RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Tephra on Tuesday 08 February 11 09:34 GMT (UK)
-
Welcome to this weeks Scavenger Hunt and it's a right puzzler...... but you'll work it out.
Good Luck and Good Hunting
Barbara
************************************
Letitia Forbes, or Barrett?
My GG-grandmother, Ann Mary Burgess, was born in June 1858 in Bethnal Green, Middlesex. Her parents, as listed on the certificate, are Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett. Letitia was the informant.
Richard was born on December 24, 1815 in Rainham, Kent to Richard (?) Burgess and Fanny Irons, and died on 26 Sep 1880 in Bethnal Green. Letitia was born some time around 1816, in Woolwich, Kent, and died in Edmonton in 1892.
This thread shows the family in various censuses: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,241968.msg1317076.html Note that Letitia's name changes - she is sometimes 'Lydia', and sometimes 'Elizabeth'.
What I can't find is a dead-certain marriage between Richard and Letitia/Lydia/Elizabeth. There is one possible, as well as a range of semi-confusing information. This thread covers all of the relevant details: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,508460.0.html
For the sake of completeness here, the key details are:
* There is a possible marriage between Richard Burgess and Letitia Forbes in early 1843. On that certificate, Richard is a paper-stainer, and his father's name is Richard. Letitia is a spinster, whose father is listed as Thomas Forbes.
*The most likely 1841 for Richard shows him with Letitia, a brother George, and a John Barrett. His occupation is given as paper-stainer. On his christening, George's father's name is listed as Thomas.
* On the 1851 census, there is a Richard Burgess, 56, widower, paper stainer, b Maidstone, Kent visiting a house in Lambeth. Whoever he is, he's not Ann Mary's father, as I'm confident that I have that family correct on the 1851. He seems on the young side to be Richard senior, and I can't find him on the 1841.
The things I'm hoping for a little help with are:
* Do you think Letitia Barrett and Letitia Forbes are one and the same?
* If so, can we find anything that helps tie the two names together?
* Alternatively, is there a marriage between Richard and Letitia Barrett that I've flat-out missed?
* If at all possible, tracking down some more information about where Letitia is from. One detail that doesn't change between censuses is that her place of birth is Woolwich, Kent. However, I haven't found anything from Woolwich for either a Letitia Forbes or a Letitia Barrett
* Opinions on the various Burgesses, especially the Lambeth one on the 1851, would also be welcomed.
Thanks so much
-
Hi everyone,
It's nighttime here in Australia, but I'll be about to answer any questions you may have and contribute to the hunt. I love a challenge as much as anyone, although this one does have me stumped.
-
Blimey......... you're quick off the mark ;D ;D ;D
-
Bookmarking ;D
-
Hi Tn
;D ;D
Hopefully we'll get it solved this time!
deb
-
Hi Tn
;D ;D
Hopefully we'll get it solved this time!
deb
Hope so! It's certainly... A challenge...
-
firstly note I’ve not read through the other threads :)
Is there a marriage for Letitia Forbes to Mr. Barrett ?
Who is John Barrett in the 1841 census? Have you followed him ?
1841 census doesn’t show relationships so George may not be Richards brother but cousin so Richards father may be Richard and Georges father maybe Thomas
Can you fin Richard Burgess of 1851 in 1861?
-
Hi tn
Just read the thread that we had been working on prior to this,
I wonder if we shouldn't try to find John BARRETT, BRICKMAKER, again. I also noticed that Fanny Burgess nee Irons (mother of Richard and George) was was left interest in her father's farm that was being used as a BRICKWORKS.
deb
-
Hi Toni
Letitia Forbes is shown as a SPINSTER on mariage cert.
We tried every which way to fathom her out ...but we are stumped.
George states his dad is Richard on marriage cert ...although his baptism states Thomas ...confusion!!!!!
tn ...I wonder if ordering another birth cert would reveal anything new:
Richard: could be either of
Mar Qtr 1841: Bethnal Green, Vol 2 Pg 21, or
June Qtr 1842: Bethnal Green, Vol 2 Pg 20
Fanny: Sept Qtr 1844: Stepney, Vol 2 Pg 451 or 457
Lydia: could be either of
'Lydia Baines Burgess' Mar Qtr 1845, Bethnal Green, Vol 2 Pg 55
'Letitia Burgess' June Qtr 1846, Stepney, Vol 2 Pg 524
John: June Qtr 1848: Stepney, Vol 2 Pg 495
Caroline: Sept Qtr 1850: Bethnal Green, Vol 2 Pg 28
Harriet: June Qtr 1852: Bethnal Green, Vol 1c Pg 247
Ann Mary: Sept Qtr 1858: Bethnal Green, Vol 1c Pg 201
deb
-
Toni
On the first thread that tn posted.....that has Richard Burgess on 1851/61/71.
That's where Letitia changes her names ...ie: Lydia and Elizabeth
deb
-
Hi
Maybe coming in too soon with this info, not done this before, but looks like Richard left a will:
Richard Burgess 16 Feb. The Will of Richard Burgess late of 4 Shipton St Hackney Rd in the County of Middlesex who died 26 Sept 1880 at 4 Shipton St was proved at Principal Registry by Letitia Burgess of 4 Shipton St Widow the Relict the sole Executrix
personal estate under £100
Regards
Z :)
-
i have now read the frist thread ;D
ok how old was Letitia when she married Richard?
was she old enough to have a pervious marriage uner her belt whether she described herself as spinster or not ? (afetr all this information is only as good as it is porvided)
the London PR's online cover Bethanl Green (i think)
-
Tn ...
That Bankruptcy article also mentions an Edwin Burgess ..... :-\
-
firstly note I’ve not read through the other threads :)
Is there a marriage for Letitia Forbes to Mr. Barrett ?
Who is John Barrett in the 1841 census? Have you followed him ?
