RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Nottinghamshire => Topic started by: treegirl on Friday 15 July 22 17:42 BST (UK)
-
Hi -
My 2xggrandfather (Thomas SMITH JOHNSON) and my 3xggrandfather (Matthew JOHNSON) lived with their families in Cross Guns Yard, Newark in the mid 1800s.
It appears that my 3x ggrandfather and my 2xggrandfather did not have the best relationship to say the least.
I have found a newspaper article from September 1867 where the two are up agains each other in court for an altercation. The article states:
"The Mayor said it was a very disreputable case... and cautioned parties for the future, as the superintendent would watch the neighbourhood....It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave"
By the time the 1871 census was taken, Thomas and his family had moved to Derby and were recorded as Thomas S. Johnson (and likewise for his wife Maria and three daughters)
By 1881, the family were in Leicester (with another daughter and son) and just recorded as SMITH.
The change of name had always been a mystery in our family, but this bad blood appears to shed some light on that!
I was wondering if anyone could direct me to whether Thomas and family were instructed to go (as per the 1867 article) or not? I am hoping they made the proactive choice to get away, rather than being made to leave!
Many thanks in advance
TreeGirl:-)
-
The article says Matthew Johnson was Thomas Smith Johnson stepfather. Nottingham Journal, 13 September 1867
So if you are making a family tree Matthew was not his father
-
It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave
I interpret that to mean, that the person in charge of the houses determined that one of them should leave the properties, but only that.
As far as I am aware, the courts would not have had any legal right to compel either family to leave the county. The only circumstances I have heard of people being forced to move, is if they became paupers. Then they could be forced to go back to the parish that they were originally from, and that was only because they would be financially supported by their original parish.
That doesn't seem to be the case in your family, unless the family that moved were originally from Derby.
So I would assume it was a choice, rather than something they were compelled to do.
That's all guess work though.
-
Hi,
Just what I was looking up and typing :)
Birth
Thomas SMITH Jun Q 1840 Newark 15 545
Marriage
Matthew JOHNSON Dec Q 1840 Newark 15 1032
Elizabeth SMITH
27 Oct 1840
St Mary Magdalene, Newark on Trent
Matthew JOHNSON
Elizabeth SMITH
Regards,
Daisy
-
Re 1881 census Thomas and Maria.
The youngest children Mary 1872 -Derby and Robert 1877 - Leicester were registered as Smith not Johnson.
So Thomas went back to his original surname after 1868 birth of daughter Elizabeth Smith Johnson- Newark.
ADDED
So was daughter Fanny registered 1883 Leicester
-
Look at 1851 census Cross Guns Yard
Thomas is listed as Thomas Smith age 11,
all the other children are Mary, Robert, Hannah and William are Johnson.
So not Matthew's child
-
Thanks all.
I know that the article does refer to Matthew as stepfather, but I do question that.
As you found, Thomas' mother was Elizabeth SMITH and father was Matthew JOHNSON and they married shortly after Thomas was born in 1840. I have interpreted that as the reason behind the double barrelled nature of his name. Matthew Johnson was named as his father on Thomas' wedding certificate.
Thomas and Maria's first two daughters - Sarah and Harriet - were originally Smith Johnson. The third - Maria - was Maria S. Johnson (as were the rest of the family on the 1871 census) and then Mary, Robert (my g grandfather) and Fanny were all just Smith. A gradual phasing out of the link with Matthew ....
It was clearly a very bad relationship between Matthew/Elizabeth and Thomas/Maria. There are other articles about altercations between Elizabeth and Maria as well as further problems with Matthew and pretty much everyone! I always found it interesting that none of the many children of Matthew and Elizabeth chose to name any of their own children Matthew!
Perhaps Matthew was only stepfather and I don't have to own him in my family :o ;)
I always hoped that Thomas and Maria made the move for the good of their own family. Will probably never get to the bottom of it!
TreeGirl :)
-
Thomas birth was registered June Quarter so birthday April, May or June.
Matthew and Elizabeth married October
so Thomas could have been 6 months old
-
"The Mayor said it was a very disreputable case... and cautioned parties for the future, as the superintendent would watch the neighbourhood....It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave"
It's possible when Thomas' tenancy agreement was up, it wasn't renewed i.e. he had no choice but to move.
Annie
-
Hi -
amondg - you got me thinking and I have done some more digging and have found a record of a baptism for Thomas Smith JOHNSON from May 6th 1840 which states that mother's name was Elizabeth SMITH and father's name was Matthew JOHNSON. Seems I can't pass him off as stepfather after all!
TreeGirl :)
-
Check the court records.
