RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: lilith28 on Tuesday 27 July 10 07:55 BST (UK)
-
Joseph Harbour married Emmy Sands in 1799, Lewes, Sussex. Their son Richard Harbour, b 1813, worked as a baker in Battle. In Oct. 1844 he married Mary Smith, "widow," b. 1810, daughter of William Smith, in Battle. Richard and Mary had two daughters, Emma Harbour (b 1876) and Eliza Harbour(b1878). There is some mystery about two previous children, Amelia Harbour-Cooper (b. 1863, Lewes) and William Frederick Harbour-Cooper (b. 1866) William and Amelia are either the children of Richard Harbour and a woman named Amelia Cooper, or they are the children of Mary Smith and an unknown Cooper male. who later added the Harbour to their Cooper surname because they liked the name. Either Richard or Mary is the step parent of these two. Does anyone have any information regarding this, particularly something confirmed by birth or marriage certificates? Or can you point me in the right direction to search? Any information about the Harbour, Smith, Cooper or Harbour-Cooper family will be greatly appreciated.
-
Welcome to Rootschat!
Can you confirm the dates you are quoting -
Richard born 1813
Richard and MAry married 1844
Richard and Mary had children 1876 and 1878
unusual to wait over 20 years before having family, esp when you're in your 60's.
And then the 2 children with the query about them are born after his marriage to Mary?
-
Here are Richard and Mary in 1881
RG11 1034 13 20
Lake, Battle
Richard 67 Baker bn Lewes
Mary 70 wife bn Battle
seeing Mary's age she is definitely not going to be the mother of any of the children with the birthdates you mention.
Here they are in 1871
RG10 1036 15 21
Upper Lake, Battle
Richard 58 Baker bn Lewes
Mary 60 bn Battle
Jane Grandaughter 9 bn Battle
Can you tell us where you found the children Emma and Eliza, and why you thought they were children of this couple? Also where you found Amelia and William?
-
AHA !!! ;D
All making sense now
I think you just had wrong dob's for the children mentioned
1851
Ho107 1636 404 3
Lake Street Battle
Richard Harbour 40 Baker empl 1 boy and son bn Lewes
Mary wife 41 b Battle
Amelia 18 dtr bn Lewes
William 15 son bn Brighton
Emma 5 dtr bn Battle
Eliza 3 dtr bn Battle
Daniel Tester lodger
Mary Tester lodger.
It looks as if Ameilia and William are his children from a first marriage
1841
HO107 1120 6
High Street Lewes
Richard Harbour 25 Baker Y
Amelia 25 Y
Amelia 6 Y
William 5 Y
the only fly in the ointment is tha I cant see a death for Ameila between 1841-1844 >:(
-
Thank you very much for the help. Sorry to be so much trouble, but have been researching online for the past 16 hours and am totally loopy by this point. Can't see straight let alone do the math!
Glad you found Amelia the mother. Cannot understand why young Amelia and William have Cooper as their last name. Rchard's name Harbour is something they choose to add. Some of William's children used Harbour-Cooper and some did not. Amelia and William's younger siblings by Mary Smith only use the Harbour, so Cooper must have been their mother Amelia's name. Perhaps she and Richard weren't actually married?
Thanks so much for all your help. I've got a long way to go but this is a good beginning.
-
Where have you seen them with Harbour-Cooper surname?
Here is William's christeening
from IGI extracted record
15 Jan 1837
St Nicholas Brighton
William Harbour
parents Richard and Amelia Harbour
-
Connected, perhaps?
Baptism, 2 Sep 1833, Brighton
Frederick John HARBOUR, s/o Frederick Richard HARBOUR and Amelia
-
Seeing the surname of the lodgers, I wonder if this is possibly your Richards marriage (rather than the one to Mary Smith - unless you have that cert and it confirms it for sure). If not, I guess it is someone linked to your lot.
from IGI
extracted
Marriage
26 March 1845
Richard Tester Harber to Mary Chesener
Kirdford Sussex.
-
Seeing the surname of the lodgers, I wonder if this is possibly your Richrds marriage (rather than the one to Mary Smith - unless you have that cert and it confirms it for sure). If not, I guess it is someone linked to your lot.
