RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Kent => Topic started by: bradwaterss on Tuesday 05 November 24 20:53 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all
My great grandad was “abandoned” as a child and raised by another lady…. No one has any idea why and after hours of research I am no closer than I was
All I have to go off is his birth certificate which my family already has but as you can he was Stoker in Royal Navy ( I think) but we have no dates of births for either of them
Information very sparse on Ancestry. Would love to be able to surprise the family with the information
They lived at 4 Boundary Close Chatham at the time of his birth
Not sure if this is any help or relevance but he was raised by a lady named Mrs Robinson
Thank you
-
What a coincidence the registrar is Robinson.
Have you found him on 1921 and looking at his birth address
Just a thought
LM
-
Hi,
Yes I did think that was a coincidence
Yes I looked at 1921 and it was different people - seems they just up and left the house and child
Massive family mystery for 60+ years
-
Was he raised in Chatham?
Did he keep his Brooks surname or use Robinson?
-
Hi,
all I know is he didn’t know his real name was Brooks until he joined the army at 18 and he found out his real name
I think he unofficially used Robinson as he believed that was his mother
He was raised mostly in Chertsey, Surrey
-
Have you found out where Mabel Ethel Brooks went to also what about a marriage for Mabel and her husband
LM
-
It would appear they married based off the birth certificate but I cannot find anything
I have no idea where they moved to after 4 Boundary Road Chatham
-
There is a Mabel E Brooks at 69 Boundary Road, Chatham
Her children Leslie E, Gladys M and Doris E, are registered with her maiden name being Bond.
Ref: GRO Index.
-
There is a marriage 1912 - Medway - Mabel E Bond and Arthur W Brooks so that might be the family from Boundary Road.
-
Yes
Maiden name is Sayles or maybe spelt Sales?
-
DNA seems the way to go.
The registrar will write down what was given, no proof was needed.
-
There is a marriage of a Mabel Seales 1910 Portsmouth Sept quarter it lists two women and only one man so something is missing. Could the missing name be Brooks?
She seems to be the daughter of Thomas and Mary Seals (1901 census) of Portsmouth Hampshire.
NO
FindMyPast has the other name as Sidney C Borrett.
-
There is this possible, RN Stoker re-enlisted mentions Chatham
Name Joseph Brooks
Gender Male
Birth Date 27 Apr 1875
Birth Place Bermondsey, London
First Service Date 10 Dec 1894
First Ship Served On Vivid II
Last Service Date 28 Jan 1902
Last Ship Served On Actaeon
Service Number 278653
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522
He seems to already have a wife Martha Hall, married 1901 https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/2781332:1623
Family can be found in 1911
1919 he is living in Chatham, wife has a different address
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
Dies May 1922 on pension records
Possible
Deaths Jun Q 1922
Brooks Joseph 46 Medway 2a 863
Only stoker with namesake that came up, so would keep on file or try rule out.
Cas
-
Only stoker with namesake that came up, so would keep on file or try rule out.
There are these 2 men who have records as a stoker with the navy.
Joseph Brooks
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_p=1900&_q=Joseph+Brooks+navy+stoker
born 7 June 1891 Ashby Leicestershire
K22497
Joseph Brookes
21 March 1882 Sheffield Yorkshire
SS101146
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7086666
Also a couple of possible stokers to look at with the name Thomas Brooks
Thomas Brooks b 20 April 1893
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D6996679
Thomas Brooks b 26 August 1893
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D6979423
-
Have you followed the Mabel SAYLES b 1890 to Benjamin and Mary (nee MYERS) SAYLES?
She can be seen in 1901 living with her mother, Mary Elizabeth who has remarried and whose surname is now STANARD/STONARD and sisters. They live in Russell Road Wimbledon.
In 1911 she is still single with this family
One sister I think is named Ethel, though on other census she is Eliza.
On the 1911 document . Mabel I think has written her own name and it resembles the signature of the bride in a marriage to George WELLS in 1920 which took place in Clapham Surrey.
Sue
-
FYI, but not of real help ???
In 1911 living at 4 Boundary Rd Chatham, a home of 6 rooms,.
ALLAN, Stewart,34. an accountant
ALLAN, Minnie, 27
Allan Stewart 4 years.
They'd been married 5 years.
Sue
-
In April 1914 someone with the initial 'A' living at 4 Boundary Road was seeking employment as 'companion-help' or housekeeper.
[Kent Messenger & Gravesend Telegraph page 10 "Situations Wanted (Female)", 4 April 1914]
Possibly 'A' for the Allan family?
-
Disappointing to have not heard from bradwaterss even though they have been online since helpful information has been offered.
However, moving forward.
bradwaterss, you need to view the 1939 register where you will see Joseph G Brooks and family in Chertsey.
Please note the family next door. ROBINSON.
Research....
Albert Leonard ROBINSON married Gertrude Louise INGHAM in 1912
They were living in Chertsey by 1925 and before that in Farnham.
An online tree on Ancestry states there were 3 adoptrd children, unnamed of course, and there are photos of them. One is a boy.
Sue
-
"all I know is he didn’t know his real name was Brooks until he joined the army at 18 and he found out his real name"
Presumably, before he joined the Army he used a name other than BROOKS.
Then he joined the Army, at which point.....what happened to cause him to believe his name was BROOKS?
-
Hi All,
Apologise for not respoding sooner, only got a quick glance as i was at work and on a night shift - Wasnt deliberate....
Now i have had a chance to read in full i will respond,
I have chekced out all the NAVY links and i cannot be sure as i do not know where he was born, i belive he used the surname Robinson until he joined the army when they told him his legal father Brooks, upon discovering he was adopted he opted to change it back to Brooks - Then he entered military and started using this name.
He did trace his parents back to a house/area which they could not be found / had been told they arent around anymore and that was the end of the search for him.
He lives in Chilsey Green road with his wife - Maybe he mved next door to his adopted parents the Robinsons as they had a good relationship?
I think a comment on this thread that names and dates where not verified may be accurate? Young parents who gave diffrent names because they werent keeping him.
Brad
-
Hi
It's good that the conversation has helped you to make possible conclusions.
It does appear there was not a marriage of the parents and that the boy was adopted into the willing guardianship of Albert and Gertrude ROBINSON.
Perhaps further information will come to light in the future.
Sue
-
How would the army have known his birth name? That doesn't ring true.
-
How would the army have known his birth name? That doesn't ring true.
Would it not be more likely that his adoptive parents told him his real name at that point.
-
And why would it actually matter that he stated his true name or another on application to the services?
Plenty did not. Nor their correct ages.
And in his mid 20's, he is living next door to the ROBINSON's and no longer using their name.
Sue
-
You have several pieces of information to work with, and you have given these to this forum. You need to identify the source of the information, beyond just the fact that you have received the information from other people researching this man.
"All I have to go off is his birth certificate which my family already has "
How did your family researcher come by this birth certificate?
Was it an artifact handed down through the family.
Was it acquired since 1915 by a researcher ie how did the researcher know what record to look for?
If you are giving information that you have acquired from other people with an interest in the BROOKS/ROBINSON family you need to identify this to this forum (the fact, not the researcher)
To make best use of the information you are giving us to work with, you need to identify the source of your information.
"all I know" is not very helpful.
Do you have a marriage certificate for the man, born 1915, you are researching?
