RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: b.c.rayson on Monday 26 February 07 17:06 GMT (UK)
-
Can anyone help ? They were both born around 1819-20, he in Westminster and she in Whitechapel - St.George in the East. I am anxious to discover her maiden name. They were married in Whitechapel in 1851 and credits are needed to obtain her name. She always seemed to be ' looking after ' children, described as stepchildren or a granddaughter on the Census returns and it would be helpful to establish just what the connection was. One was definitely my ancestor and two others might have been related to some of mine.
Many thanks.
-
Hello,
have you looked on Free BMD - there is an 1851 marriage in Whitechapel for Charles Ballard - a possible bride being Elizabeth Barnes. Unfortunately however there are 6 bridegrooms and 4 brides! Does this name connect at all to the names you have?
It might be worth just going for the certificate.
best wishes
heywood
-
you would think that the Chivers children were Eliza's as they are listed as Charles' stepchildren. Do you know definitely that they were married in 1851? There is a Chivers in 1851 who could fit some of the criteria- will keep looking.
-
I'm not sure with your original question how much you actually know.
Eliza is with a grandaughter at one time- Lydia Phipps - she seems to be the daughter of Mary Ann Chivers and William Phipps.
I found the 1851 Chivers in 1861 so can't be her. Oddly can't find Frederick Chivers in 1851 and he should be there.
-
Well I can't think what to do.
I have tried to find something otu by searching for Frederick from 1861 census- no joy! Then looked for all sorts of clues- still nothing.
I can only say that if you are sure of your marriage dates- get a certificate or pay the credits - it will be much easier!
Bests wishes
heywood
-
thought I'd have another quick look- bearing in mind you may already have all this!
Charles is perhaps married to another Elizabeth in 1851- found one born Westminster, a cab driver -as he is- but a few years older. Wife is older again so don't think it's the same one.
However, if it is your Charles and he and Eliza married 1851 then he would have to be quick!
Wouldn't you just know it- the only Eliza Chivers I can find is married to a Charles!
-
Thanks for all your efforts. i don't know if this will go through as all attempts today have failed. Just posted a general apology for failing to reply to you and Maz1 who also replied.
All the info: you sent is the same as I have - it's Eliza Ballard's maiden name I'm looking for as think she may have been a Chivers originally or married to one before Ballard marriage - they were neither of them very young in 1851 so possible a 2nd marriage for her, just to complicate matters.
Anyway, thanks again.
-
Yes I wondered that.
May I just ask - you say they were married in 1851- how do you know? And if you do know - why don't you send for the certificate?
That seems to easy a solution so obviously not the one
take care
heywood
-
Hi,
Thanks. Don't want to get the certificate until I'm sure of a connection - too many already and not enough £7.00's to spare at present. !
-
Righto- I understand that- bu twhat I am really saying is that you said 'they were married in Whitechapel in 1851' do you know this or are you just assuming that they did?
I have just checked the full BMD for June quarter 1851 (Charles Ballard is on Free BMD June 1851- Whitechapel ) no Eliza Chivers - well there is one but she is in Marlborough -not yours.
-
From IGI
Marriage 26 May 1851 Spitalfields Christ Church, Stepney
Charles Ballard & Mary Ann Hutton
-
Hi dawnsh,
do you know I don't think I checked IGi for the marriage - however b c rayson is looking for an Eliza. It is such a bother - trying to trace Frederick CHivers in 1851 - feel that he would answer a few questions!
take care
heywood
-
Hi Heywood,
Yes Frederick is a nuisance ! In fact all the Chivers ' are !!! BTW, Lydia Phipps is NOT Eliza Ballard's granddaughet - I don't care what the cenus return says. They all said the first thing that came into their heads which is why we all have such trouble with ancestry.
Regards, BCR
-
Oh no! - and I feel I know them so well!!
perhaps then Mary Ann is no relation.
to date:
1861 census Mary Ann Chivers 10 yrs stepdaughter to Eliza
1867: marriage William Phipps and Mary Ann Chivers (possible bride)
1871: William Phipps and Mary A Phipps 19yrs plus daughters - Emma R aged 2 yrs and Lydia 2 months
1881: Mary, Emma and Lydia are visiting William and Emmeline Folkard and family - whoever they may be.
