RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: brightmount on Tuesday 05 May 15 22:38 BST (UK)
-
I would be grateful if any of you handwriting experts could cast your eye over the attachment. I am trying to decipher the second entry, No. 279, February 20th 1891.
Even better if you can then find them in the 1891 census. There ought to be a good chance as it was taken only weeks later, so hopefully the family were still at 70 Palmerston Road, Wimbledon.
The first name of the child looks like Arneil Inverity, I'm sure that doesn't look right. And the surname - Ross or Rots???
Hope someone can put me out of my misery!
-
There is this birth reg showing:
Arinold Inverty Ross in Kingston - 1st Qrt 1891 - (refs. 2a /311)
www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl
Monica :)
-
Well done Monica - that looks good. ;D
England Select births and christenings shows (this is transcribed no image) Arneil ...Verity Ross - male - 20 feb 1891 - Holy Trinity Church, Wimbledon, Surrey - Father Arneil Ross - Mother Mary.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJTS-G5H
Sandra
-
Not found the parents yet, but ...
1891 census
RG12/606 folio 86 page 62
72 Palmerston Road, Wimbledon
Charlotte Collingham, head, widow, 53, monthly nurse (sick), born Middlesex Hanworth
George R. Rothenbury, son, single, 30, General Laborer, born Russia, Naturalized British Subject
Ernest T. Ross, boarder, 3 months, nurse child, born Surrey Wimbledon
Charles Minny, lodger, single, 29, General Laborer Unemployed, born Beds. Bedford
(perhaps Ernest T. should have been Arneil I.)
-
Also 'Arnold' with the same : 2a 311, Kingston, Surrey. Anna
-
Thanks everyone, and for the pointer where to find the address. I have now found 70 Palmerston Road but unfortunately the family aren't there at the time of the 1891 census; it's inhavited by Richard B Collett and his family and Joseph Windibank and his family. So none the wiser on these names and they seem to have baffled the transcribers too!
-
It seems likely that the first name is Arneil, as suggested. That could have been read as Ernest on the household schedule for 72 Palmerston Road in 1891.
Throwing Arneil into various 'global' websites seems to produce more results for Scotland than for England, for what that's worth.
-
I wonder whether there was a family connection to the Harvey couple of the same address whose child was baptised at the same time (next line down)?
-
I could not find 70 Palmerston Road but the house must have looked something like this.
http://www.rentalsandsales.co.uk/index.php?option=com_propertylab&task=showproperty&id=1459&perpage=5&start=0&type=tolet&Itemid=110
-
avm, you would think there must be a connection wouldn't you? But I can't find the Harvey family either in the 1891 census, and it was taken only a few weeks later than these baptismal entries.
-
Maybe the second name really is Inverity as it looks like. I can't see originals but the name does crop up in transcript as a surname on Ancestry and Scotland's People which I don't have access to. Maybe from the place name Inverarity. So the Ross and Harvey families may have gone straight back to Scotland hence why I can't find them.
-
But I can't find the Harvey family either in the 1891 census
The HARVEY family (indexed as HAWEY) are also living at 72 Palmerston Road in 1891, in the same house as the child 'Ernest T. Ross' (see reply #3 above), but as a separate household.
1891 census
RG12/606 folio 86 page 62
72 Palmerston Road, Wimbledon
Charles Harvey, head, married, 26, Plumber, born Surrey Croydon
Ada Harvey, wife, married, 24, born Herts Elstree
Charles Harvey, son, 3 months, born Middlesex Hanworth
-
Also 'Arnold' with the same : 2a 311, Kingston, Surrey. Anna
This entry also gives 2 options of the middle name -
Arnold Inverty Ross Kingston 2a 311
Arnold Laverty Ross Kingston 2a 311
Sandra
-
This is the Harvey family in 1901 108 Russell Road Wimbledon Kingston Surrey -
Charles Harvey 36 Plummer.
Ada Harvey 34
Charles Harvey 10
Frank Bell 42 Boarder. Builders Labourer.
Adam Mitchell 26 Boarder. Carpenter.
Sandra
-
No clues with the Harvey marriage - 26 May 1890 - St Marys Merton - Looking at the marriage - Charles Frederick Harvey - 25 years - Bachelor- Plummer - Residence Merton - Father Frederick Harvey. Whitesmith.
Ada Harvey - 23 years - Spinster - Residence Merton - Father - Jonathan Harvey - Gardener.
Sandra
-
But I can't find the Harvey family either in the 1891 census
The HARVEY family (indexed as HAWEY) are also living at 72 Palmerston Road in 1891, in the same house as the child 'Ernest T. Ross' (see reply #3 above), but as a separate household.
1891 census
RG12/606 folio 86 page 62
72 Palmerston Road, Wimbledon
Charles Harvey, head, married, 26, Plumber, born Surrey Croydon
Ada Harvey, wife, married, 24, born Herts Elstree
Charles Harvey, son, 3 months, born Middlesex Hanworth
I think this is the child you are looking for Arnold/Ernest Ross. Looking at the 1891 census I think the 'T' is a mistranscription of the initial 'I'. It is far too great a coincidence to have two babies both 3 months old in the same house and one with the surname of Ross. So, what became of Arnold/Ernest parents?
PS - the // should indicate a separate household. I believe all six to be in the same household
-
PS - the // should indicate a separate household. I believe all six to be in the same household
One slash / separates households, as indicated by the schedule numbers on the left.
Two slashes // separate dwellings.
I think there is one slash / after the son Charles Harvey, though it's hard to see because it's partly overwritten by a heavier diagonal stroke.
-
Hi,
I understood that two strokes // denoted the beginning of a new household and one stroke / denoted the first person in a subsidiary family in a household. But, yes point taken it is tricky to see if something is hidden under the heavier mark.
-
I understood that two strokes // denoted the beginning of a new household and one stroke / denoted the first person in a subsidiary family in a household.
I don't think so. Below is the relevant instruction for 1901, but I believe the principle was the same in 1891.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/EnumInstr.html
3. Under the last entry for each house draw a strong DOUBLE line, as in the example on the opposite page, to separate such entries from those for the house next following; and where there are two or more occupiers in the same house, draw a single line to distinguish the separate families, as in the example, [NOTE-- The occupier of a separate tenement, even if living alone without wife or family, must be treated as a separate family.]
-
Have a look at this document pg 22-23
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~matthew/Papers/1881doc.pdf ;)
In any event, it sounds like there were issues with instructions being followed properly!
-
Yes, I'm aware of Woollard's work. Sorry, but I just don't think there's an issue here. I believe they are two different schedules/households in the same building.
-
brightmount, can I ask, what is your connection to this family group from the 1890 baptism? The answer can often help in knowing where to look next.
Monica :)
PS: I too think the Harvey family mentioned and discussed is likely connected, as found and sourced by others.
-
Yes, I'm aware of Woollard's work. Sorry, but I just don't think there's an issue here. I believe they are two different schedules/households in the same building.
Sorry Boxbox we'll just have to agree to disagree - I think there is some connection between these two - i.e. a subsidiary family. The connection may help brightmount. In one group you have a traditional family unit with a 3 month old in the other a nurse (+ her son + lodger) with a 3 month old who is described as a 'nurse child'. Both babies are baptised on the same day in the same church..
-
I think there is some connection between these two - i.e. a subsidiary family.
You may well be right, and I don't dispute a possible connection between these two households. Maybe it needs more research. :)