1841 census doesn’t show relationships so George may not be Richards brother but cousin so Richards father may be Richard and Georges father maybe Thomas
Can you fin Richard Burgess of 1851 in 1861?
in addition to the details Deb added, I wasn't able to find the 1851 widowed Richard Burgess on either the 1861 or the 1841 (with Fanny or otherwise).
As far as more birth certs go, fair call. I have Ann Mary's and another Genealogist has John's, which also lists Letitia's maiden name as Barrett. If I truly have no luck I may have to order the lot and see where it gets me.
-
Hi Z
Welcome to the scavenger hunts ;D
We had seen that ...thanks for posting it!
deb :D
-
i have now read the frist thread ;D
ok how old was Letitia when she married Richard?
was she old enough to have a pervious marriage uner her belt whether she described herself as spinster or not ? (afetr all this information is only as good as it is porvided)
the London PR's online cover Bethanl Green (i think)
I think Bethnal Green is online, but none of the Burgess kids seem to be on there. Maybe non-conformist?
-
i have now read the frist thread ;D
ok how old was Letitia when she married Richard?
was she old enough to have a pervious marriage uner her belt whether she described herself as spinster or not ? (afetr all this information is only as good as it is porvided)
Certainly old enough to be married twice: Late 20's if 1843 is correct. If the 1843 marriage is the right one, it's after they were together on the 1841 and after the birth of Richard Burgess the third in 1842.
-
been looking on the London PR's seems none of them were bp.
Caroline b. 1850 Bethnal Green is the daughter of John a greengrocer & Caroline
-
Hi
looked at marriage cert of Richard Burgess and Letitia Forbes
there is something written between the two names at the start of the cert, can't make it out but is it a name change?
-
i see it something crossed out but cant read it
i see he signed his name Richard Burgess Junior
-
are the witnesses a clue
J Verral and Sarah Scates?
addresses
11 Gray St
11 Errand St
-
maybe they were bp. over in Woolwich as that is where Letita came from
-
been looking on the London PR's seems none of them were bp.
Caroline b. 1850 Bethnal Green is the daughter of John a greengrocer & Caroline
hmmm... Interesting... There seem to be two Caroline's born in the latter half of 1850. One's registered in Bethnal Green, and the other in St Luke (which I *think* is pretty close by...)
Re the signing of his name, Richard was the informant on John's birth cert. I'd have to check, but I have a hunch that may have been signed Richard Burgess junior as well...
-
Its always better to be typing something rather than nothing at all that way you look busy even if you are not. When you have finished doing nothing you can just delete it and no-one will any the wiser.
Maybe Letitia Forbes was Letitia Forbes but then her mother married Mr. Barrett making her confused as to whether she was Letitia Forbes or Letitia Barrett ? – this would explain her confusion over her last name although I’m not sure what would explain the confusion over her first name
As she is consistent with her p.o.b as being woolwich have you looked for any Letitia being born in 1815-1816 in woolwich and then accounted for them in other records or not
The householders filled in the schedule and gave them to the enumerator who copied them into his book, do you think he couldn’t read their writing?
Richard signed his name upon marriage but Letitia only made her mark.
-
Hi Toni
;D ;D
I have been trying to figure out who J Verrall and Sarah scates may be ...I have searched the London marriages ...but can't see any connection to the Burgess Family.
I also Looked on the Marriages for any other Forbes with a father = THOMAS, Carman. NOTHING!! I also can't find a Thomas Forbes, Carman in 1841.
Now searching TNA for anything! LOL
deb :)
-
I also looked for Errand St Bethnal Green, which looks like the brides residence thinking perhaps Thomas would be there but couldn't find this address ???
-
Okay ...sitting here tearing my hair out!!!!!! ;D
this is 1841
transcribed as BURYOSS
1841Tower Hamlets
St Matthew , Bethnal Green
Harrod st
Richard Burgess 25 paper stainer, Not born in county
Lydia 27, NBIC
George 20 paper stainer,NBIC
/
John BARRETT, 30, brick maker, NBIC
Richard Burgess, paper stainer marries a Letitia Forbes in 1843
What's going on?? ??
Is there any other Richard and Letitia/Lydia's in 1851?
deb
-
My 2xgrt grandmother was illegitimate. She was registered under the name of Beavons. Her mother married an Langston. She used the name langston in all the census till she married. On her marr cert she used her 'real surname' but made up a father using her step fathers first name and 'real' surname. When she registered her children after birth she gave her maiden name as either Beavons or Langston depending on how the mood took her. ???
Who knows perhaps Lydia/Letitia is doing something similar!? :)
-
i did look to see if they had been christened under Junior ;D
-
1841 St Lawrence (Woolwich)
Hewson
eliza scates 25 F.S
Sarah Scates 30 do.
William Butler 65 do.
all NBIC
:-\ :-\ :-\
HO107 467 16 35 38
-
1861 for that Sarah scates but is she the same one as yours?
RG9; 536; 90; : 20
-
Richard is with Lydia in 1841 she is listed as Burgess in 1841 he marries Letitia Forbes
he is old enough to have a marriage pre Letitia he could have lied about being a bachelor or he could have lied about being married in 1841 as relationships arent given we have may have wrongly assumed this is the case and lydia and Richard and George are in fact siblings or cousins ?
-
Hey everyone,
A big thankyou ;D to everybody whose pitched in.
When I get a chance to duck into the library next to work today (ooooh how tempting!), I'm going to chase the addresses on the 1843 marriage, and to see if I can find evidence of another Richard/Letitia or at least a widowed Richard/Letitia that might fit...
In terms of this marriage, am I right in saying the options are:
1. Letitia is lying about her maiden name, marital status and/or Father's name on the 1843 marriage. Possibly because she was born out of wedlock, or had been married before. This would explain the paper-stainer link, and fits in that there's no other marriage we can find.
2. Letitia is lying about her maiden name on the birth certificates. Don't know why, but she could be.
3. That's not my couple. Either:
A. There's another wedding out there (non-conformist? Dreadfully mistranscribed?), or:
B. They just didn't bother with a wedding.
This option would explain the late marriage and name difference, but not where my couple came from or what happened to the 1843 couple (unless Letitia Fotbes died and the 1851 Lambeth Richard is the widower).