-
Hi all
My great grandad was “abandoned” as a child and raised by another lady…. No one has any idea why and after hours of research I am no closer than I was
All I have to go off is his birth certificate which my family already has but as you can he was Stoker in Royal Navy ( I think) but we have no dates of births for either of them
Information very sparse on Ancestry. Would love to be able to surprise the family with the information
They lived at 4 Boundary Close Chatham at the time of his birth
Not sure if this is any help or relevance but he was raised by a lady named Mrs Robinson
Thank you
Perhaps the Father, Joseph Thomas Brooks was also a Naval or Military man?
The Address on the Birth Certificate is Boundary Road, Chatham and his Military Occupation Royal Navy Stoker.
The Occupation in brackets (Furniture Polisher) was his Civil Occupation and probably before joining the Royal Navy.
Births, marriages and deaths in the armed forces
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/birth-marriage-death-armed-forces/
Dad would have been away for substantially long periods of time, so a trusted female took charge of the child?
Added: Chatham had a Royal Naval Dockyard, with land and buildings.
-
The 1915 Birth of Joseph Thomas Brooks was Registered with the General Register Office.
Mother Maiden Surname: Sayles
Registration District: Medway
Vol 2a p.1414
-
There is this possible, RN Stoker re-enlisted mentions Chatham
Name Joseph Brooks
Gender Male
Birth Date 27 Apr 1875
Birth Place Bermondsey, London
First Service Date 10 Dec 1894
First Ship Served On Vivid II
Last Service Date 28 Jan 1902
Last Ship Served On Actaeon
Service Number 278653
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522
He seems to already have a wife Martha Hall, married 1901 https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/2781332:1623
Family can be found in 1911
1919 he is living in Chatham, wife has a different address
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
Dies May 1922 on pension records
Possible
Deaths Jun Q 1922
Brooks Joseph 46 Medway 2a 863
Only stoker with namesake that came up, so would keep on file or try rule out.
Cas
Looking further at this man.
I can see 2 baptisms for children of the couple Joseoh and Martha BROOKS.
1902
BROOKS Doris Florence Martha. Mother Martha. Father Joseph of 18 Cleveland Rd, Hackney. A Sailor.
1903 BROOKS. Joseph Thomas. Mother Martha. Father Joseph of 57 Gopsall Street, Hackney. A Furniture Dealer
In 1911 the group lives in Islington and there are 2 further children. Joseph is a shop assistant in Furniture.
What do we think?
Sue
-
This may be known already to Bradwaterss, but I've tried coming forward in time.
Have you considered those present / witnesses at any Marriage of Joseph Thomas Brooks born 1915?
Deleted 1939 and 1921 information and sent a pm.
Added: I now note in Reply #19 you have considered those in the 1939 Register household.
-
Hi
I suspect Brad has some knowledge of facts in more recent times. Just going by his remarks in his reply#19.
I have been hesitant to post information contained on the 1921 census and the 1939 register because of copyright restraints and rootschat preferences. (As I understand them!)
As well as considerations of privacy for those still living.
However, I can say that in 1921, living with the Robinson's, George (BROOKS) was under a different first name and used the surname ROBINSON.
I am happy to PM details if requested,, or leave it to others to publish information on this board. ;D
Sue
-
The presumptive father ( in my opinion anyway ;)) was living apart from his wife in the year before his death.
His occupation was Boiler Fireman Royal Navy ,Unable to work.
Sue
-
Hi all ,
A lot to take in here , I think the furniture dealer link is rather interesting as he was in this line of work
So are you surmising that he had a wife and kids from another wife who then split up and had a child with another lady? And then he went on to die shortly after?
-
Hi Brad,
Yes, that is my speculation.
I cannot speak for others in the team, but on the basis of co-incidences of name and location shown through the documents we have explored, it is possible that Mabel SAYLES had relationship with Joseph BROOKS a married man who was possibly by then living apart from his wife, Martha (nee HALL).
He was in the Royal Navy until 1902 according to documents found by Cas and it appears he then moved into furniture sales of some description.
At the baptism of 2 of his children (with Martha) first Doris Martha Florence he was a sailor and by the baptism of John Thomas, 1903, he was a furniture dealer
He was older than the possible mother of your grandfather, Mabel by 15 years or so. Furniture polishing was his occupation at the registration of the boy's birth.
There are details of his whereabouts etc in 1921, but he is not with his wife Martha, as mentioned. Cas has noted he died in 1922.
Albert and Gertrude ROBINSON lived next door to their adopted son, by then known as Joseph BROOKS at the end of the 1930's.
I can use the Personal Message system to let you know what is seen about him in 1921.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Sue
-
Hi Brad,
Yes, that is my speculation.
I cannot speak for others in the team, but on the basis of co-incidences of name and location shown through the documents we have explored, it is possible that Mabel SAYLES had relationship with Joseph BROOKS a married man who was possibly by then living apart from his wife, Martha (nee HALL).
He was in the Royal Navy until 1902 according to documents found by Cas and it appears he then moved into furniture sales of some description.
At the baptism of 2 of his children (with Martha) first Doris Martha Florence he was a sailor and by the baptism of John Thomas, 1903, he was a furniture dealer
He was older than the possible mother of your grandfather, Mabel by 15 years or so. Furniture polishing was his occupation at the registration of the boy's birth.
There are details of his whereabouts etc in 1921, but he is not with his wife Martha, as mentioned. Cas has noted he died in 1922.
Albert and Gertrude ROBINSON lived next door to their adopted son, by then known as Joseph BROOKS at the end of the 1930's.
I can use the Personal Message system to let you know what is seen about him in 1921.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Sue
Yes that would brilliant to hear from you in a personal message , this all sounds way too convenient for it to not be true and it’s opened my eyes into a new route to go down - appreciate all the help to get to this point.
I re spoke to my family and apparently he was called up to the military with his Brooks surname (he thought he was Robinson until this point) that’s when he found out , so he must not of legally had his name changed to Robinson.
He found out his parents address and went back when he was around 17/18 to find them but neighbours told him they had not lived there for a long time so he gave up his search
But if he died in 1922 when Joseph was 7 then he would not of been able to find him. I should also note he went by the nickname Jack
-
The 1921 census is free to search this weekend.
If I recall, the nickname Jack solves a little mystery.
-
Hi,
It’s free to search on what website this weekend?
-
Find my Past
-
It would seem that not all Royal Navy records are at TNA, Kew and therefore not all are on Ancestry / f m p ?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/research/tracing-your-family-history/tracing-your-royal-naval-history/where-to-find-royal-navy-service-records
Says
RN and RNVR ratings who served 1888 to 1923 Engagement and Enrolment Papers at National Museum of the Royal Navy
https://www.nmrn.org.uk/
I think I would be inclined to write / email with your scan you attached on this thread and ask them?
I seem to recall that the occupation in brackets was their Civilian Occupation upon joining and I can't find a Royal Navy Record online for a Joseph T Brooks (& without initial) with Furniture Polisher on it?
Mark
-
Hi Mark,
I will definitely send an email and ask, I think I remember another member saying he did furniture polishing after that Navy as opposed to before. Unsure what he did before
Brad
-
I purchased the death certificate for the man we think it may be, born 1975 beemondsey and died 1922 in Chatham
can see the witness was M E Brooks! Was this Mabel Ethel ( who is on the birth certificate) or Martha his first wife?
It also says his job was “ a pensioner chief petty officer RN”
I cannot upload due to document size
-
Are there any other details for the informant - address/relationship?
If you look at 1921 census, there is an M E (servant) with him although different surname.
They may have been in a relationship.
-
Are there any other details for the informant - address/relationship?
If you look at 1921 census, there is an M E (servant) with him although different surname.
They may have been in a relationship.
