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

CL Swope (alfonsa) alfonsa at cynthiaswope.com
Tue Jan 12 12:53:20 MST 2010


Larry,
I've written to you and Chris separately on this but will repeat here 
for the group at large. I have to thank all who have answered. The help 
has been tremendous.

I have found the baptismal record and marriage record (digitized) and 
thanks to you and the several who let me know they are available.

You are correct that the marriage to Frances Dunnell had to have been a 
second one. The presence of Wm and Ellen, the eldest children of William 
Loe's 1871 and 1881 census predate that marriage.
The problem though is that Wm is listed a bachelor, and his wife Frances 
a spinster in that marriage record (digitized within 'London, England, 
Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921' via ancestry.com)
In the 1881 census there is Joseph Loe, 3 months old. This is my 
husband's great grandfather.  He lived and died in England.
Frances and William Loe, the parents, died in Harbrough Market, 
Northamptonshire.
Joseph Loe has four encountered manifests of travel to the US spanning 
from 1906 to 1950. In one, Joseph of Northamptonshire  mentions his next 
of kin as "father William Loe of Market Harbrough". In another, he is 
traveling to "Sister Ellen Credden (or Crudden) of Newcombe NY". This 
would be the second child of the 1871 and 1881 census, and older half 
sister to the traveler. In a third, he is going to  an uncle , whose 
name is not entirely legible, in Newcombe NY. In the last he is 
travelling to Springfield Ohio. This is where his son, who did emigrate 
to the US, was living, and where my husband's mother was born.

So, the Joseph Loe of 1881 census is surely the man of the manifests as 
above. But who mothered his eldest  (half) siblings is completely 
unknown to me. I would think the marriage would have occured before the 
ca 1868 birth of the eldest child in the censuses, William (3 in 1871, 
13 in 1881). From the below, it seems likely it occurred before 1867.

In searching for data on William to elucidate, I have found this 1901 
census:
1901 UK Census-Raunds, Northamptonshire, England
Street: Grove Street
HEAD: William J Loe  33, married male, Shoe Maker who works at home,  
born Hoxton, London, England
Elizabeth Loe  32, wife, married aged 32, shoe bo*tree (maker slashed 
out) , works at home, born Hoxton, London, England
William F Loe  8, son, single male aged 8 born 
Northampton,Northamptonshire, England
James J Loe  5, son, single male born Northampton,Northamptonshire, England
Arthur Loe  1, son, single male born Northampton,Northamptonshire, England
George W Allen   31, boarder, single male shoemaker, works at home, born 
Ravenstone, Buckinghamshire, England
John Chaplin  35 boarder, single male shoemaker, works at home, born 
Olney, Buckinghamshire, England
(Class: RG13; Piece: 1454; Folio: 57; Page: 37.) [Registration 
district:   Thrapston ; Sub-registration district:  Raunds ED, 
institution, or vessel:  6;  Household schedule number:   254]

In BMDbirth index there is
Name: William Joseph Loe ;   Year of Registration: 1867  ;  Quarter: 
Jul-Aug-Sep; District:    Shoreditch;   County:   London, Middlesex

Also, The marriage of William Joseph Loe is found in BMDmarriage index. 
[Entered on same page in marriage for 1888 in Northampton, 
Northamptonshire, England Register (quarter July/Aug/Sept) are William 
Joseph Loe and Elizabeth Shrives (Volume:   3b; Page:  116 )]

As for Ellen, Joseph's older sister to whom he traveled, she's been hard 
to discover in stateside census.

Cynthia



LBoswell wrote:
> 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 that reason.
>
> Larry
> ----- 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>




CL Swope (alfonsa) wrote:
> 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