-
Letitia wouldnt have a birth certificate as she was born pre 1837 civil registration so we have to rely on chirstening records
have you seen the actual entry in the PR's for her christening?
-
Letitia wouldnt have a birth certificate as she was born pre 1837 civil registration so we have to rely on chirstening records
have you seen the actual entry in the PR's for her christening?
None, under either Barrett or Forbes
-
Okay ...sitting here tearing my hair out!!!!!! ;D
this is 1841
transcribed as BURYOSS
1841Tower Hamlets
St Matthew , Bethnal Green
Harrod st
Richard Burgess 25 paper stainer, Not born in county
Lydia 27, NBIC
George 20 paper stainer,NBIC
/
John BARRETT, 30, brick maker, NBIC
Richard Burgess, paper stainer marries a Letitia Forbes in 1843
What's going on?? ??
Is there any other Richard and Letitia/Lydia's in 1851?
deb
forget the marriage for a minute
this Richard b. Rainham
in 1851 HO107; 1540; 555;
1861 RG9; 251; 128; 35
-
ok this is a way away but i cannot find another richard Burgess at the moment with a wife lydia
there is a possible marriage that needs following up here
Marriages Dec 1847 Stone 17 259
Austin Thomas
BUCKLEY Lydia
BURGESS Richard
DAVENHILL Sarah
NORRIS John Stacey
STUBBS Mary Ann
TILDESLEY Catherine
Wagg Richard
-
see in 1861 Lydia adult is spelt as such and Lydia child is spelt lidia ............. why the difference in spelling ?
-
the answer must be staring us int he face
1858 Ann Mary Burgess is born her birth cert gives her father as Richard Burgess and her mother as Letitia Barrett
she appears on the 1861 census with father Richard Burgess and mother Lydia
ditto 1871 and the 1881 census now married to Frederick Ashby but still with her mother who by now is Lettia [sic]
there is a marriage between Richard Burgess & Letitia Forbes in the right area in 1843 or there is a possible marriage between Richard Burgess and Lydia Buckley some miles away (not confirmed Richard m. Lydia Buckley)
Ann Mary had an elder brother Richard born circa 1842 - this however would be pre marriage of Letitia Forbes and Richard Burgess
but it would seem Lydia and Richard were together in 1841
argh how does the barrett name fit ?
-
I also get the feeling that the answer is staring us in the face.
I've been searching for possible other Letitias and Lydias (both Forbes and Barrett) on the 1841. Not much luck:
* There's a Letitia Barrett who married Robert Rudd in 1839. However, she's still with him and the family in Friston, Suffolk 1851
* There's a Lydia Forbes, who appears to be married to James Forbes, in St Pancras in the 1841 (HO107 686 15 19 32) but who I can't find in the 1851. However, I also found a marriage beween James Forbes and Lydia Newman (bach/spin) in the 1830s.
* I also can't trace either Gray St or Errand St Bethnal Green on either the 1841 or 1851
* I did find a Richard and Fanny Burgess living together in Sundridge, Kent, on the 1841. However, Fanny is still alive in 1851, living with her daughter and son in law, which makes me think this may not be the one that relates to the 1851 widowed Richard.
-
I've also had a little look for John Barrett from the 1841, but with no success :-\
-
I've also had a little look for John Barrett from the 1841, but with no success :-\
On FamilySearch (old site) there is a Letitia Barrett christened 6 July 1834, Maidstone, Kent, parents: John Barrett and Sarah Barrett. Could this John be the John you are looking for?
Debs posted details of an 1841 census which included a John Barrett age 30 on the related thread http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,508460.0.html.
Liz
-
That’s a good find Liz – something to bear in mind
I was wondering what if they [Richard & Lydia] didn’t marry ? maybe they didn’t have the funds or she was already pregnant (oh the shame!) or that they weren’t free to marry – living with someone in sin for 6 months would back then have classed them as common law husband or wife so thus no need to marry. They didn’t live where they were born so who would know if they were actually married or not?
Saying that
Who else married at the same time could the registrar have copied the name from the previous marriage? Ditto on Ann Mary Burgess birth cert.
Sorry – who was letitia father on marriage again?
we can assume that Richards father is Richard as he signs himself Richard Burgess Junior.
Are we absolutely sure that Lydia from 1841 is Lydia from 1851 ? Richards birth cert might yield some clues.
Re the children if they didn’t marry would he births be registered as Barrett or Forbes (can still see no christenings)
I have tried forgetting everything and starting from scratch with Ann Mary BUT I can’t! lol it still comes down to the fact you have her birth cert from 1858 with her parents as Richard Burgess (what was his occupation?) and Letitia Barrett.
And then 1841 census must be them with the frequency of names
It still is entirely possible that they had married previously and forgot to tell the registrar. (whoops)
-
I agree - good spotting Liz.
Re the marriage, letitia's father is listed as Thomas Forbes, occupation carman (?). Hadn't thought of the possibility that Forbes had been written down from the previous entry - I'll check!
Also, John's birth cert also lists Letitia's maiden name as Barrett.
I wonder if it's worth looking for Letitia Forbes's death between 1843 and 1851. That would fit in with the theory that the 1843 marriage isn't them and that there's a good reason why there aren't two Richard/Letitia couples on all the censuses.
-
I have tried forgetting everything and starting from scratch with Ann Mary BUT I can’t! lol it still comes down to the fact you have her birth cert from 1858 with her parents as Richard Burgess (what was his occupation?) and Letitia Barrett.
And then 1841 census must be them with the frequency of names
It still is entirely possible that they had married previously and forgot to tell the registrar. (whoops)
Richard Jnr was a leather dealer from 1861 on, kept a beer shop in 1851 and is a paper stainer on the 1841 and the 1843 marriage
-
Re Letitia's changing firstname - my Letitia appears variously as Letty, Louisa and Sally (well and Pete but that's just Ancestry ;D)
Jan ;)
-
Re Letitia's changing firstname - my Letitia appears variously as Letty, Louisa and Sally (well and Pete but that's just Ancestry ;D)
Jan ;)
Thank goodness that's just ancestry!