M E Brooks
Yes it says widower of deceased (or divorced hard to say )
Present at the death
47 new road Chatham
-
Link below to Dropbox with the death certificate
https://www.dropbox.com/t/hDjP1H0OxUSNoLmG
-
It may well be the lady living at that address.
You can just clip the part of the certificate.
-
There seems to be an important and relevant note to the far right - mentions the name 'Harmer'. Can the whole of that note be seen on the cert you have received? If not you will have to order a paper copy from the GRO.
-
I agree, M.E.Brooks, widow of deceased.
BUT what does the bit on the right say!?
It looks as though it must be a statutory declaration of some sort
-
That name is relevant to 1921 census.
-
Perhaps that explains the underlining of the surname and status of the informant.
-
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married Albert Alfred HARMER 5 Nov 1899 in Willesden, London but don't know if this is any use?
-
There is no evidence that Martha (nee HALL) , the wife of Joseph had died by 1922, the year of Joseph's death.
Therefore, obviously, Mary Elizabeth the housekeeper could not make a legal marriage with Joseph BROOKS.
I cannot see a probate record in any of her possible names. BROOKS HARMER, DARMER.
Sue
-
I agree, M.E.Brooks, widow of deceased.
BUT what does the bit on the right say!?
It looks as though it must be a statutory declaration of some sort
I agree but what does the Margin note say? I can only see
for Bro...
Ha[?]...
Widow o ...
Correcte...
June
R E
Regis...
on prod...
Statutor...
made by ...
R E might be the initials of the Registrar? So it looks to be relevant?
-----------
I had a Death Certificate where the GRO decided to type up the Death Certificate and the margin note, possibly because the margin note started in the margin of the adjacent Certificate?
In my Certificate case the Informant with another person had gone a few months later and made a sworn oath that they had made an error with the surname spelling when they reported the death.
I had discovered the deceased was a beneficiary in a PCC Will and it was probably needed by the Son to show kinship.
-
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married Albert Alfred HARMER 5 Nov 1899 in Willesden, London but don't know if this is any use?
That seems significant - worth investigating.
-
I have added above what I can read.
----------
An example of another Certificate Margin Note.
Mine had numbers 15 & 18 above the surname, indicating what the spelling was and what it was changed to.
But it could be any type of alteration.
-
Caught the quote button by mistake
-
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married Albert Alfred HARMER 5 Nov 1899 in Willesden, London but don't know if this is any use?
Marriage image online - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/7800137:1623
Mary Elizabeth Harmer (nee Sayles) widow, occupation is a Dresser line showrooms, Furnisher in 1911 - maybe how they met?
1911 - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/39837601:2352
I wonder if this is Mabel Ethel? Why would she change names on BC but give her maiden name...
Cas
-
The 2nd visible line of the Margin Note (Reply 42 & 45) does look like it could be read Harme...
Added
Looking at where I believe the surname of the Registrar may appear, I would estimate that 2/3 rds of the width of the message is missing.
-
Yes, odd to use Mabel instead of Mary and Sayles instead of Harmer I would agree
-
The couple are together 1921 at the address on DC, her surname Harmer. Joseph there from around 1919 on RN service records.
I think the note on DC could be as his wife Martha claimed his RN pension rights. Maybe she contested that M.E Brooks, who registered death, as widow, was M.E Harmer and not his wife?
Just a suggestion, I would consider DNA testing, by a elder family member, to try confirm parentage of Jack/Joseph jnr. DNA cannot lie.
Cas
-
Interesting!!
When you say DNA , does the 23&me test for example work? How could you link him to a family member
-
Interesting!!
When you say DNA , does the 23&me test for example work? How could you link him to a family member
Ancestry has the biggest database, personally I would not go with 23&me. When your DNA results are back, you will have matches, you can link to your tree (if you have one on Ancestry) matches are in Cms the higher they are.. the nearer the match etc.
If considering it, I would read up. There a many useful topics & links on Rootschat and elsewhere.
Added - Some Xmas offers already up (I have no affiliation)
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/c/dna/offer
Cas
-
Could Mary Elizabeth SAYLES be a sister of Mabel Ethel SAYLES who is the mother of Joseph Thomas BROOKS junior? She may not have been able to marry Joseph Thomas BROOKS senior as he was already married to Martha, but she could have changed her surname by deed poll to BROOKS to appear married. This happens in my family, divorces were not cheap and at one point you had to have committed something like adultery to get one, no longer wanting to be married was not an option for divorce legally.
Then later Mary Elizabeth, if her sister Mabel Ethel died could also have been a common law wife of Joseph Thomas BROOKS and changed her surname by deed poll, again in my family it was not unusual for a man to marry his wife's sister after she died. Just a thought.
-
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married Albert Alfred HARMER 5 Nov 1899 in Willesden, London but don't know if this is any use?
Marriage image online - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/7800137:1623
Mary Elizabeth Harmer (nee Sayles) widow, occupation is a Dresser line showrooms, Furnisher in 1911 - maybe how they met?
1911 - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/39837601:2352
I wonder if this is Mabel Ethel? Why would she change names on BC but give her maiden name...
Cas
1907
Albert Alfred Harmer, 30 years, died in the Reg'n District of Hendon.
Joseph Brooks, Royal Navy born Bermondsey appears to have been medically discharged?
Mary Elizabeth Harmer, a Widow in 1907 may be the Servant to Joseph Brooks ... named 1921
From the scant incomplete Death Certificate Margin Note, Widow Harmer may have registered the death of Joseph Brooks?
It seems for some reason, the Death Certificate has a Margin Note?
Mark
Added
In 1921 Joseph Brooks is running a Boarding House, with Boarders, formerly Royal Navy
-
That is really interesting, I still find it odd she is down as Mabel on the birth certificate
So she became his servant while he was separated from his wife and they had the child ?
So rather interestingly he could have married his ex wife’s sister? Or had a child with her?
-
A great deal of conjecture going on here. Unwise, I think.
Is there evidence of a sister called Mabel Ethel?
Is there any evidence of any other marriage?
Is there any evidence their "son" was living with them in 1921, & dependent on his pension?
-
**I had composed this and ready to post when Neale posted and they overlap somewhat with train of thought.
I think you need to look at Mary Elizabeth Sayles in records.
If she is the one who married Mr Harmer, her father was Edwin.
That family are at 1881 651 /56/31
Mary Elizabeth is born Westminster and they are living in Battersea.
There doesn’t seem to be a sister Mabel.
1921 Mary Elizabeth is born Clapham, which appears to be close to Battersea.
1911 gives details of several Harmer children - DNA might be useful here.
I might have missed this but are the notes on the death certificate not shown in full at all?
Whoever is the mother of the young Joseph Brooks does not seem to have any responsibility for him so you would think they would not be interested in claiming any pension on his behalf.
-
Just to add though, that it seems quite unusual/coincidental that Joseph’s mother is Sayles and the servant /possible partner of Joseph Brooks could also be Sayles - not a common name and may even have the same initials.
-
Seems rather coincidental - not sure the next move other than DNa to try disprove this?
-
I'm still struggling to find Mabel Ethel Sayles, the Mother, on the 1915 Birth Certificate?
-
The birth certificate is at the beginning of this thread that shows her name on it
-
Below is the picture
-
I'm still struggling to find Mabel Ethel Sayles, the Mother, on the 1915 Birth Certificate?
Sorry, I meant to say the Birth / Baptism of Mabel Ethel Sayles.
-
I'm still struggling to find Mabel Ethel Sayles, the Mother, on the 1915 Birth Certificate?
Sorry, I meant to say the Birth / Baptism of Mabel Ethel Sayles.
