RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Kent Lookup Requests => Kent => England => Kent Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Lynn H on Sunday 30 December 07 13:18 GMT (UK)
-
Please can someone give me some advice on how to find the birth of my great grandmother Ada Beatrice Foord's Father? His name is Albert William or William Albert Foord. He was living at 103 Church Rd Murston, district Milton in Kent in 1881 when Ada was born. but i can't find him before that.
Any help would be most appreciated.
Thankyou.
Lynn.
-
Hi Lynn,
According to the 1891 census (do you have the details?) he was born ca. 1863 Maidstone.
He married Emma Foster in Dec quarter 1880 Milton registration district 2a 1406. The marriage cert would tell you his father's name (hopefully).
:)
I suppose you have him in 1881?
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=uki1881&indiv=try&h=8414310
-
complementing Tatis info - heres the newly weds in 1881
RG11/974; Folio: 20; Page: 5
Murston Road
William A. Foord 18 Head Brickfield Labourer Maidstone
Emma Foord 20 Wife
PS. I see she editted it in later .... sorry :-[
-
1871 - RG10/73; Folio: 86; Page: 39 - Chelsea, with an Aunt & Uncle
24 Beaufort Street
Edward Hughes 43 Head Clerk to E(ast) I(ndia) Merchant born Marylebone
Harriett Hughes 44 Wife Maidstone
Edward R Hughes 19 son Clerkenwell
William A Hughes 17 son Islington
William Foord 9 Nephew Maidstone
Eliza Dizon 13 Servant
-
(Hi Newf :))
There's a possible boy in 1871:
RG10/73 86 39
Chelsea, London
Beaufort St
Edward Hughes, head, 43, Clerk to ? ? Merchant, b. Marylebone
Harriett, wife, 44, b. Kent Maidstone
(2 children age 19 and 17)
William Foord, nephew, 9, scholar, b. Kent Maidstone
Oops, sorry N, I just hit the post button :P :P
-
Bonjour Tati ;)
-
There's a marriage Mar 1851 St Geo Hanover Square Edward Hughes to possibly Harriet/t Foord :)
-
FreeBMD isnt showing a Foord birth in Maidstone RD with the right forenames 1859 to 1864 :(
-
Harriet neé Foord from Maidstone had a few male siblings in 1841 census ... all old enough to be your mans father ...
HO107/490/2; Maidstone District: 5; Folio: 38; Page: 23
Marsham Street
Robert Foord 45 Journeyman Plumber
Ann Foord 46
John Foord 19 Plumber
Ann Foord 17
Harriet Foord 15
Tryphenah Foord 12
Charles Foord 10
Ellen Foord 7
William Foord 6
Alfred Foord 3
-
There's this birth ...
Albert William Foord Gawler
Jun 1863
Maidstone 2a 511
???
-
So, if you take Tati's advice and get the 1880 Marriage Cert, and William's father is one of the bro's of Harriet, then we can focus in ...
-
Thankyou all for the information. I will take your advice Tati and see where that leads me. If you find anything else on this family, please keep me in mind.
Again, Thankyou so much.
Lynn.
Happy New Year :) :) :)
-
I'm a bit worried after finding the Gawler birth I must say. If he was illegitimate who knows how reliable the father named on the marriage cert will be :-\
-
Hi Tati, Don't be worried about the Gawler find. It is very possibly the one that we have been looking for. I'll let you know the outcome.
Thankyou soooooo much. ;D ;D ;D
Lynn.
-
First, by way of introduction, I am Lynn's cousin. We just connected a few months ago, and I have been working on this line for a long (and I mean long!) time. Just to cover a few details, we do know that William Albert's father was James Foord based on his marriage (which does not list his mother) to Emma Foster. With the exception of "Tati", I want to thank everyone for offering help. Unfortunately we have followed all of those leads, and proven them inaccurate. Now, specifically to Tati......I am close to 100% sure that you have it right, and I don't think I can possibly express my gratitude deeply enough. I have, literally, been working on this for years, even to the point of going through every single page in the census of both Maidstone and Murston in the hope of finding a near illegible entry and/or transcription error. I have no idea how you managed to find this (how did you?), but again, how can I say thanks. It proves the point that everyone's opinion is important, that we are all in this genealogy pursuit together, and that we should never give up! I am ordering the certificate today, and hopefully it will provide his mother's name. It is pretty clear that he was illegitimate, and likely distressed by it since he reverted back to the Foord surname when he married. Again, on behalf of Lynn and myself, our deepest thanks, with a special salute to Tati...Larry Foord
-
Some BMD indexes ie. freebmd at http://www.ancestry.co.uk (not necessarily complete) can be searched with a second name as a forename ie. a search for "foord gawler" turns up:
Albert William Foord GAWLER 1863 Maidstone
James Foord GAWLER 1851 Bridge
Maria Foord GAWLER 1855 Bridge
Sarah Foord GAWLER 1849 Bridge
Adelaide Foord GAWLER 1853 Bridge
They look a good match for the following family.