-
morning all ....
Just checking in, ready to start looking again ;D
deb
-
Ok who are Letitia parents?
Thomas Forbes is her father and her mother? Could she be ……… Barrett ?
-
I found this death ...possibly the child of John and Sarah Barrett :
Letitia Barrett
sept q 1849
Maidstone
5 402
will look for her on the 1841.
Toni .....good call ... now to find evidence :-\
-
Ok who are Letitia parents?
Thomas Forbes is her father and her mother? Could she be ……… Barrett ?
Could be! Assuming there's no second marriage (seems unlikely), that has to be a fair contender.
I've had no joy finding possible baptisms in Woolwich though. I had a quick glance through the 1841 for a possible Thomas Forbes but nothing jumped right out.
-
hummm ...
1841
BETHNAL GREEN, Tower Hamlets
Alfred terrace
William Parnell 30 printer NBIC
Frances Parnell 20 embroiderer NBIC
FANNY BARRETT 50 FS, NBIC
Jane Hawker 17 embroiderer NBIC
Ann King 15, ditto
LYDIA BARRETT 5 NBIC
deb
-
ooopsssss SCRAP the last Post ...I was thinking of FANNY BURGESS mother of Richard
deb :-[ :-[
-
trying a different approach all these were christened in Woolwich 1815-1820 can we rule them all out?
Letitia Caulder Wilkinson
06 Sep 1818
James Wilkinson, Charlotte
Letitia Hodges
13 Jan 1817
: Robert Hodges, Mary
Letitia Ann Thomas
: 20 Nov 1817
John Thomas, Ann Margaret
Letitia Hiscock
04 Jan 1816
James Hiscock, Letitia
Leititia Clark
23 Nov 1818
Edward Clark, Letitia
Mary Lettice Davenport
26 Jul 1818
Benjamin Davenport, Mary
Latitia Johnson
29 Oct 1817
George & Sarah
-
ditto Lydia
Lydia Friend
04 Dec 1811
Francis Friend, Lydia
Lydia Catermoul
03 May 1816
Thomas & Maria
-
Good approach Toni :). FWIW, I'm not aware of any reason why any of those would be my Letitia.
-
I note the confusion over names Forbes and Barrett, and that Lydia/Letitia was also referred to as Elizabeth. On Family Search I found the following.
ELIZABETH FORBES
Birth: 16 DEC 1816
Christening: 05 JAN 1817, Saint Mary Magdalene, Woolwich, Kent, England
Father: JAMES FORBES
Mother: MARGARET
Sorry if I am broadening the search too much. It gets confusing. ;D
Liz
-
Just found this birth and death : I wonder if she was Richard and Letitia's child??
birth:
Letitia Burgess
sept q 1839
Bethnal Green, Greater London
2 21
death:
Letitia Burgess
sept q 1839
Bethnal Green, Greater London
2 15
-
actually that's a good find Liz, the reason i didn't search for Eliabeth in Woolwich earlier as i thought too many would pop up ............... if only she had the Father Thomas :)
-
Not Woolwich but there is this one..
Letitia Barrett baptised 26 Nov 1815 at Paddington St James parents George and Sarah, occupation Shoemaker
Jan ;)
-
can we find :
Births Jun 1838
FORBES Caroline Bethnal Green 2 58
on the census?
-
I hesitate to post this but thought it best to share with you as I keep going back to look at the following entry.
Again on Family Search, extracted entry. Westminster though, but the names caught my attention.
So here goes. ;D ;D ;D
Marriage:
THOMAS BARRETT to
ELIZABETH FORBES
07 AUG 1794 Saint Anne Soho, Westminster, London, England
Liz
-
:o :o
-
Further to my last post, I came across a thread back in 2008 re Thomas Barrett and Elizabeth Forbes:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,283570.0.html
Liz
-
humm ...no bapt for Letitia/lydia :-\
pity!
deb
-
yep, pity, :'( :'( :'(
unless came later
Liz
-
wow that marriage is good can we work from that?
if Lydia is a result of this marriage then i don't see why there is confusion over her surname what i mean is i dont see why she should be confused over her name
so married in 1794 and Letitia born circa 1815 almost 20 years later mayeb she is a child of one of the Forbes boys who gave her the midde name of Barrett like hi smother?
-
Hi Toni,
Sorry to disappoint you, Toni, but it would be one of the Barrett boys with Forbes as a middle name.
Did you see the below link that another RChatter started. Gives children of Thomas and Elizabeth but only up to 1807. Might be worth contacting that RC. For all we know, there could have been births after 1807 even as late as 1815!
So many different scenarios it can do your head in. :-\
Liz
Further to my last post, I came across a thread back in 2008 re Thomas Barrett and Elizabeth Forbes:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,283570.0.html
-
can we find :
Births Jun 1838
FORBES Caroline Bethnal Green 2 58
on the census?
Yes, I think we can. Daughter of Jeremiah & Elizabeth HO107 Piece 711, ED 17, Folio 39, Pg 11
-
Hi everybody
A big thankyou ;D once again - there have been some great finds. If the 1839 Letitia is one of mine, it could push the marriage back to before 1837, meaning it could be in a PR out in Kent somewhere that hasn't been scooped up in the IGI or elsewhere.
I'm going to message the rootschatter who was interested in the Barrett/Forbes couple and consider purchasing the birth certs of Richard b 1842 & Letitia b 1839 to see where it gets me.
-
Morning everyone
I wonder if we should take a different route.
Letitia states being a Barrett on various birth certs ...so lets believe her! ;D
Tn found a Richard Burgess in the 1851 also a paper stainer born Maidstone, Kent. His age looks to be 56 ...But the more I looked at it ..It seemed to me that it might have been 50 with a 1 put over the 0. There is someone at the bottom of the page who 56 and the 6 is completely different to Richard's.