Hi.BushInn1746
SAYLES, MABEL Mother maiden surname MYERS
GRO Reference: 1889
D Quarter
in ECCLESALL BIERLOW
Volume 09C Page 342
Please refer to the earlier part of this thread (Reply #14 on) where I have proposed a possible identity,
The second name Ethel is not used
Sue
-
Interesting that Mabel’s mother is Mary Elizabeth - which has added to my confusion.
Is the theory, if there is one, that Joseph fathered a child to:
Mabel Sayles b 1890 and that she added the name Ethel
and he, within a couple of years, then took up with
Mary Elizabeth Harmer nee Sayles?
Added
Brad, it’s best to remove the latest image of the birth. You have it early in the thread and all that black isn’t good. 😊
-
Just putting this here so we don't have to keep looking it up! Sue's post:
Have you followed the Mabel SAYLES b 1890 to Benjamin and Mary (nee MYERS) SAYLES?
She can be seen in 1901 living with her mother, Mary Elizabeth who has remarried and whose surname is now STANARD/STONARD and sisters. They live in Russell Road Wimbledon.
In 1911 she is still single with this family
One sister I think is named Ethel, though on other census she is Eliza.
On the 1911 document . Mabel I think has written her own name and it resembles the signature of the bride in a marriage to George WELLS in 1920 which took place in Clapham Surrey.
Sue
The Mary Elizabeth MYERS from Sue's post I think was the daughter of William MYERS a joiner.
On 19 Apr 1886 in Sheffield she married Benjamin SAYLES, son of Charles SAYLES a vetinary surgeon.
On 10 Feb 1901 as a widow she married Henry STONARD in Wimbledon, Surrey/London.
On the 1901 census with Henry in Wimbledon she is age 36 born Wombwell, Yorkshire and has Eliza E SAYLES age 12 born Derby, Derbyshire, Mabel SAYLES age 11 born Derby, Derbyshire, and Minnie Annie Elizabeth SAYLES age 7 born Wimbledon, Surrey.
This maybe the Mabel (age 11 in 1901) who is a chance to be the mother of Joseph Thomas BROOKS, and yes we are guessing because there are no records we can find to prove anything concrete that we can find presently!
-
Thank you haliared.
So with your ‘guess’ re Mabel, daughter of Benjamin, do you think it is just coincidence that Joseph then took up with Mary Elizabeth Harmer nee Sayles?
Brad, sorry to ask again, is the margin note on the death certificate cut off on your copy or just the post on here?
-
Hi,
It was how it was received unfortunately, i could order it as a certificate which would take a while to come
I only ordered the digital image, i could try the PDF version?
-
Hi,
It was how it was received unfortunately, i could order it as a certificate which would take a while to come
I only ordered the digital image, i could try the PDF version?
PDF version would probably be cropped as well. I would order the paper version because you should definitely be able to read the additional note. I also assume you only have a digital version of the birth cert too, so I would order the paper version just in case there's a note added to it as well.
-
Hi,
Yes, i agree
I will order both and revert back
Brad
-
Thank you haliared.
So with your ‘guess’ re Mabel, daughter of Benjamin, do you think it is just coincidence that Joseph then took up with Mary Elizabeth Harmer nee Sayles?
Hi Heywood
haliared has in their post quoted some of my posts earlier in this thread, though without the actual quote formatting ;D
in my reply #32 I have made the hypothesis of Mabel as mother.
I cannot comment on the co-incidence of surname SAYLES between the 2 women assosiated with Joseph BROOKS.
Nor can I see a connection between them.
Sue
-
Thanks Sue. I knew it was your quote.
I was trying to clarify things. At one point it seemed that there might be a supposition that the two women were the same person - both initials M E with a change of first names for the birth registration.
Obviously if your Mabel is correct, their ages and places of birth are different so not so.
I am just being fussy.
-
Hi
I understood that you knew it was originally from me ;D
I was not sure that others did.
I'm pretty sure that the RN serviceman Joseph BROOKS (turned furniture polishe/salesperson etc) is the same man who married Martha HALL and then fathered Joseph Thomas BROOKS jnr and then ended up an ailing RN pensioner with Mrs HARMER, widow in 1921.
But only an opinion based on some coincidences. Mabel SAYLES was clearly in the right place , right time.
Sue
-
Sorry to intervene,
So in your opinion Martha Hall is Mabel Ethel on JTB Jnr's birth certificate?
Brad
-
No.
That is not what I have said.
You need to go back to the early postings of this thread.
My speculation is made clear in reply #32.
I cannot comment on Mary Elizabeth HARMER
Sue
-
Brad, I would contact the GRO and ask them to send you the end part of the writing on the death certificate, that may solve the whole thing as to who the widow M E Brooks is.
-
I have purchased both in certificates to be certain however i have emailed GRO to try and provide the final box that is missing
Brad
-
Presumably (perhaps stating the obvious) the end note on the death certificate says something like "For Brooks read Harmer, widow of AA Harmer deceased"
-
.....
He was in the Royal Navy until 1902 according to documents found by Cas and it appears he then moved into furniture sales of some description. ......
This is not entirely true and his service record with the Royal Navy needs clarification.
Joseph Brooks service record – 12 years (edit)
• 10.12.1894 to 28.1.1902 served on numerous ships (in 1902 bought his way out, 5 years before he would have finished his service)
• He joined the Royal Fleet Reserve, class B, in Chatham in Jan 1904, and re-enrolled from Jan 1909 for 5 years. During his time with RFR he would have been in his civilian occupation - furniture. (see link below for RFR)
• WW1 started, and he was then on active service with the Royal Navy from 2 Aug 1914 – 18 Sept 1916 onboard “Pembroke”, and 19 Sept 1916 – 27 Jan 1919 onboard “Actaeon”.
He was demobilised at the end of the war, with a military pension.
RFR- https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~pbtyc/genealogy/RFR/RFR.html
Note – If Joseph Thomas Brooks born 20 Feb 1915 in Chatham was his son, the child was born while the father was away on service. It is most probable that he never saw his son, and he may not have known that the child existed.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522
-
I have been looking at another potential mother for Joseph Thomas Brooks born 20 Feb 1915, at 4 Boundary Rd Chatham.
Ethel SALES (Ethel perhaps a second name?) born 1894 in Chatham
Came from a fractured family, who obviously struggled financially.
Someone with access to 1921 census may like to see where she is then.
1911 census at 294 Chatham Hill.
– Ethel Sales age 16 is with her mother Maria (40), and her step-father William John Smith (38) a worker at Chatham docks, and some half siblings.
Ethel is recorded as a day girl domestic servant.
Was she employed at some point by the Allen family at nearby 4 Boundary Rd?
Stewart and Minnie Allen came from Scotland. He was an accountant, so wealthy enough to employ a domestic servant, and we know the Allans had advertised for a home help / housekeeper in early 1914.
1901 census – Chatham Hill.
Ethel Sales is recorded as Ethel Smith
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9F3-N9Y
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/5449773:7814
Ethel’s mother -
Eliza Maria BLAKE (went by second name Maria) born 1862 Camden / Holborn.
Eliza Maria BLAKE married Thomas Crouch SALES in Malling, Kent in 1888.
Maria SALES then married William John SMITH in Luton Kent in Aug 1899.
(There are a number of workhouse records for Maria Sales and children from 1892 – 1897 time period)
Thomas Crouch SALES born Dec 1868 Burham Kent
He was a stoker with the Royal Navy, and joined for 12 years in November 1887, at the age of 12.
He appears to have been discharged early in July 1892 in Vancouver.
