Help me solve my family mystery! (1850s, London, Hobbs/Laurance)

[jonw65]

Benjamin & Elizabeth Hobbs continue to confound me! Why were they not married in 1861?

Hi
I can only think that if Mr Acourt was still alive, Elizabeth would be somewhat wary of marrying again! But took the plunge in the end.
I think it looks promising for her being Elizabeth Walker.

You think that Benjamin was from Ramsbury. And Benjamin of the 1868 marriage said his father was Richard Hobbs. It's proving hard to find a Benjamin with a father Richard at the time. But there might be an explanation!

We have the baptism 18 Oct 1812, Ramsbury
Benjamin, illegitimate son of Hannah Hobbs,

Then, just a couple of months later, on 5 Dec 1812, a marriage at Ramsbury
Richard Hunter + Hannah Hobbs

Assuming it's the same Hannah, it certainly would give Benjamin a step father called Richard. He might even be his actual father!
Richard and Hannah had some children in Ramsbury, and father was a Labourer.

That could give you another name to research, maybe there is a Hunter connection somewhere!
1871 is a puzzle, there is a Benjamin Hobbs, 60, in Camberwell. It says he is born Marylebone! And wife Rebecca! No idea what that's all about.

Going back to Sarah Ecclestone, one problem perhaps with the Dallimore possibility is that that she and William do not seem to have had any children. William had been a father previously, and your Sarah had just had two.
They are still in Pancras in 1881, and then go down to Bath in Somerset. Sarah left a will when she died.
Jomot's Sarah who died 1865 is certainly worth checking out, but we don't know exactly which Sarah she was.
John

[QueenoftheWest]

I don’t think this has been mentioned already (apologies if it has), but there is a death in January 1865 in Pancras RD of a Sarah Eccleston aged 30.  Burial is on Deceased Online (27 Jan 1865) St Pancras Cemetery.  A brief newspaper article about the inquest says she was a domestic servant aged 30 and died as a result of burns after her clothes set fire whilst in the kitchen on 15 Jan 1865.  Lived 6 days.

No idea how you would prove whether or not this was 'your' Sarah, but she would have been around 20 at the time Laurance was born.

Thanks, jomot. I had not seen this article before. This is definitely a very strong possibility. 20 does seem more like the age I had in my head. Both Sarahs were servants and I wonder whether Laurie & Louisa were the children of one of the men Sarah worked for? It would explain the 'gentleman' aspect... Nothing explains the 'teacher of foreign languages,' it is such an unusual occupation in those days and seems a strange thing to make up... especially as no one else outside the immediate family is going to see this certificate so what is the point in lying about the occupation? Obviously, I understand why she would lie about being married, the stigma around illegitimacy and the shame involved must have come into play.

I have looked and looked but I can't find a Sarah Eccleston anywhere in London on the 1861 census. Not one 

I also find it interesting how Benjamin & Elizabeth listed Laurie under his birth name on the 1861 census rather than as a Hobbs as he would become by 1871. Did they think Sarah might come back? I wonder when Laurie assumed the Hobbs surname and became their 'son' rather than their 'nephew.'

Queenie 

[QueenoftheWest]

Benjamin & Elizabeth Hobbs continue to confound me! Why were they not married in 1861?

We have the baptism 18 Oct 1812, Ramsbury
Benjamin, illegitimate son of Hannah Hobbs,

Then, just a couple of months later, on 5 Dec 1812, a marriage at Ramsbury
Richard Hunter + Hannah Hobbs

Wow, it is truly a small world! Richard Hunter & Hannah Hobbs were the maternal grandparents of Laurie's wife, Eleanor! I had seen the baptism entry which is why I thought Benjamin was from Ramsbury but I didn't link it to my Richard & Hannah because of the illegitimate aspect but it is certainly a possibility. Maybe that's how Eleanor & Laurie came to meet? They would be adoptive first cousins.

If so, Eleanor must have known that Laurie was adopted. I really wonder why she didn't tell my grandfather, when she only died in 1956 at the age of 99. She had 36 years to tell him! Maybe it's just the shame of illegitimacy again?

Going back to Sarah Ecclestone, one problem perhaps with the Dallimore possibility is that that she and William do not seem to have had any children. William had been a father previously, and your Sarah had just had two.

Yes, Sarah was clearly a very fecund woman. She got pregnant again only 3 months after Laurie. They were born less than a year apart. Poor woman, all alone with an infant and she falls pregnant again.

Queenie 

[scotmum]

No linked names, but it was interesting to come across another story tied with 3 Bath Street, Albany Road, this time from 1856, and may at least give.an idea of the premises.

An Emma Shivell, respectably dressed, was in court for begging.Along with two children, she had appeared at a house asking for assistance, and provided  a written petition stating she had been widowed and left with six children. She also stated that her husband had died, as result of an accident, in St Thomas' hospital.

She gave her address as 3 Bath Street, Albany Road and said her landlord's name was Parker. On checking the address, it appeared she lived in one small room with the six children. The sergeant said 'a more wretched sight  he had never witnessed'.

[scotmum]

.
I have looked and looked but I can't find a Sarah Eccleston anywhere in London on the 1861 census. Not one       

Not an easy task when you can't be certain if she was using Ecclestone or Laurance, compounded by the possibility that if, for any reason, she was still alive but happened to be in an institution at the time (eg hospital, prison), then she may have only been recorded under her initials, so SE or SL.

