[APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,
birth place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
Christopher.Gray at Newscope-Solutions.co.uk
Tue Jan 12 07:38:03 MST 2010
While shoe makers are common in the 19th century - there would seem to be
very few named William LOE. There would seem to be very few people call
William LOE (or LOWE or LOW) born circa 1840 at all. On looking through the
census entries for William from 1841 through 1911 (can't find him for sure
in 1861), there would seem to be a very good seam - especially from 1871
when he married Frances Phoebe DUNNELL (1845-1906). To increase the surety
of the 1851 -> 1871 gap I would need to see their certificate of marriage
I'd be happier to see him as a shoe maker in the 1861 census - something I'm
currently looking for. So far I've found a butcher - but not a shoe maker.
From: apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org
[mailto:apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org] On Behalf Of LBoswell
Sent: 12 January 2010 13:54
To: CL Swope (alfonsa); APG LIST as of Summer 2009
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census, birth
place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
Short answer is that there is enough consistency throughout the entries to
say that it could possibly be the same individual, but not enough to say
that it is for certain. Definitely he looks to be the same individual, but
the name isn't that uncommon, and neither is the occupation of shoemaker.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CL Swope (alfonsa)" <alfonsa at cynthiaswope.com>
To: "APG LIST as of Summer 2009" <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:29 PM
Subject: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census, birth place
discrepancies. Ignore previous.
>I neglected to put place of birth ofr the 1851 census and have corrected
>and am resending. Please ignore previous post of same name.
> Might someone be able to tell me if the data here makes sense as possibly
> the same man. I am working with areas I am unfamiliar with and don't know
> if it makes sense or not.
> I'd like to confirm that it makes sense that the William Loe of the 1871,
> 81 91 and 1901 censuses (shoemaker) could be the William LOW of 1841 and
> 1851 (son of a shoemaker) , and the William LOE born 1940 from Free BMD
> (first entry in list below)
> William LOE born 1840, Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar ; District:
> Lambeth County: Greater London, London, Surrey (from Ancestry.com's Free
> BMD "England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915" database)
> 1841census. Civil parish: Lambeth Hundred: Brixton (Eastern Division)
> County/Island: Surrey; Registration district: Lambeth Sub-registration
> district: Kennington Second.
> William LOW, 1 year old , in home of James LOW (shoe maker) .
> 1851 census. Civil parish: Shoreditch-Ecclesiastical parish: St
> John-County/Island: Middlesex; Registration district:
> Shoreditch-Sub-registration district: Hoxton Old Town-ED, institution, or
> vessel: 8
> William LOW, 11, born Shoreditch, Middlesex, England, son in home of James
> LOW (shoe maker)
> 1871 census. London, Bethnal Green.
> household of William LOE, 31, born Surrey, England, shoe maker.
> 1881 census. Surrey, England. Civil Parish: Croyden, Town or village:
> Croydon; Urban Sanitary District: Croydon
> household of William Loe, 41, born Stockwell, Surrey, England, shoemaker
> 1891 census. Northamptonshire-Civil Parish: St Sepulchres;
> William LOE, Head, male 51, Shoemaker, born Stockwell, Surrey
> 1901 census. Northamptonshire , St Sepulchre (Civil) Parish.
> William Loe, male 61, Shoemaker, Stitchman, Hand sewn, Worker ("Employer,
> Worker or Own account"), Working at home, Born: Stockwell.
> For those familiar with the regions ...does this look the same man? There
> are obvious discrepancies. Can they be accounted for?
> Thanks for any insight or guidance
More information about the APGPublicList