[APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,
birth place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
laboswell at rogers.com
Tue Jan 12 08:12:03 MST 2010
Hi, I just went through the census entries myself, and I agree that there
is great consistency between 1841, 1851, and 1861 (though change of name of
his mother from Elizabeth to Ann, but consistent in her age). Children line
up perfectly. The 1841 lists father James as being of the parish in which
the census was taken, then 1851 and 1861 show him as born Hants, but that's
not a problem. People are often incorrectly shown as being of the parish of
residence in the 1841. I think maybe they were new arrivals, nervous about
what it would mean if they said they weren't 'of this parish' to the census
takers (in some cases anyway).
>From 1871 to 1891, again consistency. Once I look at the census records
it's clear that William Loe and Frances remain consistent through 1871-1891
(didn't look further), as do the names, birth dates, and places of birth of
the children, particularly that of daughter Ellen (born Haggerston).. And
the William Loe in those records is likely to be the William in the
1841-1861 entries. Could support the above by referencing other records
(his marriage entry, birth entry, parent's marriage, siblings
births/marriages and so on. Could be an entry for father James re the
hospital, should be a burial/death record).
This family moved around a lot, you can see that from the places of birth.
>From the birth dates of children you can see that they moved to Northampton
between 1881 and 1884.
In 1861 father James appears in Hospital for Consumption & Diseases of
Chest. Can't see him in 1871, but will check burial records. By 1871, the
sons listed previously are all shown as servants, apprentices, or similar.
The butcher that you noted is highly likely William Loe. Apprenticeship
records should show them. Looks like once the father was ill and likely
deceased places were found for the sons. Didn't track the mother
So in answer to the original question, given the consistencies in
wives/children across the two generations, and being able to track the
families movements, it's clear that the evidence supports that the entries
are one and the same person.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Gray" <Christopher.Gray at Newscope-Solutions.co.uk>
To: "'APG LIST as of Summer 2009'" <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,birth
place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
> 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
> 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
> 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
> currently looking for. So far I've found a butcher - but not a shoe
> -----Original Message-----
> 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,
> 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
> 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
>> 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