[APG Public List] Question on London, England, census, birth place discrepancies. Ignore previous.

LBoswell laboswell at rogers.com
Tue Jan 12 08:16:28 MST 2010


Jack you're right, that's the right family in the 1861.  Let's not bury 
James (as I did) prematurely.  Cancel all the apprenticeships. Evict the 
patient. Well done.  I was moving too quickly, seduced by a Hants birth 
place for the James that I found.

Larry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Butler" <jackbutler at shwgenealogy.com>
To: "Christopher Gray" <Christopher.Gray at Newscope-Solutions.co.uk>; "'APG 
LIST as of Summer 2009'" <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,birth 
place discrepancies. Ignore previous.


> William Loe is in the 1861 Census with his parents - the family is indexed 
> as Loes.
>
> Jack Butler
> ----- 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 10:08 AM
> Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,birth 
> place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
>
>
>> I've found the marriage of William LOE to Frances DUNNELL (.via 
>> Ancestry) -
>> 9th August 1871.
>>
>> William LOE of full age - a shoe maker resident in Bethnal Green - father
>> James LOE deceased
>> Frances DUNNELL of full age - resident in Bethnal Green - father Joseph
>> DUNNELL - blacksmith
>>
>> Seems as though the chain is fairly full now - though I'd still like the
>> 1861 census entry to tidy it up.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org
>> [mailto:apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org] On Behalf Of CL Swope (alfonsa)
>> Sent: 12 January 2010 03:29
>> To: APG LIST as of Summer 2009
>> 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)
>>
>> 1840
>> 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
>> Cynthia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 



More information about the APGPublicList mailing list