Okay say he is the one who married Letitia Forbes in 1843 ....which should be able to hopefully find them seperately and then hopefully a death for Letitia Burgess between 1843-1851.
TN ..maybe ordering some more birth certs would put your mind at ease that Letitia was indeed a Barett.
deb ...running out of ideas :-\
-
Good approach Deb. I'll look closer at the 1841 and 1861 for that Richard Burgess, bearing in mind he may be 5 years younger than I thought.
-
Hi again,
I'm getting carried away with all this sleuthing so you must tell me if I'm going of course as I'm very new to all this. I hope you wont be too sidetracked by the following and hope there is a family connection that may help.
Again on Family Search (new site):
Letitia Barratt Burgess
England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
residence: Brighton, Sussex, England
parents: Robert Skiffens Burgess, Mary Ann Burgess
baptism/christening: 02 Sep 1849
St. Nicholas', Brighthelmston or Brighton, Sussex
Lettitia Barrett Burgess
England and Wales Census, 1851
birth: Brighton, Sussex
age: 1
I cant view census for further details.
-
Hi Eleesavet
Strange you should post her ... I had seen that yesterday!
Her Father is Richard a rail labourer from Surrey. There doesn't seem to be a connection. Mary Ann the mother is also from Surrey.
their marriage:
Robert Skiffens Burgess = Mary Ann King
1839 Kensington.
Robert's parents were ROBERT (a bricklayer) and Sarah Burgess.
Letitia is driving me nuts ...I rechecked all the marriages again and there is nothing except the Forbes one!
deb :-\
-
TN ...
Have you followed Richard and Letitia's children through all the censues? If not, I wonder if they would reveal something ..ie: maybe relatives living with them?
deb
-
John Burgess s/o Richard and Letitia
No clues ...but thought I would post anyway ;D
1871
Bethnal Green
John Burgess, mar, 25 Leather dealer b MEOT
Susan wife 21, b Shoreditch
Marriage:
John Burgess = Susan Martha Harsey?
23 Jan 1868, Bethnal Green
His dad = Richard Burgess General Dealer
Her dad = John
Witnesses: Frederick Webb and Lydia Webb
1881
Caroline Cottage
Bethnal Green
John Burgess 33, leather dealer , b Bethnal Green
Susan, 32 b ditto
John 12 b ditto …where was he in 1871 …ooo he is with Richard and Elizabeth aka Letitia/Lydia
Richard 9, b ditto
Ann M 6, b ditto
Susan 5, b ditto
Caroline 1, b ditto
1891
46 Dove row
Bethnal Green
All of the above plus:
Lydia , 9, b BG
George , 7, b ditto
Lizzie, 4, b Hackney
Daniel 2, b BG
Still looking for 1901
wow ...lots of kids ;D
deb
-
Marriages:
Caroline Burgess, 21 = James Webb , 26
St Judes, Bethnal Green
26 August 1871
CarolineBurgess:
Add: 6 Nelson Street
Father Richard Burgess, Leather dealer
James Webb:
6 Nelson Street
Occ: Looking glass frame maker
Father = Henry Webb., Lawyer/ sawyer
Witnesses:
Anthony Emm and Rebecca Webb
Harriett Burgess, 22 = Charles Henry Kirby, 28
25 December 1874 …Christmas Day!
St Jude, BG
Harriett:
Dad=Richard, leather dealer
Add: 4 Shipton Street
Charles:
Occ: Brass finisher
Add: 15 Nelson Street
Dad= Joseph, photographer
Witnesses: Ann Mary Burgess and John Kirby
Will follow up
Deb
-
Looking at the witnesses at John Burgess' 1868 marriage:
Witnesses: Frederick Webb and Lydia Webb
found this marriage:
Frederick WEBB (leather dealer) = Elidia Tisha Burgess (sic) :o ;D ...she makes her mark as does Fred.
Witnesses: Emma Edwards, who witnessed 3 marriage on the page
and Henry Congdon
Her father = Richard Burgess, leather dealer
married: 4 Sep 1865, Bethnal Green, St James the Great
good grief ... She is Elizabeth in 1871 and Elesia in 1881
deb
-
Great work deb :)
Is Lydia's age listed on that cert?
FWIW, Fanny marries Henry Card - Letitia is living with them in 1891.
Also, I have all the Fred Ashby/Ann Mary Burgess ones.
One thought - anything on the 1841 or 1861 that looks like the Lambeth Richard Burgess?
-
Frederick WEBB (leather dealer) = Elidia Tisha Burgess (sic) :o ;D ...she makes her mark as does Fred.
Witnesses: Emma Edwards, who witnessed 3 marriage on the page
and Henry Congdon
Her father = Richard Burgess, leather dealer
married: 4 Sep 1865, Bethnal Green, St James the Great
good grief ... She is Elizabeth in 1871 and Elesia in 1881
deb
Takes after Mum ::)
-
Hi T
No age for "Elidia Tisha Burgess" ...just "full'
Caroline Webb nee Burgess also has a dau named Letitia who turnes into Lydia ...arrghhhhhhhh ;D
deb
-
A lot of the names carried on throughout later generations - Frederick and Ann Mary had a Richard, a Letitia, a Caroline. Some carried on further too.
OK, if the 1839 Letitia the daughter of Richard/Letitia, there's a chance they were married before 1 July 1837. Is anybody aware of any parishes out in Bethnal Green or the Woolwich areas that aren't in the LMA online records?
