My mysterious chemist ancestor! Anyone throw any light on any of this?

[Nic.]

On the subject of 'Chemist' not registered with The Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

I also have one.  George born c1827, from 1841 to his marriage certificate in 1855 he is a Brass Founder/Iron Moulder.  Then on the death certificate of one of his children in 1858 he is a Medical Botanist on his next appearance on the 1861 census he is a Chemist.  From this point until his death he always appears as a Chemist although the Royal Society have no record of him. 

In George's case I can follow his progression with his children's birth certificates showing him as Chemist.

[bearkat]

Hmm, the Post Office Directory for 1914 still shows Owen & Co at 546 Harrow Road.

I'm not having any joy finding 546 Harrow Road on the 1911 census. (I wonder if there was no census return for this address if Gideon lived on his own and was away on census night)

I wonder if 1914 is just the page number

[rocala]

Ref the 1914 Directory. I worked in a pharmacy called "Connock Chemist's". Mr Connock had sold up and died years before. After my time it was sold again but still continued to be called by the same name.

[rocala]

I have been engrossed by this matter and have some ideas.

1/ Maybe he was innocent. The assistant may have kept quiet to avoid a telling off. He might have been expected to pay for spillages. If he had done it before perhaps his job was on the line.
A reputation for poor medicine might well have been a death sentence for his business.

2/ If he was guilty of fraud then this is more than making some money. He would have been playing with peoples well being and possibly their lives. If so, then he is a pretty unscrupulous character. Who knows what else he could be guilty of?

3/ Did he truly get away with it? The court was lenient but maybe the Pharmaceutical society, Police, reporters even some of his customers could have been making enquiries. I don't think there is any evidence that he stayed around. Pretty suspicious to me.

[CelticAnnie]

Thank you for your input, Rocala.  It certainly is an intriguing mystery.  Since I’ve not been able to locate him in 1911 census or find a death record for him, I wonder whether he might have changed his name so he could try to continue to trade as a retail chemist without being registered.  In that event, of course, there would be no way to trace him. 

[rocala]

Well history and mysteries are my twin passions so this was heaven.

My gut says he is a bad one, not just some innocent who got a little greedy. I may a bit biased. A very wise and worldly lady I once knew said, "never trust a man of forty who lives with his mother". It is wrong to generalize but I have found a lot of truth in that.

[CelticAnnie]

Actually, Rocala, I think it was more a case of his mother (and younger siblings) moving in with Gideon rather than him happening still to be living with them!

This was a consequence of the early death of Gideon's father.  Suspect his mother felt completely at sea when she found herself widowed and expected someone to 'take care of' her.  Middle-class women at this period, of course, did not work outside the home and were unused to living without a male 'head of household'; and Gideon, being the oldest son, was the obvious candidate to perform this role once his father had gone.  In time, Gideon's younger sisters (who never worked whilst their father was alive) found factory employment and provided a home and financial support for their mother.  But it may be that they all needed a bit of 'breathing space' (which moving in with Gideon provided) to adjust to the dramatic change in their circumstances initially.

So I don't think it was through Gideon's choice that he was living, at this time, with his mother and younger siblings, Rocala and would therefore suggest that you really can't hold that against him!

But I'm glad you've found him intriguing.  Thank you for your interest!

CELTICANNIE       

[rocala]

Hi, I have done a little more research. The Pharmacy act was 1852. It required a register of Pharmaceutical Chemists to be kept by the Pharmaceutical Society (no royal in the title, that started in 1988).

 The 1868 act was the Pharmacy and Poisons Act. This required an exam and registration. However membership of the society was not obligatory, thus two separate registers were kept. I can only assume that as you referred to "registration" and not simply membership, that both registers would have been checked?

[CelticAnnie]

Hello again, Rocala

The Royal (as it is now) Pharmaceutical Society provides a very useful service to family historians whereby, for a small payment, they will research your chemist ancestor in all the records they now have including registers and obituaries in trade journals.  They have undertaken such a search for Gideon (amongst others of my chemist ancestors) and unfortunately came up with nothing at all for him — he does not exist in their records.

Thank you for your continued interest in him!

CELTICANNIE