He certainly seems to have abandoned his family in England, and by 1894 had started another family in New York with another ‘wife”
Maria’s children:-
Mary Ann Elizabeth SALES born 1887 Chatham
Elizabeth Rose SALES 1889 Chatham
Edith May SALES (born in Chatham workhouse Jan 1892)
Ethel SALES /or different surname? born 1894 Chatham [no birth registration found to see what full Christian names were. Baby Ethel and mother in workhouse in Sept 1894. Ethel age 3 in the workhouse in 1897.]
Ernest Robert FISHER born 1898 Chatham (Father Philip Fisher died 1898)
Annie Elizabeth SMITH 1901 Chatham
Olive Catherine SMITH 1903 Chatham
Edith Alice SMITH 1906 Chatham
-
Hi Neale1961
A lot of interesting work and information there.
This is not entirely true and his service record with the Royal Navy needs clarification.
Joseph Brooks service record – started at age 12
•
Are there records for him before 1894.
My understanding is he was born in 1875, so would be aged 19 when commencing unless i have missed a bit..
There is a record for a boy in 1891 census with almost correct birth date and correct birth place.
An inmate of Bernados. But it's not an uncommon name I suppose.
Name Joseph Brooks
Age 15
Inmate
Birth Year1876
Birth Place Bermondsey, London, England
Civil parish Ratcliff
Residence Place Ratcliff, London, England
Registration district Stepney
ED, Institution or Vessel Dr Barnardos Homes
Sue
-
Hi Sue
i thought he might have been the Barnardos Home boy.
His date of birth was 27 April 1875, Bermondsey.
He wasn’t 12 years of age, he signed up for 12 years of service. Sorry to confuse.
-
Not this Ethel, Neale1961
I have been looking at another potential mother for Joseph Thomas Brooks born 20 Feb 1915, at 4 Boundary Rd Chatham.
Ethel SALES (Ethel perhaps a second name?) born 1894 in Chatham
Came from a fractured family, who obviously struggled financially.
Someone with access to 1921 census may like to see where she is then.
1911 census at 294 Chatham Hill.
– Ethel Sales age 16 is with her mother Maria (40), and her step-father William John Smith (38) a worker at Chatham docks, and some half siblings.
Ethel is recorded as a day girl domestic servant.
Was she employed at some point by the Allen family at nearby 4 Boundary Rd?
Stewart and Minnie Allen came from Scotland. He was an accountant, so wealthy enough to employ a domestic servant, and we know the Allans had advertised for a home help / housekeeper in early 1914.
There is a marriage - December quarter 1912, Medway
Ethel Sales and Albert E W Thomas
Birth of Albert Thomas mmn Sales, 1915 Pontardawe
1921 supports this - living in Bedwellty.
-
.....
He was in the Royal Navy until 1902 according to documents found by Cas and it appears he then moved into furniture sales of some description. ......
This is not entirely true and his service record with the Royal Navy needs clarification.
Joseph Brooks service record – 12 years (edit)
• 10.12.1894 to 28.1.1902 served on numerous ships (in 1902 bought his way out, 5 years before he would have finished his service)
• He joined the Royal Fleet Reserve, class B, in Chatham in Jan 1904, and re-enrolled from Jan 1909 for 5 years. During his time with RFR he would have been in his civilian occupation - furniture. (see link below for RFR)
• WW1 started, and he was then on active service with the Royal Navy from 2 Aug 1914 – 18 Sept 1916 onboard “Pembroke”, and 19 Sept 1916 – 27 Jan 1919 onboard “Actaeon”.
He was demobilised at the end of the war, with a military pension.
RFR- https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~pbtyc/genealogy/RFR/RFR.html
Note – If Joseph Thomas Brooks born 20 Feb 1915 in Chatham was his son, the child was born while the father was away on service. It is most probable that he never saw his son, and he may not have known that the child existed.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522
Wow, thanks for extensive research that’s impressive and lots of detail
-
Navy record for No. 278653, Joseph Brooks
1919
It has been previously mentioned a Pension was paid in 1919 and M.O.P. 28-1-1919 is on the Navy record No. 278653.
M.o.P., usually means Ministry of Pensions.
See attachment
Cas found a Navy Index Card at reply 12 which has several addresses on.
Navy Index Card
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
Pensioned 1919, do an Address search 2 yrs later for all Census Schedules for "25 Balmes Road" with London in the Location in 1921 box.
[Move the image arrow to get the other Census Schedule for the Brooks]
Joseph T Brooks, 17, born *, living with mum Martha and her other children.
----------
Comment
* Place of Birth appears to be 34 miles from Chatham and also he is too old, see Birth Certificate on Original Post on Thread
According to the two addresses on the Navy Index Card of this Navy chap.
Which also seems to say 47 New Road, Chatham, Kent?
Mark
-
By the way there are other Joseph Brooks in the Royal Navy:-
(See f m p )
Joseph Brooks, 220093
Chatham at the top of the large Record Card / Sheet
Born Bethnal Green, London, 21 Nov 1885
Engagement 1903 - 12 yrs
--------------------
Joseph Brooks M8281
No place written at top of Card Sheet
Born Atherton, Lancs 8 Jan 1887
Period of engagement 2 August 1914 1yr NCS
18 Oct 15 - 22 Nov 15
Shore NCS Exp_te_ [Expected ?]
https://www.commandoveterans.org/rm-serv_rec_abbreviations
Possibly - Non-CS
Non-continuous service
Today, also
Navy Careers Service
--------------------
Joseph Brooks
K22497 Portsmouth
Born Ashby, Leics, 1891
Engagement 12 May 1914 - 12 yrs
--------------------
ADDED:
Joseph Brooks
215502 Portsmouth
Born 1885 Loughborough
Aug 1914
Shore Med Unfit
--------------------
Joseph Brooks, Former R.N.V.R. [Volunteer Reserve] Y6510
J.61824 Portsmouth
Engagement 10 Nov 1916 - Hostilities
Born Birkenhead, Cheshire 1891
TNA ADM 188/770
--------------------
Engagement of these are 1917 and after
Joseph Brooks
F38802
(Felixstowe) (E'church) [possibly Eastchurch?]
Engagement 25 Sept 1917 - Hostilities
Born Sheffield, Yorkshire, 1896
----------
Joseph Brooks
SS 125606 Portsmouth
Engagement from 1921 - 1921
Born Bethnal Green 1901
PRO / TNA ADM 188/1131
----------
There may be more records at the Royal Navy Museum Reply # 37
-
Joseph T Brooks, 17, born *, living with mum Martha and her other children.
----------
Comment
* Place of Birth appears to be 34 miles from Chatham and also he is too old, see Birth Certificate on Original Post on Thread
Mark
Hi,
just a reminder (see my reply #27) the first EDIT second child of Martha (nee HALL) and Joseph BROOKS was named Joseph Thomas. His baptism image is available on Ancestry. 1903.
And details are given in my reply #27
Sue
-
I refer back to Reply #92 in full
Amended this post 95 for clarity
At the start of the thread, the Birth Certificate of Joseph Thomas Brooks said he was born 1915 at Chatham.
-
Hi
So you are saying-
1919 Pension directed (presumably by post) to 47 New Street.
1921 Address 25 Balmes Rd with HARMER.
1922 DC 47 New St. Shared with HARMER.
Do I have it?
Sue
-
For general interest, I can confirm that Martha (nee HALL) was not deceased at the time of the death of Joseph BROOKS in 1922.
Daughter of Joseph and Martha ,b. 1907
Marriages Mar 1932
BROOKS Beatrice L
WRIGHT Albert E
Willesden 3a 499
Martha was born in 1867 and can be seen in the late 1930's recorded as living at the same address as this couple in Kenton.