26 March 1845
Richard Tester Harber to Mary Chesener
Kirdford Sussex.
I initially thought that too - but then found a likely-looking HARBER couple with a Kirdford-born son in 1881: RG11/775/101/10 (also 1861 at RG9/487/64/16).
-
Have to admit I cannot find an SMI marriage for Richard and Amelia.
-
just to complete the set (we have them in 41, 51, 71 81)
1861
RG9 565 4 2
Lake Battle
Richard Harbour 47 Baker bn Lewes
Mary 51 bn Battle
Emma 16 bn Lewes
ELizabeth 12 bn Lewes
Amelia and Wllm have left home
-
Couple of Baptisms
Elizabeth 13 Apr 1856 Battle St Mary (Either this is a late baptism or the year is wrong)
Emma 29 Sep 1844 Battle St Mary
Sean
-
he married Mary Smith, "widow," b. 1810, daughter of William Smith, in Battle.
Mary Smith a widow d/o William Smith
is this right?
i know Smith is a common name
-
There is a baptism for a Mary Smith 30 Mar 1810 Battle St Mary, parents:William & Sarah.
-
HI Swebby thanks, wonder about her previous marriage
-
I wonder if this is the son William (tho' you had a middle name Frederick for him, where did that come from?) in 1861
RG9 603 54 18
High Street Shoreham
William H Harker? 26 Baker empl 1 man bn Brighton
Mary Ann wife 26 bn Hampshire
George Frederick son 4 mths bn Shoreham
Alfred James " nephew unm 19 journeyman baker bn Brighton
Elizabeth Cooper 8 neice bn Brighton
This is the first mention of a Cooper that we have found.
William's surname is indexed Harker, the image leaves me undecided - Harber could well be a possibility.
And we know he worked with his dad training as a Baker from 1851 census
so, back to my previous question - where have you seen him and Amelia as Harber-Cooper?
-
The only marriage I am seeing as a possible is
Jan/Feb/Mar 1859
Bethnal Green 1c 508
William Harber / one of brides on same page Mary A Marshall
out of area, but he may have worked somewhere else first before setting up in Shoreham. Or it may not be the right one. A birth cert for a child would help confirm.
-
George Frederick son 4 mths bn Shoreham
Possible birth reg for the HARKER baby:
Birth, Dec qtr 1860
George Frederic HARKER
Steyning* 2b 216
*correct district for Shoreham
-
This may be our William in 1871:
1871 census: RG10/629/39/19
8 Brook St, Bermondsey
William HARBOUR Head Mar 36 Labourer in saw yard Sussex Battle
Mary do Wife Mar 25 Sussex Battle
William do Son 2 Scholar Surrey Bermondsey
Jane do Daur 8mo Surrey Bermondsey
John JARRETT Boarder Unm 31 Labourer in saw yard Surrey Balham
-
Do you think the Harker family look a strong possibilty for WIllliam Harber, Anna?
The discovery of that birth under Harker makes me doubt a bit.
I was looking for the nephew Alfred James in 1851 but have come up with a possible for him under Cooper!!
HO107 1644 53 38
High Street Brighton
Frederick Cooper 35 fishmonger bn Brighton
Elizabeth 22 wife bn B'ton
Alfred 6 son bn Bton
John 1 son bn Bton
Jane Har..... (indexed Harther) 45 visitor bn Plymouth?
Just seen your 1871 one (red letters came up) - labourer bn Battle? I preffered my Baker bn Brighton as it fitted in with previous knowledge of him, but he could have changed between 1861 and 71!
-
The trouble with the HARKERs is that they really do seem to be HARKERs!
E.g. this marriage
Marriage Jun qtr 1859
William Henry HARKER
Mary Ann HAYLES
on same page, Brighton 2b 275
WHH stays in Shoreham, always as William H HARKER, through 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901 and dies Shoreham Sep qtr 1901.
-
Marriage
Jul/Aug/Sep/ 1848
Brighton
2b 402
Frederick Cooper / one of brides Ethelinda Elizabeth Harker
So that has more or less established the link between the Frederick Cooper and Harker. Frederick's son is then a nephew to William H Harker, the Baker born Brighton.