1891: Lydia Phipps 20 yrs - 'grandaughter' to ELiza Ballard.
I agree with dodgy relationships- often 'step' and 'in law' were interchanged but the details above do follow through to some sort of relationship.
regards
Kath
-
Hi Kath,
Thanks for that reply. I don't know who the Folkard's are, either, but traced them via Census etc. from their origins in East Anglia to London and it meant absolutely nothing ! There were 2 Mary Ann Chivers in the same area with same d.o.b's. Makes it much more interesting, doesn't it ! This is why I want to try and find the maiden name of Eliza Ballard. The Mary Ann who married William Phipps belongs to me, as it were, and have heard from a distant cousin that someone contacted him, claiming ' his ' Mary Ann was ours. Looked at his tree on Ancestry and he has mixed them up - correct parents for ' our ' Mary Ann but he has ' married ' her to a different person, i.e. not William Phipps. Sent him a message telling him but think he is either offended or doesn't believe me as no reply. I'm beginning to feel I know you quite well, also.
Regards, Brenda
-
Hi Brenda,
So.... if Mary Ann Chivers who married William Phipps is yours - then Lydia must be yours if she is Eliza's 'grandchild' .
I know I must seem obsessed about certificates - the marriage cert would have her father - if she has one.
There is a marriage 1871 - Mary Ann Chivers to Trevannion Stephen Lowen 1871 Bethnal Green who I suspect is the 'other' Mary Ann but this would not then link Lydia and Eliza! What a mess!!
speak to you later no doubt!
-
Have tracked Mary Ann Lowen and in 1881 she has a sister Caroline Chivers with her - so I know she doesn't need discounting but she can be now.
-
Hi Kath,
Thanks for your 2 messages. Yes, it's a nightmare !. Lydia Phipps is
my grandmother, actually, so I know she was not the granddaughter of Eliza Ballard. I have her birth and marriage certificates anyway. The Mary Ann Lowen is the ' other ' one and I am interested in that 1881 entry you found showing the sister Caroline Chivers. If she is the one born in 1850 then she is a sister to ' my ' Mary Ann and not to the other Mary Ann, but probably her sister-in-law. Oh, what a tangled web we weave etc. !!!
Am sure I will be in touch again.
Brenda
-
Caroline is here in 1881 RG11; Piece: 317; Folio: 12; Page: 18
I did look back for her and she is the daughter of John and Charlotte. Mary Ann and Caroline are with the family in 1851 but Mary Ann is not there in 1861.She is possibly a servant with the Grist family.
I know it's none of my business but how do you know that Eliza is not grandmother when Lydia for whatever reason is clearly with her in 1891 census.
-
There is a possibility that Frederick and Mary Ann Chivers were already stepchildren to Charles when he married Eliza. However if Mary Ann was born around 1851 - Charles would then have to be widowed and remarried within the years to 1861.
-
Hi Kath,
Thanks for your latest messages. Taking the later one first, yes, I had already thought that one of them might have been married previously, hence the quest for Eliza's maiden name and the possible relationship to the Chivers family OR Charlotte, Mary Ann's mother's family.
Re: the 1st message. ' My ' Mary Ann's mother was Charlotte and her husband, William Phipps ' mother was Rebecca; I have various certificates and baptism records including records for Charlotte Chivers family back to 1750. As Wiliam Phipps died in an accident in 1874 I suspect Lydia was
' farmed out ' , possibly with her older sister, at some time, to ease the burden on the widowed mother. There was talk within the family of the hard life Mary Ann Phipps had endured ' with no husband '. The 10-year gap between Census returns is the bugbear of genealogy as so much happened that we cannot trace. Oh well, back to the drawing board !
Regards, Brenda
-
Hi Brenda,
Yes I agree back to the drawing board. I have exhausted the records that I can see and I have to say that without the benfit of your paperwork - all censuses point to the Ballard connection for Mary Ann. Her birth is c 1852 on censuses whilst Mary Ann Lowen- with the Caroline connection is c1848.
Therefore my logic is that as Mary Ann 1852 is the mother of Lydia and Lydia is with Eliza and Mary Ann was with Eliza - that is pretty good evidence of connection.