So if there was to be a legal widow of Joseph who died in 1922, it would appear to be Martha, in the light of there being no HARMER/BROOKS marriage that I can see.
I'm not sure how much consideration was given to common-law marriages at that time.
-
Looking at the 1915 Birth Certificate (original post) and Reply 92 there seems to be more than one Joseph T Brooks - with a Father in the Royal Navy.
-
Hi
So you are saying-
1919 Pension directed (presumably by post) to 47 New Street.
1921 Address 25 Balmes Rd with HARMER.
1922 DC 47 New St. Shared with HARMER.
Do I have it?
Sue
1921 is New Street, Hastings with Harmer
1921 Martha Brooks is in Balmes Road, Hackney
-
1921 is New Street, Hastings with Harmer
1921 Martha Brooks is in Balmes Road, Hackney
Ah Ok.... ::)
I don't have access to 1921, but jumped into the now ended free thing at the weekend.
I failed to save some vital bits obviously.
Sue
-
In the name of BROOKS as contact, lodgings were advertised at 47 New Street in the months before Joseph's death.
Attaching the "shorts" I don't have access to see more.
Sue
-
Looking at the 1915 Birth Certificate (original post) and Reply 92 there seems to be more than one Joseph T Brooks - with a Father in the Royal Navy.
The above suggestion (originally made in Reply 92) relies on:-
1) Two of the addresses on the Naval Index Card must relate to the same Joseph Brooks * and also that the Chatham address No.47, does actually read as New Road?
* For example one address has not been entered on the wrong Index card.
2) The Place of Death on the 1922 Death Certificate we saw via the Dropbox link must remain the same after correction, as 47 New Road, Chatham.
3) Martha Brooks of 25 Balmes Road which came up by searching Location London in 1921 gave the correct information to the Census about her name and the Birthplace and age of her Son, Joseph T Brooks.
Added: There are two 1921 Census Schedules adjacent to each other, with this address using the image arrow.
----------
Navy Index Card
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
-
Hi Bushinn,
Why does this information preclude him being the father of the child born in 1915 ?
Our original poster, Brad has identified this birth certificate as the correct one for the man who was his grandfather. 1915. Mother’s maiden name SAYLES.
Our search is for the father, listed on this certificate.
In my opinion, the man who died in 1922 is still a likely identity.
Sue
-
Hi All,
I did manage to speak to Joseph Jnr's daughters (my grandmother) over the weekend and they said he wasn't a newborn baby when he was given up for adoption but more like 1 years old. He was an orphan, this is where he was adopted by Mrs Robinson - Wasn't a family friend according to them.
I very much doubt adoption records are online but i thought it might add some context.
Brad
-
Hi Bushinn, Can I suggest you re-read this thread. It is rather long, but you seem to have missed things along the way.
-
Hi All,
I did manage to speak to Joseph Jnr's daughters (my grandmother) over the weekend and they said he wasn't a newborn baby when he was given up for adoption but more like 1 years old. He was an orphan, this is where he was adopted by Mrs Robinson - Wasn't a family friend according to them.
I very much doubt adoption records are online but i thought it might add some context.
Brad
No. There were no laws or regulations about adoption at that time . So you will not find records.
Bearing in mind that the story put about in the case of the relinquished child of a single mother was often the term "orphaned" I think you must take the family story with a grain of salt.
Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the Robinsons (Gertrude ROBINSON and husband) possibly adopted more than one child over a span of years.
Sue
-
3) Martha Brooks of 25 Balmes Road which came up by searching Location London in 1921 gave the correct information to the Census about her name and the Birthplace and age of her Son, Joseph T Brooks.
Yes, There were two sons of the same father who were named Joseph Thomas BROOKS.
One mother Martha HALL (1903)
The second mother Mabel Ethel SAYLES (1915)
Sue
-
I really think that DNA might be the only thing to try now.
This thread has become a bit convoluted at times so it is difficult to pick out the ‘relevant’ information.
Bearing in mind that it cannot yet be proven, despite some great research, that we have the right people as parents of the younger Joseph Thomas Brooks born 1915.
-
A) I was not saying the 1915 Birth of Joseph Thomas Brooks was wrong, because that is what we have as a basis.
------------
B) The Naval Index Card for Joseph Brooks , appears to have his address 47 New? Road, Chatham and also links to a Wife's address and in 1921 Census at that address, her Son "Joseph T Brooks" was older 17 and not born at Chatham.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
-----------
A) does not seem to fit with B) at the moment?
----------
Either another Navy record somewhere or the Father of the 1915 Birth was not in the Navy?
Mark
-
Not sure what you mean Bushinn.
The Balmes Road address is not in Chatham. It is in Hackney registration district,
The Joseph son (Thomas Joseph in 1911) was born in Hoxton.
I don’t think anything has been shown on here that places Martha and her children in Chatham.
-
I have added the 1915 Birth Certificate of Joseph Thomas Brooks born Chatham, again from the Original Post, to my previous reply.
It was this 1915 Birth, Brad was trying to get back from.
Mark
-
Yes we are all aware of the 1915 birth and trying to make sense of it all as you are Mark.
Are you clear now about the two addresses and the people involved shown on that Naval record?
-
Looking at page 2 of this thread, a Navy record and Index Card with addresses on was suggested as a possible with an invitation to keep it on file or rule it out.
Yesterday, after an address search only on a 1921 Census search of 25 Balmes Road and moving to the next Schedule same address was Martha Brooks with Son Joseph T. Brooks, not born at Chatham and too old.
Tried to explain at Reply 92 and made a 'Comment'.
Mark
-
Thanks Mark.
I would say that we were aware of all that already from early in this thread.
It is a lot to take in, especially for Brad, as the various ‘sightings’ of Joseph, the father, and complicated as there are two sons named Joseph Thomas, several years apart.
Fortunately, we all know that the focus is Joseph born 1915.
For all we know, Martha might not have been aware of Joseph born in Chatham.
That is, of course, if it is the right Joseph snr on the birth certificate.
-
Looking at the 1921 Census for 25 Balmes Road, Location London ...
Martha Brooks [nee Hall] was the Mother of Joseph T Brooks, born Hoxton.
I'm pretty sure that the RN serviceman Joseph BROOKS (turned furniture polishe/salesperson etc) is the same man who married Martha HALL ...
and then ended up an ailing RN pensioner with Mrs HARMER, widow in 1921.
Sue
1911 Census
Looks to have been found previously due to the Shop Assistant, Furniture, reference for Joseph Brooks, born Bermondsey.
1911
46 Halliford Street, Islington
Joseph Brooks, Head, 36, M, Shop Assistant, Furniture, Bermondsey.
Martha Brooks, Wife, 43, M, ....
With children
Doris Florence Brooks, Dau, 9, Islington
Thomas Joseph Brooks, Son, 7, born Hoxton.
Edward John Brooks, Son, 5, Hackney.
Beatrice Lilian Brooks, Dau, 4, Islington.
-----------
The Navy Index Card indicates this 1911 couple have split up with Martha Brooks [nee Hall] at 25 Balmes Road by 1921.
Joseph Brooks by 1921 Census is at 47 New Road, Chatham, with Mary Elizabeth Harmer, a Widow, listed as a Servant.
Mary Elizabeth Harmer, appears to be nee Sayles, See Marriage page 7 Reply 54 & Quote.
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married Albert Alfred HARMER 5 Nov 1899 in Willesden, London but don't know if this is any use?
