mentioned on her marriage certificate.

People 'invented' fathers who were sometimes their grandfathers or even a close relative just so they did not appear illegitimate

[rosie99]

What about

Sanford    Ellen Elizabeth        Headington    3a   479.

  I think Headington is the correct reg district.

A tree on ancestry does have “old” Congreve with a Rebecca Sanford, but not this child, (GRO still down)  added, but I was suspicious because of the other Rebecca. Off to check again.

Added. Ellen Sanford dau of Rebecca Sanford, single woman baptised privately 23 Sept 1857.

Possibly lodging with James & Alice Quarterman in Wheatley in 1861
RG09/889 f19 p32

[BenStevens87]

Thanks Rosie, no, not getting carried away, though it does seem likely as the Banwells remain a feature of her life (Rebecca Banwell - assumed to be the one married to young Congreve - was witness to Helen Elizabeth's wedding)


Your discovery of Helen Sandford in the 1861 register feels significant if only because that's the gap in Helen Elilzabeth's census record. Definitely worth exploring further! Thanks again

[rosie99]

I wonder if the Ellen Sanford birth certificate would give any more clues with place of birth and information on her mother.  She certainly looks promising.

I had wondered about the Rebecca Banwell who had witnessed her wedding.  Did she witness any of her childrens marriages

This does not help very much 
James Quartermaine
Alice Smith
Marriage    21 Jul 1823
Cuddesdon