[APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,
birth place discrepancies. Ignore previous.
laboswell at rogers.com
Tue Jan 12 09:53:07 MST 2010
Missed your email on this, and submitted my own version after yours, sorry
about that. I think it has to be correct, it's in the same location as the
1871 census entry. But it raises one problem in that it means that the
marriage would have taken place 3 years after the birth of the first child.
Can't see an online baptismal record for the children. A record for the
first born child would be interesting, to see if same mother. I think a
birth certificate for that first child (William jr) would be necessary for
----- 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.
> -----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
> 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