Marriage image online - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/7800137:1623
Mary Elizabeth Harmer (nee Sayles) widow, occupation is a Dresser line showrooms, Furnisher in 1911 - maybe how they met?
1911 - https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/39837601:2352
I wonder if this is Mabel Ethel? Why would she change names on BC but give her maiden name...
Cas
The man that Mary Elizabeth Sayles married appears to have died in the Registration District of Hendon.
1907
Albert Alfred Harmer, 30 years, died in the Reg'n District of Hendon.
------------
I agree with others regarding seeing the Margin Note in full to see what was changed on the Death Certificate.
Mark
Added: I forgot so say that my suspicion is that Sayles at the Harmer=Sayles, Marriage might be related to Sayles on the 1915 Birth Certificate?
Which has already been suggested.
But one can find coincidences occasionally.
-
Hi Bushinn.
Yes.
You are now on the same track as others in this conversation.
The observations you have made in your last post are widely discussed in the preceding pages
FYI here is the baptism of Joseph Thomas the child of Martha (nee HALL) and Joseph BROOKS.
Sue
-
for Bro...
Ha[?]...
Widow o ...
Correcte...
June
R E
Regis...
on prod...
Statutor...
made by ...
R E might be the initials of the Registrar? So it looks to be relevant?
I agree with your possible reading of the margin note.
I wonder if it will turn out to be a declaration by Martha BROOKS to the effect that HARMER is not the widow of Joseph, but she, Martha, is.
Obviously by the addresses given for Joseph BROOKS and Martha BROOKS in the couple of years before his death, Joseph and Martha were well and truly in contact.
Martha did not die until 8th Oct 1948 and the probate was granted to Harold KEVILLE.
The daughter of Joseph and Martha, Doris Florence Martha, married Harold KEVILLE at Islington in June1/4 1929.
Martha was the legal widow.
I wondered today if the "M E BROOKS widow of" ... so emphatically underlined on the death certificate could be Martha herself, but there is no sighting through census to probate etc of any second name which may have started with E.
Ah the speculation ::)
Hope the GRO is working on the copy!
Sue
-
I agree that DNA is the way to go from here, but I do think it is quite possible the correct father has been found and detailed here. There are such a lot of positive pointers in the various records.
Regarding the mother, I am not convinced that the Mabel Sayles born 1890 in Wimbledon, as identified in reply #14 by Sparrett is right. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence connecting her to Chatham.
In my opinion, for the birth mother, I would be looking at M. E Brooks, (AKA) Mary Elizabeth Harmer, nee Sayles. There are just too many coincidences to ignore her. She was widowed – last child born in 1906. He was separated from wife – last child born in 1907. Both were working in the same line of furniture work. Her maiden name was SAYLES – not so common. Her Christian name initials were M. E. If they were not living together in 1914/ 1915, there certainly were, not long after.
She signed as M E Brooks on both the birth certificate and on Joseph’s death certificate. It might be interesting to see the original birth registration (rather than the registrar copy) to compare M E Brooks signature with Mary Elizabeth Harmer’s signature on other documents. I certainly would do more research into the Harmer family, and her children.
M. E. Sayles was alone when the baby was born. Her “husband” was away at sea with the navy, and had not been home for months. She would go to a friend, or an employer, or a midwife for the birth of the child – someone who was close. In Chatham, 47 New Street is just around the corner from 4 Boundary Rd – only 7 mins walk (ref google maps).
When she registered the child’s birth, she pretended to be married to Joseph. To hide her real identity she just needed to change Mary Elizabeth to Mabel Edith. She used her correct maiden name, as was required by the paper work – probably nobody in Chatham knew her by Sayles anyway.
It is worth noting that Mary Elizabeth Harmer had a daughter called Edith May, born 2 Dec 1899. (more speculation)
According to family rumour she kept the child for about a year. That may have been true, and when Joseph returned home on leave, it was decided that the child would be adopted. They both had other children who must have been receiving financial support from them.
-
Regarding the mother, I am not convinced that the Mabel Sayles born 1890 in Wimbledon, as identified in reply #14 by Sparrett is right. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence connecting her to Chatham.
Hi Neale,
I am perfectly happy to relinquish Mabel SAYLES. ;D. She was only ever a hypothetical starter.
I do like your thoughts and scenarios and it could all be a good trail to follow.
I did discover today that one of the witnesses at Martha (nee HALL) and Joseph's wedding was Thomas Panter HALL. He was her brother and, guess what! owned a furniture retail business.
This maybe the business that Joseph joined when he halted his Navy career after marriage.
Sue
-
From https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224916665/edith-may-harmer
Mary Elizabeth HARMER
Birth Date 1877
Death Date 17 Aug. 1964
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
Name
William Alfred HARMER
Birth Date 1905
Death Date 3 May 1961
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
Name Julia Louie HARMER
Birth Date 1903
Death Date 14 May 1927
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
NameEdith May HARMER
Birth Date 1900
Death Date 12 Dec. 1923
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
James Carl HARMER lived until 1973 and died in Nottingham
Sue
-
Hi Bushinn.
Yes.
You are now on the same track as others in this conversation.
The observations you have made in your last post are widely discussed in the preceding pages
FYI here is the baptism of Joseph Thomas the child of Martha (nee HALL) and Joseph BROOKS.
Sue
Sue
Here is the Birth Registration for your Baptism.
From UK BMD
Hoxton was a Sub-District of the Shoreditch Registration District
GRO Index
Birth 1903, Sept Quarter
Joseph Thomas BROOKS
Mother Maiden Surname: HALL
Shoreditch Registration District
Mark
-
Neale’s theory sounds good. I think I thought that a while ago but then got lost in the circles ;)
I had also wondered about why young Joseph wasn’t kept in the family if she was the mother and also Mary Elizabeth’s children - found one in 1921 but even the youngest James Carl would have likely left home by that time.
Lastly, as she was a widow, why would she change her name for the birth? Maybe just an error.
I hesitate in asking this, but it has been said that the child was born whilst Joseph senior was away, does his record show that he was at home at the relevant time for conception?
-
I agree that DNA is the way to go from here, but I do think it is quite possible the correct father has been found and detailed here. There are such a lot of positive pointers in the various records.
Regarding the mother, I am not convinced that the Mabel Sayles born 1890 in Wimbledon, as identified in reply #14 by Sparrett is right. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence connecting her to Chatham.
In my opinion, for the birth mother, I would be looking at M. E Brooks, (AKA) Mary Elizabeth Harmer, nee Sayles. There are just too many coincidences to ignore her. She was widowed – last child born in 1906. He was separated from wife – last child born in 1907. Both were working in the same line of furniture work. Her maiden name was SAYLES – not so common. Her Christian name initials were M. E. If they were not living together in 1914/ 1915, there certainly were, not long after.
She signed as M E Brooks on both the birth certificate and on Joseph’s death certificate. It might be interesting to see the original birth registration (rather than the registrar copy) to compare M E Brooks signature with Mary Elizabeth Harmer’s signature on other documents. I certainly would do more research into the Harmer family, and her children.
M. E. Sayles was alone when the baby was born. Her “husband” was away at sea with the navy, and had not been home for months. She would go to a friend, or an employer, or a midwife for the birth of the child – someone who was close. In Chatham, 47 New Street is just around the corner from 4 Boundary Rd – only 7 mins walk (ref google maps).
When she registered the child’s birth, she pretended to be married to Joseph. To hide her real identity she just needed to change Mary Elizabeth to Mabel Edith. She used her correct maiden name, as was required by the paper work – probably nobody in Chatham knew her by Sayles anyway.