1851
North Lane, Westgate Without, Canterbury
James FOORD head mar 34 general dealer b.Wingham Kent
Sarah wife 23 b.Canterbury
Caroline dau 3 b.Canterbury
Sarah dau 21m b.Canterbury
HO107/1623 folio 148 page 3
........................
1861
6 Jeffery Street, Maidstone
James FOORD head mar 40 fishmonger b.Canterbury
Sarah wife 31 b.Canterbury
Caroline dau 13 b.Canterbury
Sarah dau 11 b.Canterbury
James 9 b.Canterbury
Adelaide dau 7 b.Canterbury
Maria dau 5 b.Canterbury
George son 6m b.Maidstone
RG9/503 folio 12 page 17
..........................
Casalguidi :)
-
OOh Casalguidi - with a father James that's a great find! So instead of being illegitimate the whole family just dropped the Gawler :D :D
Larry - thanks for being so happy :D :D I hope it won't despair you that the birth was quite easy to find - well now that FreeBMD is nearly complete anyway. I just searched for an Albert William (no surname) registered in Maidstone between 1860 and 1864 :)
-
First, by way of introduction, I am Lynn's cousin. We just connected a few months ago, and I have been working on this line for a long (and I mean long!) time. Just to cover a few details, we do know that William Albert's father was James Foord based on his marriage (which does not list his mother) to Emma Foster. With the exception of "Tati", I want to thank everyone for offering help. Unfortunately we have followed all of those leads, and proven them inaccurate.
What a pity that Lynn didnt know you had the marriage cert ........ ::)
So does the Cert confirm that James was a Fishmonger or later occupation in the 1871/81 census ?
-
Amazing work "casalguidi"...and many thanks for enlightening me on the search technique. I am almost sure you are right on.....one small issue though. One my "techniques" in looking for Albert William was to build files on families, which I had done for James the fishmonger. He died on the 19th Nov 1862 at Maidstone (I have the certificate, which clarifies both his street address and occupation). This does not preclude him being Albert's father (Albert born June 1863). I have since also found Albert William Foord Gawler in the 1871 census for Teynham, as "William Gowler", nephew, correct age and birthplace, living with "Alvan Gowler"...there are transcripion errors here (Gowler should Gawler, and Alvan should be Abraham). So......and this is speculation....if James who died 1862, is the father, it is very logical that the children would have been sent to live with relatives. And "Tati" how could I despair! I am sure you can only imagine my joy! It is comforting (for easier research purposes) to know he wasn't illegitimate. And for what it's worth, today is my birthday....WOW, what present. I am off now to my lawyers, Casalguidi and Tati are now in my will!
Larry
-
Larry!! ;D ;D ;D
-
what was James occupation actually shown as on Albert / Williams 1880 marriage cert ?
Saw 'sister' Adelaide in Canterbury workhouse in 1871 :(
-
No, James' occupation was not shown on Albert Williams marriage certificate, and only his father (not his mother) is listed. James' occupation as fishmonger is shown on his death certificate. And interestingly, the Adelaide in the workhouse rings a bell.....I have to go back to my old notes, so this is supposition only, but if I recall right I had big problems finding what became of James' family after his death.
-
Yes, sadly English/Welsh MCerts only had provision for Fathers details.
Adelaide was the only one I found in 1871, I was hoping young George would be around and lead us to others - didnt check deaths, ....... but at least you have found your chap !