-
Presumably you have seen the baptismal record for Letitia the daughter of George BARRATT, shoemaker and his wife Sarah @ St James, Paddington on 26 Nov 1815. There is also a marriage recorded between a Letitia Barrett & Richard Merritt on 28 December 1828 @ St Matthew Bethnal Green. This is clearly quite unconnected with your family, as Letitia Merritt appears with her husband & children living in Deptford in 1851 census (HO107; Piece: 1584; Folio: 497; Page: 14)and her death is recorded Greenwich in March quarter 1864 ref 1d p.513
The only reference in Ancestry to a Lydia Forbes is rather strange: 1841 census has a 25yr old girl of that name living in Portsea with a 2yr old child called John Moon; she is said to have been born "in foreign parts", and there is note of her being a seaman's wife, but that is crossed through. HO107; Piece 415; Book: 4; District: 15; Folio: 17; Page: 29
In Findmypast records I found the following: 01 March 1807 Lydia Forbes dau of William & Mary born 30/11/1806 in High street Whitechapel baptised St Mary, Whitechapel High Street - Entry No: 9690
-
Thanks Mavis :) I did spot that Lydia Forbes on the 1841 - even if it's not mine, it is intruiging!
-
this sort of fizzled out and its the new one tomorrow but i really think something isnt quite right here - maybe its the marriage
-
this sort of fizzled out and its the new one tomorrow but i really think something isnt quite right here - maybe its the marriage
Agreed. I've ordered the 1839 birth cert to see if it sheds any more light. Thanks for spending some time thinking about it and I'll be sure to post here if I ever crack it :)
-
It's time for this weeks Scavenger Hunt and it's a little bit convoluted - please read carefully ;D
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,514249.0.html
Good Luck and Good Hunting
Barbara
As usual, this Hunt will remain open for any further information which may come in.
-
Hi everyone,
Received the 1839 birth cert for Letitia Burgess today. She's the child of Richard Burgess, paper hanger, and Letitia Burgess formerly Barrett. So, definitely one of their kids. Given that this is almost four years before the 1843 marriage, I'm starting to think that one might just be a coincidence, one that might possibly line up with the 1851 Richard Burgess from Maidstone.
-
hi tn
I'm glad the cert arrived! :)
It really does look like Letitia Forbes and Letitia Barrett are different girls. I just wish we had been able to find a marriage for your people.
I wonder if we can find Letitia Forbes death. It just seems like such a coincidence that there would be 2 Richard's (paper stainer) marrying Letitia's and his father being a Paper Stainer, named Richard.
Tn ...what was the address on Baby Letitia's birth cert?
deb
-
Ahhh Deb - you're a star.
I agree, it's a huge coincidence, and it still doesn't sit quite right. I couldn't see a death for Letitia Forbes, but given the track record with this problem, who knows what she could be called :-\
On the 1839 certificate, Richard and Letitia are at 8 Harrod St, Bethnal Green (where they are on the 1841).
-
Hi tn
well, it's great to have the address confirmed :D .... which then leads us to John Barrett who was living with them ..... Maybe he will lead us to the answers. I know I have searched for him but maybe fresh eyes and starting again may reveal something.
deb
-
I'll see what I can do. I'll also see if what other Barretts b Woolwich are doing the rounds on the 1851.
-
Hello,
I am coming to this late, which is a shame, because I think I have most of the information that I think you were looking for on the Burgess family, although I too am without a marriage for Richard Burgess and Letitia/Lydia Barret.
I don't have time now to trawl through the 106 posts to see where you have got to, so apologies if this duplicates.
Richard Burgess m. Fanny Tanner (Irons) and had the following children,
Richard Burgess m. Letitia Barrett
George Mackland Burgess m. Ann Poynton
John Burgess (unmarried as far as I can tell)
Mary Ann Burgess m. Anthony Aransola
Fanny also had a daughter by Mr. Tanner (can't remember his name of the top of my head).
Fanny died in 1842 and was buried in Chatham. She left Mackland Farm in Rainham / Upchurch in Kent in equal shares to her 5 children. Although George was born in Middlesex he was baptised in Rainham.
Rainham Farmhouse is still there, although it is now a Residential Home. There are records of the Land Transfer in Kent Record Office.
Enjoy.
Neil
-
Posting error, please remove
-
OK, I have now read the posts (well most of them) and have access to my research (I was on a 5.57am train from Crewe to Edinburgh when I started my last post.
Fanny Irons b. bef Dec 1778 was the only surviving daughter of John Irons (Tea Dealer) and Anne Lowery, who lived in Chatham, Kent. John purchased Mackland Farm, Rainham/Upchurch, Kent, from a Government Pension Board and left it to Fanny when he died in Nov 1808.
Fanny married Richard Tanner, in St. Bride, Fleet on 16 Jun 1809 and they had a child, Fanny Tanner between 1811 and 1813. Fanny Tanner married John Clayton.
When Richard died. Fanny married secondly, Richard Burgess (snr.) and they had 4 children,
Ann Mary Burgess (b. abt Jul 1814) m. Anthony Aransola
Richard Burgess (b. 4 Dec 1815) m. Letitia/Lydia Barrett
John Burgess (b. 18 Oct 1818) unmarried (as far as I can tell)
George Mackland Burgess (b. 15 Apr 1822) m. Ann Poynton
All of this ties in with the 1841 Census where Richard, Letitia, John and George are all living together in Bethnal Green.
There are some problems, with Fanny Irons, dying in 1841/2, but not appearing on the 1841 Census, and there not being a death record, for Richard Burgess (snr.), but basically this fits.
-
Between 1813 and Fanny's death in 1842, Richard had his Bankruptcy and Court Cases over the failure of the Brickmaking activity taking place at Mackland Farm. However, since the Farm was never in his possession, it appears that it was not affected by his Bankruptcy. It remained in Fanny's possession, for her to hand down in equal share to her 5 children. They were immediately granted a £300 line of Credit on their individual shares and there are Indenture dealings about the Farm in Kent Archives, which show it slowly passing out of the family until it was sold in the 1860's.