The question is, IS William H Harker, baker bn Brighton on 1861 the same guy as William Harber, son of Richard the baker and Amelia, chr Brighton, with Richard etc in 1851.
As you say, the Harkers seem to be Harkers not Harbours ... but they do have a link with Coopers which may just be an added confusion of course!
Perhaps I better stop adding confusion till lilith comes back to say where the HArbour/Cooper connection was found!
-
I must admit I can't easily find WHH in 1851, but in 1841 there is a 7 yr old Wm. HARKER in the household of John & Jane HARKER in Brighton: HO107/1123/1/32/14.
ETA: and his parents John and Jane seem to have baptised a batch of their children in 1844 (IGI, extracted):
WILLIAM HENRY HARKER (+3 others)
Christening: 22 MAR 1844 St Peter, Brighton
Parents: JOHN HARKER & JANE
-
I think that John and Jane might be at HO107 1644 40 30 in 1851 - writing is dire and not all children tie up with 1841 tho' some do.
10 High Street Brighton (he was a tailor in 1841 I noticed, and so is this one).
William H is not with them.
-
WOW! All I can say is thank you ALL for your interest in my topic and for the effort you're putting into solving these puzzles for me. Here is the info that I can give you from BMD certificates I have in hand:
Richard Harbour, 30, Bachelor, Baker, son of Joseph Harbour, Gardener, Battle, married Mary Smith, 34, Widow, Servant, dau of William Smith, Baker, Battle , Oct. 184? , Parish Church, Battle.
Elizabeth Harbour b 10 May 1848 dau of Richard Harbour and Mary Smith Harbour, Battle.
Emma Harbour, b 4 Aug 1844, dau of Richard Harbour and Mary Smith Harbour, Battle
William Frederick Harbour Cooper, age 25, son of Richard Harbour, baker, married Mary King, 20, dau of George King, labourer, 19 Nov 1865 St Mary Magdalen Bermondsey Surrey.
Birth certificates for: George William Harbour Cooper 5 Jan 1874 Bermondsey; Rosa Harbour Cooper 12 Sept 1875 Bermondsey; Albert Harbour Cooper 18 Oct 1883; William Frederick Harbour Cooper and Mary (King) Cooper
Birth Certificates for Annie Louisa Harbour Cooper Feb 1872 Bermondsey; Alice Amelia Cooper 5 Nov 1877 Bermondsey; Alfred Arthur Cooper 13 Feb. 1879 Bermondsey; Frederick William Harbour Cooper and Mary (King) Cooper
As you can see WFHC name was transposed to FWHC on some certificates.
Richard Harbour, age 72, Baker, d 19 June 1885, Battle, Sussex., Mary Harbour Widow present at death.
William Frederick Harbour-Cooper, age 51, Tanner, d. 23 Oct. 1891, Bermondsey. Son of Richard Harbour.
Mary (Smith) Harbour , age 81, widow of master baker Richard Harbour, d. 22 Jan. 1891 Tunbridge Wells with her dau Emma Harbour in attendance.
1881 Census William F. H Harbour Cooper, his wife Mary, and children: Annie, George, Rose, Alice, and Arthur are listed as Harbour. Census left off the Cooper although all the children went by Harbour Cooper or just Cooper.
Possibly Richard Harbour had children by an Amelia Cooper but never married her, thus Amelia Harbour Cooper and William F. Harbour Cooper came about? The Cooper won't have come from Richard because his last two children are Harbour only. Does this sound logical?
-
1881 Census William F. H Harbour Cooper, his wife Mary, and children: Annie, George, Rose, Alice, and Arthur are listed as Harbour. Census left off the Cooper although all the children went by Harbour Cooper or just Cooper.
Wow - that 1881 census for "Wm" and "My" HARBOUR is hard to find! RG11/561/24/42.
-
In the 1891 census the family is COOPER: RG12/375/16/23.
