LOE or LOWE origins, c.1796

[bmanson]

My ggg grandfather Henry LOE (or Lowe) died 6 months prior to first genealogical census (1841), and two months before the birth of his son, George.  On the census of 1841, the family was living on Underwood Street, Mile End New Town, Whitechapel, London

Henry Loe, male, age 44, weaver, died 16 Jan 1841 at 9 Underwood Street, Mile End New Town:  informant Susannah Loe (dau) in attendance of 9 Underwood St.

We know that Henry Loe (or Lowe) was married at the church in the parish of Saint John at Hackney, county of Middlesex: 4 Aug 1819 to Elizabeth Johnson.

In 1824 (birth of son Henry Francis) the family was living at Hackney Rd, St. Leonards, Shoreditch.  In 1826 (birth of son Francis Robert) the family was living at Curtain Rd, St. Leonards, Shoreditch.  In 1834 (birth of dau. Matilda) the family was living at#5 Blue Hart Court, Parish of St. Stephen, London.

However, we have never been able to establish the location and exact date of his birth.  One of the problems is that of the spelling of the name.  The family has used "LOE" since easily the 1841 census. However, the marriage cert. actually read "LOWE".  I haven't had any success on the IGI (internet).

Assuming the accuracy of the age on the death cert., our Henry was born probably in 1796.  A "leap" might conclude that he was born in London.  Can someone please help with this?

Brian
Edmonton, Alberta

[Valda]

I think it is a very big leap to assume Henry was born in London without any evidence. London constantly sucked in people from all over the country. Henry could just as easily have not been born in London as London.
I researched a neighbour of Henry's who was a wheelwright at 35 Curtain Road Shoreditch from 1820 onwards, though he was in Essex for the 1841 census where he died in 1842. Luckily his first marriage was by licence and under age so I was able to track him through the licence back to Watford in Hertfordshire.

The IGI only has some coverage of parishes, but if you went by that and traditional naming patterns you can get for example baptisms like this.

HENRY LOW 
Christening:  12 MAY 1797   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOW 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

JAMES LOE 
Christening:  05 AUG 1808   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

Which of course could be a complete wild goose chase. However there is this taken from the 1861 census

RG9 240 folio 128 Hoxton Shoreditch.

James Loes 51 born Alton, Hampshire, a married shoemaker with his family. I tracked one of his sons on the 1881 census where his surname was given as Loe.

All of which could still be quite coincidental.
(Equally there is a James Loe death registered in Alton in 1859)

For the record the other baptisms on the IGI were

JANE LOE 
Christening:  27 DEC 1799   Alton, Hampshire, England
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

MARY ANN LOE   
Christening:  28 DEC 1801   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE

SARAH LOE 
Christening:  03 OCT 1804   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

No Matildas!

I emphasise again this could be merely coincidental as when you are dealing with very large populations, sooner or later surnames and birthplaces will appear close together. However it illustrates the 'rickety nature' of your 'leap' and 'conclusion' that your Henry was born in London.

Regards
Valda
 

[Ian Sheppard]

This is not going to help a bit ! - but I would just observe that the surname LOUGH occurs in our family.  We know it as "Luff".  However on censuses it can occur as LOWE,  LUFF, and (with a bit of transcription error) as HOUGH.  So I suppose my point is that you really have to think laterally and imaginatively about what a set of letters on a census return might mean in terms of what the informant actually said.

Ian Sheppard.

[bmanson]

Thank you for the message.  Your point is a good one.  And thank you for the additional items of interest.
Brian
Edmonton, Alberta

I think it is a very big leap to assume Henry was born in London without any evidence. London constantly sucked in people from all over the country. Henry could just as easily have not been born in London as London.
I researched a neighbour of Henry's who was a wheelwright at 35 Curtain Road Shoreditch from 1820 onwards, though he was in Essex for the 1841 census where he died in 1842. Luckily his first marriage was by licence and under age so I was able to track him through the licence back to Watford in Hertfordshire.

The IGI only has some coverage of parishes, but if you went by that and traditional naming patterns you can get for example baptisms like this.

HENRY LOW 
Christening:  12 MAY 1797   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOW 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

JAMES LOE 
Christening:  05 AUG 1808   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

Which of course could be a complete wild goose chase. However there is this taken from the 1861 census

RG9 240 folio 128 Hoxton Shoreditch.

James Loes 51 born Alton, Hampshire, a married shoemaker with his family. I tracked one of his sons on the 1881 census where his surname was given as Loe.

All of which could still be quite coincidental.
(Equally there is a James Loe death registered in Alton in 1859)

For the record the other baptisms on the IGI were

JANE LOE 
Christening:  27 DEC 1799   Alton, Hampshire, England
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

MARY ANN LOE   
Christening:  28 DEC 1801   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE

SARAH LOE 
Christening:  03 OCT 1804   Alton, Hampshire
Father:  FRANCIS LOE 
Mother:  CHARLOTTE 

No Matildas!

I emphasise again this could be merely coincidental as when you are dealing with very large populations, sooner or later surnames and birthplaces will appear close together. However it illustrates the 'rickety nature' of your 'leap' and 'conclusion' that your Henry was born in London.

Regards
Valda
 

[mc8]

This is not going to help a bit ! - but I would just observe that the surname LOUGH occurs in our family.  We know it as "Luff".  However on censuses it can occur as LOWE,  LUFF, and (with a bit of transcription error) as HOUGH.  So I suppose my point is that you really have to think laterally and imaginatively about what a set of letters on a census return might mean in terms of what the informant actually said.

Ian Sheppard.

and my Low has also appeared and Lowe, Lewis and Lowes