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

LBoswell laboswell at rogers.com
Tue Jan 12 17:44:03 MST 2010


I just was looking at non-Conformist records, trying to explain why the 
family baptized children long after their birth, and it seems they might be 
non-Anglican.  I've seen this sort of thing when parents ignored civil 
registration, or had children born just before it.  They sometimes baptize 
them again in the Anglican church, with birth dates noted.  In the early 
years of civil registration in the UK there were a lot of rumours floating 
around.

On your question, you widen the scope of what you're looking for.  Look for 
a birth registration or a baptismal registration, marriage registrations for 
siblings later.  You rarely are working forward in time like we did today. 
Normally you'd be working backwards in time (working from unknown to known 
is not a recommended approach), so you'd already have some information on 
the family members to guide you.  You'd likely already know that son William 
married Francis Dunnell (from the couple's children's birth registrations 
and later marriage registrations).

So working backwards, you'd look for the marriage registration that matched 
the children's information, which here would be William Loe and Frances 
Dunnell.  Then using the father's name, look for census entries that 
conformed (as we did moving forward through the censuses, but in reverse). 
Then birth index entries (since William's birth fell after Civil 
Registration), and if London look at the online registers for a matching 
entry that will have both parent's names (or send for the birth 
certificate).

But working forward is no different (just subject to more possible errors) 
in the sense that you have an ultimate more modern family that you want to 
link to.  The line forward should take you to those individuals later.  It's 
like the old adding and subtracting thing kids are taught.  Subtract, then 
add to check the sum matches. If you followed the wrong line forward, it's 
probable that you won't end up with the known more modern family.

But there can be families that are almost identical in birth years and how 
they named children, if the fathers are cousins, and that can be a trap.  Or 
worse, if they aren't related at all.  I just had 3 Norwegians, named 
identically  BHH (just initials to protect client info) all emigrated to 
Canada within a couple of years, all born in 1882, two homesteading within 
20 miles of each other in Sask Canada, and one just over the border in 
Manitoba. Two of them married to Mathildas born in matching years.  One HBH 
showed an accurate birth date on the 1911 CDN census, but the other HBH's 
date matched the known baptism date of the former (all in 1882)!

They also travelled back and forth to Norway multiple times (the males) to 
work in CDA before finally emigrating.  Quite fun that one was.  I still get 
nervous about whether I've sorted it, but the key was Norwegian police 
emigrant checks.

I think when you have similarly named individuals with different parents you 
have to widen the scope of your investigation, and carefully account for 
your conclusions

Larry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eileen Souza" <eileen.souza at verizon.net>
To: "'APG LIST as of Summer 2009'" <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, 
census,birthplace discrepancies. Ignore previous.


>I looked in the responses and no one has mentioned this.  The 1841 UK 
>census
> lists two William Lows both born in 1840 of different parents.  Both 
> listed
> as born in Surrey and both living in Lambeth, Surrey for this census. I am
> sure Cynthia has the information she needs but I am curious as a learning
> experience.  When you are researching for a client and find something like
> this, what do you do?
>
> Eileen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org
> [mailto:apgpubliclist-bounces at apgen.org] On Behalf Of LBoswell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:16 PM
> To: CL Swope (alfonsa); APG LIST as of Summer 2009
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,
> birthplace discrepancies. Ignore previous.
>
> Hi,  I sent you a longer reply off list, but I wouldn't discount the idea
> that they simply didn't marry until 1871, yet had children before that.
> Looks like his father died in that period.  There could be any number of
> reasons why that situation would occur.  Sometimes a family member is dead
> set against a marriage.  Or financial reasons.  It's impossible to say. 
> No
> variation of William Loe brings up a marriage record, but given there are 
> up
>
> to a million entries missing from the marriage index, not surprising if
> there was one that doesn't show.
>
> However, the London marriage records that Ancestry has now from the London
> Metropolitan aren't from the GRO, and I'm finding that they are far more
> complete. And I checked all the possible Wm Loe(s)/Low  but each can be
> accounted for.  I think the evidence suggests that they didn't marry until
> after the birth of two children.  Far more common a situation than you 
> would
>
> imagine.  At least until you find evidence to the contrary, the fact of
> "bachelor" plus the lack of any other marriage entry is suggestive that
> there wasn't a first marriage.
>
> I have a couple of more sources that I can check.  And I think one entry 
> on
> freebmd where the female names were missing, that I think can be
> cross-referenced to the Ancestry list, but so far not a single entry that
> would suggest a prior marriage.
>
> Always seems there's a puzzle like this that won't resolve easy, eh?
>
> best
>
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "CL Swope (alfonsa)" <alfonsa at cynthiaswope.com>
> To: "APG LIST as of Summer 2009" <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Question on London, England, census,
> birthplace discrepancies. Ignore previous.
>
>
>> 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