-
The child "William" who was 2 in the 1871 census at reply #18 may correspond with this death:
Death, Sep qtr 1871
Frederick William H COOPER aged 3
St Olave, Southwark 1d 144
...and with exactly the same reference (same quarter, same page no - they must have been registered very close together if not simultaneously) this may well be the baby "Jane" from the 1871 census:
Death, Sep qtr 1871
Dorothy Jane H COOPER aged 1
St Olave, Southwark 1d 144
-
Interesting that on the marriage certificate for William & Mary, William started to sign it one way and then scratched it out and changed his mind as to his name:
Francis William Harbo... Willliam F. Harbour Cooper
-
Possibly Richard Harbour had children by an Amelia Cooper but never married her, thus Amelia Harbour Cooper and William F. Harbour Cooper came about?
Is there evidence of Amelia using the COOPER name?
What happened to her - is she the Amelia PEEKE who (with Richard PEEKE) witnessed the marriage of William and Mary in 1867?
If Amelia didn't use the COOPER name there's still the possibility that William simply adopted it (as he apparently did with the name Frederick) for reasons unknown.
Ah - I see that she was Amelia Harbour COOPER when she married Richard PEEKE in 1858 (and, interestingly, gave her father's name as Richard Harbour COOPER):D
-
...and with exactly the same reference (same quarter, same page no - they must have been registered very close together if not simultaneously) this may well be the baby "Jane" from the 1871 census:
Death, Sep qtr 1871
Dorothy Jane H COOPER aged 1
St Olave, Southwark 1d 144
Her baptism:
30 Oct 1870, Christ Church, Bermondsey
Dorothy Jane COOPER born 30 July 1870
daughter of William Harbour COOPER, tanner, and Mary, of 8 Brook St, Star Corner
-
The child "William" who was 2 in the 1871 census at reply #18 may correspond with this death:
Death, Sep qtr 1871
Frederick William H COOPER aged 3
St Olave, Southwark 1d 144
His baptism:
28 June 1868 St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey
William Frederick Harbour COOPER, born 7 June 1868
son of William Frederick Harbour COOPER, a tanner, and Mary, of 28 Weston Pl., Long Lane
-
I will try to answer some questions, or perhaps present new ones. Here are my thoughts:
#12 Re: Mary Smith's name. She was born a Smith. When she married Richard Harbour she lists herself as a widow, still using name Smith. Logically she 1) Married a man with same name 2) married a man with different surname but reverted to maiden name after his death or 3) lived with a man she never married at all then passed herself off as a widow to be more socially acceptable (ie had a child, or didn't want to be labeled as a fallen woman)
#28 Scratching through William Frederick H. Cooper's name on the marriage certificate. This isn't on the certificate I have. No name changes at all. The one I have is also witnesses by his sister Amelia HC Peeke and her husband Richard Peeke.
#29 Richard Harbour listed as Richard Harbour Cooper on Amelia Harbour Cooper's certificate, This is the first time I have heard of that being done. I know of no reason he would be listed that way UNLESS the person filling out the information did it because it was Amelia's last name and he thought it must be Richard's as well? Is this online for me to see?
I do know that William Frederick Harbour Cooper's daughter told my mum that he told her he chose to add the name Harbour to his Cooper surname because he liked the name.
I think the Cooper was his Mum's name and though Richard may have been his bio father he may not have been the legal husband of the mother Amelia. Richard is after all listed as a bachelor on his marriage to Mary Smith. Would he have been required to put divorced if he and Amelia had been? Wouldn't he have put widower if she had died his legal wife?
See? More questions! Thanks to everyone for helping with this.
-
#28 Scratching through William Frederick H. Cooper's name on the marriage certificate. This isn't on the certificate I have. No name changes at all. The one I have is also witnesses by his sister Amelia HC Peeke and her husband Richard Peeke.
I expect you're looking at a GRO certified copy, rather than the original or an image of it - am I right?
-
It says Certified copy of an entry of marriage given at the General Register Office May 2003.
How does this differ from the one you have seen? Where can I see that one? Online?
It's tricky being 3,000 miles from the source! :)
-
Are you a subscriber to Ancestry?
-
Ancestry. com...yes I am...