-
I'm not local - can I do that online?
-
DNA could settle it
Even if he was named as father on baptism it doesn't prove paternity .
From what you've said , Thomas himself must have believed that Mathew was NOT his father .
-
baptism for Thomas Smith JOHNSON from May 6th 1840 which states that mother's name was Elizabeth SMITH and father's name was Matthew JOHNSON.
What date was given for Thomas' birth & what date was it registered?
If Matthew was Thomas' father, why didn't he sign the official birth registration?
Did Matthew have an occupation which took him away from home which meant he wasn't at home when Thomas' birth was recorded & was going to be away for a duration?
Why, if he was 'away' was the birth not amended to include his name on his return or at a later date?
Was Matthew in attendance at Thomas' baptism?
It appears to me, Matthew & Elizabeth met while she was 'with child', they decided to marry prior to Thomas' birth & Elizabeth has named Matthew as 'father' on the baptism of Thomas, possibly unknown to Matthew?
It then seems, at a later date, after Thomas married, there was a reason for the 'truth' to come out & Thomas learned Matthew wasn't his biological father?
As has been mentioned, DNA may be the way to find the truth?
Annie
-
Thomas' mother was Elizabeth SMITH and father was Matthew JOHNSON and they married shortly after Thomas was born in 1840. I have interpreted that as the reason behind the double barrelled nature of his name. Matthew Johnson was named as his father on Thomas' wedding certificate.
From your posts, I don't see Thomas with a "double barrelled" name.
His official birth registration was as Thomas SMITH & later became Thomas Smith JOHNSON not Thomas SMITH-JOHNSON i.e. his official surname of Smith became his middle name.
Annie
-
Lots of food for thought here!
Will probably try and get Thomas' birth certificate to see what light that can shed.
Thanks all.
TreeGirl :)
(The reference to 'double barrelled' was tongue in cheek, btw! A nod to my Nan, who was initially excited when we found her grandfather was Thomas Smith Johnson because she thought it meant they were 'posh' and exclaimed "We were double-barrelled!" only to be disappointed when it was pointed out that it was more likely to indicate illegitamacy!)
-
Hi -
amondg - you got me thinking and I have done some more digging and have found a record of a baptism for Thomas Smith JOHNSON from May 6th 1840 which states that mother's name was Elizabeth SMITH and father's name was Matthew JOHNSON. Seems I can't pass him off as stepfather after all!
TreeGirl :)
The baptism is at St Mary Mags, Newark and says 6 May 1840 Christian name- Thomas Smith, fathers name Matthew Johnson. Mothers name-Elizabeth Smith. Father a labourer abode Newark. This is exactly how my great grandmothers baptism is entered, her parents married several years later, after his first wife died.
Baptism St Mary Mags, Newark 7 June 1863 Sarah dau of Thomas JOHNSON and Maria father a labourer abode "wooden houses"
-
The baptism is at St Mary Mags, Newark and says 6 May 1840 Christian name- Thomas Smith, fathers name Matthew Johnson. Mothers name-Elizabeth Smith. Father a labourer abode Newark. This is exactly how my great grandmothers baptism is entered, her parents married several years later, after his first wife died.
Baptism St Mary Mags, Newark 7 June 1863 Sarah dau of Thomas JOHNSON and Maria father a labourer abode "wooden houses"
[/quote]
Thanks for this, Larkspur. These are definitely my lot. I think this is the only time I have seen Thomas and Maria recorded purely as Johnson.
Does anyone have any sense of where "wooden houses" would have been? I know that the family lived around the yards (CGY, Tenter Buildings, Bedlam Lane. Maria's family were in St Leonard's Court) so I am imagining they are from that area.
TreeGirl :)
-
There were a row of wooden houses on Bedlam Lane. ( Now Sherwood Avenue) They were demolished many years ago and are now Alms houses. The lamp post in the photo is at the top of Baldertongate , Cross guns Yard was off there. If you look on the following link there are photos of both the old wooden houses and the new alms houses.https://www.facebook.com/groups/NewarkonTrent/
-
This is fantastic, Larkspur. Thank you!
TreeGirl :)
-
;) we have talked before about the Smith family. My great, great aunt Eliza Antcliffe was the third wife of Robert Smith.
-
;) we have talked before about the Smith family. My great, great aunt Eliza Antcliffe was the third wife of Robert Smith.
I know we've chatted about these reprobates before!
Robert Smith as in my 4xggrandfather?? Or a different Robert Smith?
TreeGirl :)
-
Robert Smith born 1830 in Melton Mowbray. The son of Robert and Evening Smith.