Richard and Letitia/Lydia had the following children that I am aware of,
Letitia Burgess b. bet Jul-Sep 1839
Richard Burgess b. bet Apr-Jun 1842
Fanny Burgess b. bet Jul-Sep 1844
Lydia Burgess b. bet Mar-Jun 1845
John Burgess b. 4 Mar 1848
Caroline Burgess b. Jul-Sep 1850
Harriet Burgess b. Apr-Jun 1852
Ann Mary Burgess b. 1858
Richard died in 1880 with an estate worth under £100, whereas his brother George Mackland Burgess, dies 3 years later with an estate worth £3,500 and two properties. Richard was buried in Manor Park Cemetery, East London, in the same plat as at least 3 of his children.
I am a descendent of John Burgess b.1848.
Neil
-
WOW Neil!
I need to reread but I have been on the trail with tn from the beginning ... Late here but I am glad you can't find the Burgess/Barrett marriage either , or else I would feel foolish!
However there must be an explaination for all of this!
I am really happy about the 1841 find that confirms that George Macland Burgess is the brother of Richard!
deb :)
-
I'll second that WOW and add another......... WOW!!! Won't TN be well chuffed when he comes back on again!!
Barbara
-
Yes, Neil's done a splendid job ;D As he pointed out, there's still a few things that don't fit neatly, but he's really uncovered so much!
And Deb, I'm also glad there wasn't an obvious Burgess/Barrett marriage we just missed.
-
until that marriage has been explained its all circumstantial
-
until that marriage has been explained its all circumstantial
True. Right now I find it too difficult to dismiss as so many of the details line up, but also difficult to accept as the right marriage given the name discrepancy and the time elapsed between their first child and the marriage date.
:-\
-
yes i wasnt say dismiss it but what is the explanation for the Burgess / Barrett name
-
Hello all,
Let me tell you where my starting point was and that may help strengthen the coincidences. For the record I think the Richard Burgess / Letitia Forbes union is simply a red herring that relates to another family and that Lydia/Letitia Barret simply used two forenames.
Anyway, sometime in the 1950's my mum saw a document relating to her mother's purchase of a Sewing Machine on Hire Purchase. My mum's grandfather stood as guarantor for the loan and signed his name as George Macland Burgess. This name also appears on his 1955 Death Certificate. However, on all other records he appears only as George Burgess.
A quick trawl of Ancestry for 'George Macland Burgess' produces nothing, but with the addition of the 'k' into Mac(k)land, it reveals, one born around 1823 and two subsequent people with the same name. These turn out to be descendants of Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett, as is my great grandfather's grandfather, Richard Burgess b. 1815.
My George Macland Burgess' father, John, was born in 1848, so appears on the 1851 Census, as the son of Richard Burgess of Rainham and Lydia Burgess of Woolwich. The oldest surviving child is Richard b. 1842. John Burgess' Birth Certificate gives his parents as Richard Burgess junr. and Letitia Burgess, formerly Barrett. Given the small gap between 1848 and 1851 I have always presumed that Lydia and Letitia were the same people.
Having looked at the 1841 Census and finding a Richard, Lydia and George all living together (along with John Barrett) I ordered George Mackland Burgess' 1842 Marriage Certificate which gave his occupation as Paper Stainer (a match to the census) and his father as Richard Burgess, Paper Stainer. The 1851 Census gives both John and Richard as coming from Rainham and Rainham is where we find Mackland Farm, which ties in with the information I posted previously.
The two halves fit together very well and all of the individuals seem to be accounted for.
That still leaves an element of doubt about whether Richard's wife was Letitia, Lydia or (my preference) both and the Burgess/Forbes marriage, but I don't think they alter the basic foundation of Letitia/Lydia being Richard's only wife and the mother of all his children; unless something else emerges.
-
Looking at the witnesses at John Burgess' 1868 marriage:
Witnesses: Frederick Webb and Lydia Webb
found this marriage:
Frederick WEBB (leather dealer) = Elidia Tisha Burgess (sic) :o ;D ...she makes her mark as does Fred.
Witnesses: Emma Edwards, who witnessed 3 marriage on the page
and Henry Congdon
Her father = Richard Burgess, leather dealer
married: 4 Sep 1865, Bethnal Green, St James the Great
good grief ... She is Elizabeth in 1871 and Elesia in 1881
deb
She goes on to be worse than this,
Marriage 04 Sep 1865 Elodie Tisha Burgess
Census 1871 WEBB, Elizth Wife Married
Census 1881 WEBB, Elesia Wife Married
Census 1891 WEBB, Latitia Wife Married
Census 1901 WEBB, Lydia Wife Married
Census 1911 WEBB, Lettitia Mother Widow
I suppose its a girls prerogative to change her mind.
Neil
-
Hello all,
Let me tell you where my starting point was and that may help strengthen the coincidences. For the record I think the Richard Burgess / Letitia Forbes union is simply a red herring that relates to another family and that Lydia/Letitia Barret simply used two forenames.
Anyway, sometime in the 1950's my mum saw a document relating to her mother's purchase of a Sewing Machine on Hire Purchase. My mum's grandfather stood as guarantor for the loan and signed his name as George Macland Burgess. This name also appears on his 1955 Death Certificate. However, on all other records he appears only as George Burgess.
A quick trawl of Ancestry for 'George Macland Burgess' produces nothing, but with the addition of the 'k' into Mac(k)land, it reveals, one born around 1823 and two subsequent people with the same name. These turn out to be descendants of Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett, as is my great grandfather's grandfather, Richard Burgess b. 1815.
My George Macland Burgess' father, John, was born in 1848, so appears on the 1851 Census, as the son of Richard Burgess of Rainham and Lydia Burgess of Woolwich. The oldest surviving child is Richard b. 1842. John Burgess' Birth Certificate gives his parents as Richard Burgess junr. and Letitia Burgess, formerly Barrett. Given the small gap between 1848 and 1851 I have always presumed that Lydia and Letitia were the same people.
Having looked at the 1841 Census and finding a Richard, Lydia and George all living together (along with John Barrett) I ordered George Mackland Burgess' 1842 Marriage Certificate which gave his occupation as Paper Stainer (a match to the census) and his father as Richard Burgess, Paper Stainer. The 1851 Census gives both John and Richard as coming from Rainham and Rainham is where we find Mackland Farm, which ties in with the information I posted previously.