Caroline is connected to Lowen as his sister in law and she is single so back track her to John and Charlotte and their Mary Anne.
There could be two John Chivers - both with daughters Mary Ann - if her dad is given as John on the marriage certificate to William Phipps.
Yes it is complicated and perhaps time to start again!
best wishes and if there is anything I can help with- please get back- although I do seem to be a thorn in your side- sorry- don't mean to be.
take care
Kath
-
1881
Eliza Balard - 63 - born St George in the East
RG11/339
Folio 12
Page 17
6, Grays Inn Passage
-
"Suffolk Sue ",
Many thanks - have not seen that spelling previously so it might be helpful.
Regards, Brenda
1881
Eliza Balard - 63 - born St George in the East
RG11/339
Folio 12
Page 17
6, Grays Inn Passage
-
Hi Kath,
Not a thorn in my side by any means. It's useful to swop ideas with someone else even if the brickwall doesn't disappear. ' My ' Mary Ann was definitely born in 1848 (25th Feb) but, as we know, they none of them seemed sure when or where they were born AND they told ' porkies ' in my opinion - whatever the census taker wanted to hear or maybe he couldn't read his own notes in the evening when he filled in the ' proper ' forms! I have one who was born, lived and married in a particular area of London, moved after marriage to another area, gave correct p.o.b. on the next 3 census returns then on the 4th return, gave a totally different area, miles away from real place, wasn't working there and his wife didn't come from the quoted area, either !!! Am convinced they did it deliberately to confuse those coming later.
If I solve it, I'll let you know. In the meantime, thanks for all the time you've spent on it.
Best wishes, Brenda
-
A big longshot
1851
William BETTS - 47 - sawyer - born Wapping
Sarah - BETTS - wife - 39 - born Sussex
Thomas J. SKINNER - 9 - wifes son - born Holborn
Frederick BARRARD -11 months - visitor - born Bethnal Green
HO 107/1539 - Bethnal Green
Folio 21
Page 35
-
Hello BCR - Just a little thing but I found my Benjamin Ballard under Ballad - no doubt you have already checked this spelling. Good luck..........
-
just to say that over the last days I have checked Elizas, Fredericks, Mary Anns etc of all shapes and sizes. I would be thrilled if someone could come up with something to help Brenda to solve this! These bloomin' ancestors!!
best wishes to all
heywood
-
Hi,
That might not be such a long shot ! There's plenty of 'dodgy ' spelling in all the Census returns and the age is about right although how an 11 month-old child can be a visitor with no parents etc. is beyond me - looks as though he was dumped BUT the p.o.b.and d.o.b. are right. Will have to explore this one.
Many thanks indeed,
Brenda
-
Thanks Emmeline - will keep that one in mind, just in case.
-
Hi Kath,
Thanks for that. Have you seen the new mesage from Suffolk Sue ? Looks very promising !
B
-
yes- am on the case!!
-
I keep thinking - stop - there's not much more we can do. But as I said I have looked at and dismissed several (hopefully not the right one) for all sorts of reasons. I have been interested in Charles and thought I would publish this to see what you all think.
1841: HO107/737/14 (Westminstert John the Envangelist)
Charles Ballard 20 yrs cabdriver
1851 HO107; Piece: 1480; Folio: 645; Page: 28
Charles Ballard 36 yrs cabdriver b Westminster St Johns
Elizabeth Ballard 46 yrs b Surrey Lambeth
**at this time Mary Ann Chivers aged 3 yrs at home with John and Charlotte
1854- a death for an Elizabeth Ballard, Whitechapel - no age but perhaps?
1861: RG9; Piece: 106; Folio: 35; Page: 1
Charles 42 yrs horsekeeper
Eliza 40 yrs
Frderick 12 yrs
Mary Ann 10 yrs
at this time Mary A Chivers 13 yrs is a servant with the Grists at RG9; Piece: 257; Folio: 29; Page: 16
is this John and Charlotte's Mary Ann?
Frederick and Mary Ann Chivers seem to be siblings - why do they have that name?
This Mary Ann (according to the ages) marries William Phipps.
The other one according to the ages marries Trevannion Lowen.