Nice website btw :)
-
It looks as if James FOORD and Sarah GAWLER weren't married - baptisms of some of their "GAWLER" children appear on the IGI http://www.familysearch.org and there is a death registered for Sarah GAWLER in the Maidstone registration district 1866 age 36 which just might fit http://freebmd.rootsweb.com
Yes, lovely website - I think you have enough to update it now ;)
Casalguidi :)
-
With all the research you've done Larry, I expect you've already found this but thought I would post anyway now I've found it ;)
1871
6 Bombe? Alley, Maidstone
William H CLEGG head mar 23 waterman b.Maidstone
Caroline wife 23 b.Canterbury
Elizabeth A C dau 1 b.Maidstone
Sarah A CAULFIELD lodger mar 21 soldier's wife b.Canterbury
William J lodger 2 b.Maidstone
RG10/940 folio 45 page 13
Caroline FOORD married (one of the two possible spouses) William Henry CLEGG Maidstone registration district 1873 http://freebmd.rootsweb.com
Sarah Ann FOORD married Thomas CAULFIED at St Paul, Chatham 29 Sep 1868
http://www.rootschat.com/links/02fx/
Casalguidi :)
-
Hi,
I can't believe this, i go out for a bit of retail theropy and when i get back my whole world has changed, and all the hard work has been done for me.
How can i thank you all for this. I'ts brilliant.
Thankyou so much.
Lynn.
-
Just mind boggling how fast this is going......<br><br>First, another tidbit of information. In the 1841 I find James Foord and Susan (Susan, not Sarah) living at the same address (North Lane, Westgate Without). James' age is close enough, but "Susan" is really off. It states 25 (let's keep in mind that the 1841 census takers did a lot of rounding off) which puts her birth year around 1816/17, the same as James'. However, the 1851 and 1861 census shows a considerable difference in James and Sarah's ages. Do you all agree that this is the same James? Would an "educated" guess be that Jame's first wife Susan (I can't find any death reference) died, he replaced her with Sarah but never married? I also think the logic is good that James and Sarah Gawler did not marry, thus their kids were named Foord Gawler. But, if this is the case, where is the logic for the surnames only being Foord in the 1851 and 1861 census? If they had stopped using the Gawler surname and reverted back to just Foord, why is William Albert registered as Gawler in 1863, and appearing in the 1871 census as Gawler. There is curiousity only, I want to have my accuracy as high as possible. Is it because when William went to live with the Gawlers in Teynham prior to 1871, they used his "legal" surname of Gawler, whereas for the sake of daily business (including census) the family had just used Foord prior to James' death in 1862 and Sarah's in 1866?<br>
Second, I can't find Sarah Gawler's parents, however, I can find in both 1861 and 1851 census Robert and Sarah Gawler's son Abraham with whom William lived with in the 1871 census as an uncle. This would mean that Abraham should have had a sister named Sarah (furthermore, she is named after her mother?) but she does not appear in the 1841 census (by 1851 she had married/or was living with James Foord). It is conceiveable that the 1841 census listing in Westgate Without that shows James and Susan is in fact James and Sarah, BUT, there is at minimum (based on later census and the IGI) eleven years difference between James and Sarah, not the same ages as appears in the 1841 census. And if we assume that Susan is really Sarah, would it be logical that they were not married then? And thus, my logic of James' first wife dying and his remarrying Sarah goes out the window??? <br>
Boy, my mind is tired....what do you guys think?<br>
(and casalguidi....thanks for the marriage info, no I did not have that yet!!!)<br>
Larry
-
I think James FOORD possibly married Susan DRAKE in 1837 Canterbury registration district and it is possibly they who appear in the 1841 census at North Lane, Canterbury. What happened to her is, as you say, a mystery at present but I do think it is the same James FOORD as that with Sarah in 1851 and 1861. In 1841, one of James' neighbours is an Elisha HOMERSHAW (or whatever it says) and they are still living next to one another in 1851 so I think it is too much of a co-incidence not to be the same James FOORD. Perhaps James' first wife, Susan, didn't die hence the absence of a marriage to Sarah :-\
I can only guess that the children used the surname FOORD - whose to say that they even knew their parents weren't married if that was the case - but the GAWLERS preferred their relatives to be known as GAWLER (possibly because they legally should have been). I don't think any of us can say for sure but we can just look at the different possibilities/scenarios.
Could this be a possible for your Sarah GAWLER in 1841 I wonder being, as you say, she doesn't appear with her supposed parents, Robert & Sarah, in St Gregory :-\
1841 Prospect Place, St Peter, Thanet
Elizabeth KENNETT 20 charwoman b.Kent
John 9m b.Kent
Sarah GAULLER 12 b.Kent
HO107/468 folio 23 page 4
Casalguidi :)
-
I think I pretty much agree, and while we might never know for sure we must take some "liberties" when doing this kind of work. I have ordered some certificates which do take a few weeks to get here, but they hopefully will confirm a lot of this information. I will have the page updated either later today or tomorrow, and do invite all to critique (please!).
And at the risk of sounding like a broken record....thanks again, very much!
Larry