The two halves fit together very well and all of the individuals seem to be accounted for.
That still leaves an element of doubt about whether Richard's wife was Letitia, Lydia or (my preference) both and the Burgess/Forbes marriage, but I don't think they alter the basic foundation of Letitia/Lydia being Richard's only wife and the mother of all his children; unless something else emerges.
Hi Neil,
I completely agree - I'm satisfied that Lydia and Letitia are the same person and Richard's only wife.
I'm not convinced about the Burgess/Forbes wedding, though. Many of the details line up, except Letitia's surname and the date, and there's no clear sign of a second Richard/Letitia on the 1851. I don't think it's definitely a match, I just think there's a bit more out there to find out before all the pieces are on the table.
The search goes on!
-
I am now in receipt of the Will details of Richard Burgess from the London District Probate Registry. The hope was that I could compare the signature to that on the Marriage record, to see if they match. Unfortunately, what I have been sent appears to be a photocopy of a transcript, rather than a photocopy of the original (although it is difficult to be sure).
Everything seems to be written with the same hand, including the names of the witnesses, but the point where it says signature of 'Richard Burgess', it is written larger, so that it stands out from the page. I think this is just to make it easier to pick the name out and not a reflection that Richard signed in the space provided.
As far as I can tell the Banns no longer exist either (unless they are still in the Church), so that would seem to be another avenue closed off.
Neil
-
Ahh, that's a shame. Thank you for chasing that up :)
I've also tried to track down Banns, but haven't had any luck.
-
Hello my name is Elaine
I belive that Richard Burgess was my great great grandfather.
My grand mother was Charlotte Louise Burgess. Please could some one tell me why they are a Kent travellers site.
My sister has just recently told me.
-
Bringing this back to the top of the board as no one has responded to the post on the 19th from Elaine.
I can see that tn17 hasn't been online since 2021.
Hope you have some luck.
Kit
-
Hello Elaine,
Richard is your 3 x great-grandfather (Ernest, Charlotte, Richard Burgess, John Burgess, Richard Burgess/Letitia).
Can you expand upon your comment about 'Kent travellers site', I am not quite sure what you mean?
The Burgess family moved to London from Rainham in Kent and their Ancestors came from Maidstone, Kent going back to the 1750's. They seem to have been reasonably wealthy and there is no indication of them being 'travellers'.
Let me know what your sister is referring to and I will see if I can help illuminate the situation.
Neil
-
The roots chat forum is for romany gypsy's. This is the reason I'm confused. I have one remaining aunt alive. When I spoke to my cousin she was told by her mum my aunt her grand father or great grand father was a one eyed Irish man. I'm one of the youngest and was told about the farm. The family move to bow and the Shoreditch area.
They were sent to prison for arson.
So can some one explain why the burgess's are on here.
Elaine
-
The roots chat forum is for romany gypsy's
RootsChat is for everyone, welcome Elaine :)
Regards
Sarah
-
The roots chat forum is for romany gypsy's. This is the reason I'm confused.
I have made nearly 26,000 posts.
I am not Romany Gypsy.
Not a hint of Romany Gypsy in my Family Tree, which goes back to 1550!
-
Elaine,
I think you may be referring to John Burgess (1848-1937), your grand-mothers' grand-father, who lived most of the second half of his life in Kitchener Road, Walthamstow with a second partner who he never married. He was a General Dealer and had 7 children by his second partner, after having 11 by his wife, Susan Martha Harvey. He lost an eye and lived a rather scruffy existence, but he wasn't Irish, or a Gypsy. He was also estranged from some of the children from his first marriage, including my great-grandfather, who only knew that he had left the family home and didn't realise he had set up a new one a few miles away.
The reason that the Burgess' are on here is that some of us are descended from them and have been studying the family history. There are also some who have tried to help answer some of the peculiarities and confusion in the line.
I am happy to share some of what I know, including a photo of John Burgess and his father Richard Burgess if you want to send me a Personal message with your e-mail address.
Neil
-
I should also say that I don't know of any record of anyone being sent to Prison for Arson (although I don't rule it out). However, there was a Bankruptcy in family and at the time this often involved Prison sentences.
Sometimes stories get confused or exagerated as they pass down the generations, although they often contain at least a kernal of truth.
If you have any further information on the Arson e.g. what was burnt, by whom and when, I would love to investigate it further and I am sure many on others on here would help.
Neil
-
Hey Neil it was just that my sister said something along those lines she's done quite a lot of research and said that the farm was burnt down a number of times I just posted something in Google and put the Burgess name in and gypsy and it came up on ok Kennedy's gypsy site name is there along with all the other names that maybe aren't quite so common so it's kind of flummoxed me as for the farm I'm not sure if the lady would have been my great great grandmother not sure but my nan I'm obviously a lot younger told the story to my dad and he's brothers and sisters that though whoever he was married to
-
Died he remarried and whoever was the eldest daughter and I'm not sure how old they were was made to look after the children and tend the farm slaughter chickens go to name it and as far as soon as they could they left and went to London. The fact that they are irish yes tons me because no one said a word in my family about our heritage quite the reverse
-
And as for my sister apparently people would get in touch and glean any bits of information they could offer and they're not bother keeping in touch so I don't think she's going to be the most helpful person. She did say that a young boy america was trying to trace the family back. I'm at a cousin once when i was at work and i said no doubt i've been seeing someone called johnny burgess and just like that he went gary'llllyour cousin I would appreciate anything you can send me I have supplied my email address but believe me they were a strange family
-
Hey Neil
I have sent my email, not sure you have received
Elaine
-
Hey Neil
I have sent my email, not sure you have received
Elaine
Hello Elaine,
No I haven't but I have sent my e-mail address again in a Personal Messsage on here, so you can either reply to that with yours or try sending me an e-mail again.
Cheers.
Neil