.  I also find it interesting how Benjamin & Elizabeth listed Laurie under his birth name on the 1861 census rather than as a Hobbs as he would become by 1871. Did they think Sarah might come back? I wonder when Laurie assumed the Hobbs surname and became their 'son' rather than their 'nephew.' 

Sarah may have left Laurance behind for any number of reasons, willingly or unwillingly, and the Hobbs took him on. For the census, it may have been easier to say he was a 'nephew' rather than to explain why he was living with them, yet not their son. As time went on, and Laurance remained living with them and would obviously be more aware than when younger of a name difference, a gradual change to using their surname, before he started asking questions, may have seemed best, hence the 1871 entry as 'son'. It is quite possible ne was too young to remember his mum and genuinely believed the Hobbs were his parents.

[QueenoftheWest]

No linked names, but it was interesting to come across another story tied with 3 Bath Street, Albany Road, this time from 1856, and may at least give.an idea of the premises.

An Emma Shivell, respectably dressed, was in court for begging.Along with two children, she had appeared at a house asking for assistance, and provided  a written petition stating she had been widowed and left with six children. She also stated that her husband had died, as result of an accident, in St Thomas' hospital.

She gave her address as 3 Bath Street, Albany Road and said her landlord's name was Parker. On checking the address, it appeared she lived in one small room with the six children. The sergeant said 'a more wretched sight  he had never witnessed'.

How awful  Thank you for the insight. In a way, I think Laurie was actually lucky he was an only child. I can't imagine how difficult it would have been if he had had a lot of siblings. He may have even ended up in the workhouse.

Sarah may have left Laurance behind for any number of reasons, willingly or unwillingly, and the Hobbs took him on. For the census, it may have been easier to say he was a 'nephew' rather than to explain why he was living with them, yet not their son. As time went on, and Laurance remained living with them and would obviously be more aware than when younger of a name difference, a gradual change to using their surname, before he started asking questions, may have seemed best, hence the 1871 entry as 'son'. It is quite possible ne was too young to remember his mum and genuinely believed the Hobbs were his parents.

Yes, I don't whether I will ever know why she left. Maybe she felt unable to cope as a single mother? If she was a servant, she may have left so she could work. Laurie was never entered as their son, in 1871 he was living with another family as an errand boy some miles away in Islington. He was listed as 'John Hobbs.' He joined the merchant navy under that name too. I do wonder whether he knew; I find it interesting how he listed his birthplace as 'Hampstead Rd' on the census. How would he have known that when he left Hampstead Rd when he was less than 1 year old? Did he see his birth certificate? Or did they tell him? So many questions and so few answers!

Queenie 

[QueenoftheWest]

I thought I would update this post with what I have discovered since I last posted on this thread.

The most outside possibility of a marriage!

4 Feb 1868, Emmanuel, Camberwell (on ancestry)
Benjamin Hobbs, Bachelor, Bargeman, residence Bath Place, Addington Square, father Richard Hobbs, Farm Laborer
+
Elizabeth Acourt, Widow, residence New Church Road, father John Walker, Gentleman's Servant
Both of full age
Witnesses James Norris, Jane Budgen

Loads of Elizabeth Walkers, daughter of John! Was there one in Marylebone? Yes, a baptism there 12 March 1813, Elizabeth, dr. of John and Jane Walker. Father Servant.

Well, John, that was some impressive sleuthing you did because, as it turns out, this is indeed the marriage of Laurie's adoptive parents and you even have the correct baptism for Elizabeth!

Even stranger, is how I actually discovered this...

I had been looking at my mother's DNA matches and I realised she had a whole load of Australian matches, who seemingly had no connection to any of her other ancestors. They also all matched a woman who is almost certainly my mother's second cousin on her father's side and a descendant of Laurie (I say almost because she doesn't have a tree, but her name matches that of a known second cousin). I went through their family trees - which, I must add, took a very long time - until I happened upon an Ann Walker who had emigrated from London to Australia. I didn't immediately connect this back to the Elizabeth Walker you had found, but there was a newspaper clipping that mentioned Ann's marriage and described her as the "third daughter of Mr. John Walker, of Kensington, Middlesex." This is when I recalled that I had come across a John Walker before, the father of the Elizabeth Walker who married Benjamin Hobbs.

To cut a long story short, I finally figured out why Sarah left Laurie with Benjamin and Elizabeth Hobbs - it's because Elizabeth was her blood relative!

Thank you for your suggestion; I would probably never have found this link if I hadn't seen your post.

How exactly Sarah was related to Elizabeth is still a mystery. The DNA matches are fairly strong (the highest is 67cM; he is the great-great-great-grandson of Elizabeth's sister, Ann) but I don't believe that Sarah could have been Elizabeth's sister as Elizabeth was, as far as I can tell, the youngest of John and Jane's daughters and already 43 years old when Laurie was born. Perhaps she was a niece, although I cannot see where the "Eccleston" name fits into any of this.

I still have no ideas about Laurie's father or what happened to his mother; if anyone has any more ideas, I am all ears!

Queenie 

[jonw65]

Hi Queenie
Thanks for the update.
Your amazing DNA sleuthing has thrown up an intriguing mystery.
Hopefully the exact link between Sarah and Elizabeth can be found!
John