Were they just 'farmed out' - does 'step' mean adopted and are they no relation to Charles or Eliza?
How many more questions could we ask re their circumstances?
I'm having a coffee!
best wishes
Kath
-
Hi Kath,
Ballard seemed to be a common name; the cabdriver & wife are the wrong pair, as ages wrong for the 1861 and, according to the 1861, he was a horsekeeper, 2 years older than his wife, so it would be the 2nd pair you have listed. Eliza Ballard - the one I am interested in - was still
' alive & kicking ' on the 1891 so she cannot be the one who died in 1854. I feel the Mary Ann Chivers listed on the 1861 with her brother (?) Frederick is not the one who was the daughter of John & Charlotte Chivers, who didn't have a son Frederick anyway. I have the birth certificate of the one I am interested in. Chivers was also a common name and ' Mary Ann ' commoner still ! ' My Mary Ann ' married William Phipps and the other one married the man with the strange name of Trevannian Lowen, therefore they must be two different people. Am rapidly coming to the conclusion this may never be solved, although I will have a look at Suffolk Sue's Frederick Barrard as soon as I get time. Have another task to complete first but will come back to you a.s.a.p. and keep an eye on the postings.
Will also have a coffee but need aspirin to go with it !
Regards, Brenda
-
I think the Charles Ballard (1851) is maybe the right one, but maybe with first "wife". I am beginning to doubt that this chap ever married.
Census ages can be variable, so a slight difference of a few years from census to census isn't unusual.
This is really bugging me and really want to get to the bottom of it.
:'( :'( :'( :'(
I am even starting to dream about them ;D ;D
-
I am of the mind of Sue- I think the ages don't really count - cabs were horsedrawn so you could easily move between driving and caring for the horses.
Elizabeth (older) is I think a different woman to Eliza and did perhaps die then the newer model comes along- with the Chivers children - unless as we said they are Charles' stepchildren from an earlier relationship. As Brenda has said 10 years between censuses is a long time to get into relationships.
I am assuming (how foolish!) that Frederick aged 12 yrs and Mary Ann aged 10 yrs with Charles and Eliza are siblings.
I am still of the firm opinion that it is this Mary Ann (Eliza)who marries Phipps - it is too much of a coincidence that Eliza Ballard lives with a Mary Ann Chivers born c1851 and then several years later Mary Ann (same age) marries and has Lydia who then turns up with Eliza.
On the other hand Mary Ann b 1848 with a sister Caroline marries Trevannion and these three are found together in later years.
There is I think a Frederick Ballard of the right age in BMDs but then why would he turn up as Chivers - no reason why not to but just why?
Why? Why? Why?
more caffeine needed!
Kath
-
I know this is probably a totally and utterly ridiculous longshot but in 1871 there is
Frederick SKINNER aged 23yrs, born Bethnal Green, journeyman
RG10/161 - St. Marylebone
Folio 96
Page 38
in case our Fred might be using the name in the 1851 family.
Desperately clutching at straws now.
or....
Maybe Charles Ballards first "partner" was a Chivers and that is how the kids got their surname.
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
yes- that's what I have wondered- amongst all the other musings. I think I have seen the Skinner one- I have searched for Frederick/ Fred/Fredrick/ Chivers/Chevers and any other variation I can think of. I have looked for Bethnal Green/ Whitechapel/ Westminster etc a bit like the old song - 'I've been everywhere man' . I do wish that one of us would have that moment of inspiration when ..... (imagine the music now) and then ...... (big ending)
In the meantime however, I wonder were any 1851 census pages missing for that bit of London? (I know nothing of London- only ever having been on a couple of day visits from 'up north').
take care and good luck
-
I dunno about you but I can't even find the Betts family after 1851,
I am sobbing now.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Can think of no more options, except perhaps a search of parish registers.
-
thought I would just recheck the Betts - found a William Betts aged 6 yrs b Bethnal Green as a visitor with another family. Perhaps they had 'swap your child for the census' days - mmm- now there's a thought.
-
Hi Suffolk Sue,
Don't let my Ballards get to you ! I'm the one who should be tearing my hair out. I'm being fitted for a wig this week !!!
Regards.