It is worth noting that Mary Elizabeth Harmer had a daughter called Edith May, born 2 Dec 1899. (more speculation)
According to family rumour she kept the child for about a year. That may have been true, and when Joseph returned home on leave, it was decided that the child would be adopted. They both had other children who must have been receiving financial support from them.
That sounds like a great hypothesis, has helped me understand a little better of the potential situation!
Brad
-
Neale’s theory sounds good. I think I thought that a while ago but then got lost in the circles ;)
I had also wondered about why young Joseph wasn’t kept in the family if she was the mother and also Mary Elizabeth’s children - found one in 1921 but even the youngest James Carl would have likely left home by that time.
Lastly, as she was a widow, why would she change her name for the birth? Maybe just an error.
I hesitate in asking this, but it has been said that the child was born whilst Joseph senior was away, does his record show that he was at home at the relevant time for conception?
I have always wondered this, if he was away, did she put him down to avoid confrontation or gain from it?
-
Joseph’s seaman’s record is rather detailed and I wrote about some of it in reply #86.
From that record, I believe that Joseph was NOT away at sea during the time the child would have been conceived, which would have been before the outbreak of WW1.
He was away however at the time the child was born, which was after the war had started.
His seaman’s record does not give any detail about any leave in England that he may have had during the war.
-
I agree, M.E.Brooks, widow of deceased.
BUT what does the bit on the right say!?
It looks as though it must be a statutory declaration of some sort
I agree but what does the Margin note say? I can only see
for Bro...
Ha[?]...
Widow o ...
Correcte...
June
R E
Regis...
on prod...
Statutor...
made by ...
R E might be the initials of the Registrar? So it looks to be relevant?
Ha looks to read Harme_
The r is just not quite visible
I'm jumping the gun, but feel it may say words to the effect
for Brooks substitute / change to Harmer
-------------------
The Navy Index Card shows Joseph Brooks and his Wife Martha Brooks [previously identified as nee Hall] at separate addresses.
1921
Joseph Brooks, Royal Navy "Invalid" was still "Married" and Mary Elizabeth Harmer, Widow, was his Domestic Servant and Joseph Brooks had Borders, to generate additional income.
Mark
-
I have emailed GRO and ordered the paper certificate to hopefully solve this issue- fingers crossed
-
Thanks Neale - re read the relevant post so all seems well there.
-
Been interesting following this one....
If the naval record for https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522 (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/598822:60522) is the correct Joseph, then I believe he would have been shore based (Pembroke II) from 02 Aug 1914 through 18 Sep 1916. I don't think 'M.E.' would have been on her own for the birth as has been suggested.
Seems to me that Joseph may have always known her as Mabel, she has used that name on the Birth reg and on the 1921 Census it looks to me like Joseph completed the form with her named just as 'Mabel Harmer'. It looks to have been amended to 'Mary Elizabeth Harmer' sometime later.
I'd expect the marginal note on the Death cert will confirm that M E Brooks and M E Harmer are the same person.
-
Thanks for that information, Sc00p. I knew that Pembroke II was the training facility, but it did not occur to me it was purely shore based. That’s good to clarify.
-
From https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224916665/edith-may-harmer
James Carl HARMER lived until 1973 and died in Nottingham
James is also in Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224925879/james-carl-harmer (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224925879/james-carl-harmer)
It would appear that Joseph is too https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224925556/joseph-brooks (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224925556/joseph-brooks)
-
Great finds there.
It looks as though we have gone all round the houses but hopefully reached a conclusion.
:)
-
Hi Guys,
apologies if i am wrong -
Are you concluding Joseph Thomas Brooks born 1875 who was married with 2 previous children (one of which being another Joseph Thomas Brooks) had a child with another married woman (Mary Elizabeth Harmer) know as Mabel Ethel on Joseph Jn's birth certificate? HE died in 1922 and is buried in Chatham cemetry
I appreciate all the information behind this, childrens names and navy records but to strip it right back and explain it to my grandmother, does the above sound right?
Brad
-
Hi Guys,
apologies if i am wrong -
Are you concluding Joseph Thomas Brooks born 1875 who was married with 2 4 known previous children (one of which being another Joseph Thomas Brooks) had a child with another married widowed woman (Mary Elizabeth Harmer) know as Mabel Ethel on Joseph Jn's birth certificate? HE died in 1922 and is buried in Chatham cemetry as is Mary Elizabeth Harmer nee Sayles
I appreciate all the information behind this, childrens names and navy records but to strip it right back and explain it to my grandmother, does the above sound right?
Brad
That's what it looks like to me subject to that mariginal note on the Death Cert.
-
I heard back from the GRO, they offered a refund and also if I order a MDF they could stretch the document to obtain the hidden information so I’m working on that now
Brad
-
Brad, I don’t have access to the 1921 census, but Sc00p says that it would appear that the name Mabel Harmer was written and then changed to Mary Elizabeth Harmer. Others may be able to comment on what they see.
This adds weight to my theory that Mary Elizabeth Harmer, nee Sayles was the same person as Mabel Ethel Brooks, who is the mother of Joseph Brooks born 1915. (The name Mabel can be a diminutive for Maria.)
Theoretically, the father of the child would be Joseph Brooks born 1875.
All of that appears to be plausible at the moment, but the only way to confirm it for certain, is to find the DNA matches. If your grandmother is open to taking a DNA test, you might make additional progress.
-
Well done to all Rootschaters Involved with this query, they have all worked so hard on your behalf.
LM
-
I agree
I cannot thank you guys enough , you have all been amazing and dedicated so much time to this case I really appreciate it and could never of found most of this information without you
Brad
-
Brad, I don’t have access to the 1921 census, but Sc00p says that it would appear that the name Mabel Harmer was written and then changed to Mary Elizabeth Harmer. Others may be able to comment on what they see.
This adds weight to my theory that Mary Elizabeth Harmer, nee Sayles was the same person as Mabel Ethel Brooks, who is the mother of Joseph Brooks born 1915. (The name Mabel can be a diminutive for Maria.)
Theoretically, the father of the child would be Joseph Brooks born 1875.
All of that appears to be plausible at the moment, but the only way to confirm it for certain, is to find the DNA matches. If your grandmother is open to taking a DNA test, you might make additional progress.
The theory was proposed in reply #54, which have always been my thoughts. With the info from Sc00p this adds much more weight. Also think for whatever reason, as ShaunJ mentioned, reply #85 that the name Brooks was written and verbally corrected to registrar on the DC by M. E Harmer.
Also to clarify to Bushinn in 1921 she is a general domestic servant to a private employer, it does not state she is working for JB. But as he is classed as invalid, it could be she is assisting in running the boarding house, or is working elsewhere.
If I remember correctly I think her mother had the same occupation in 1911 as boarding house keeper. Also maybe another coincidence, or not, her father had the middle name of Thomas.
I agree DNA is the only way to possibly confirm or rule out, as I suggested previously.
Cas
-
Re Reply #129
Sc00p
Mary Elizabeth Harmer
Looks like the end of Mary could of been a letter l ( L ) ?
Part of original forename looks to have been overwritten?
-
Beatrice Lilian Brooks of 25 Balmes Road
Marriage 19 March 1932, St Andrew, Willesden Middlesex
Beatrice Lilian Brooks, 25, Spinster, of 25 Balmes Road, Southgate Road, N1, Father, Joseph Brooks, Deceased, Salesman
Married
Albert Edward Wright, 33, Bachelor, Clerk, 21 Dean Road, Father, George Albert Wright, Deceased, Carpenter.
Present: Brooks ; S M Wright
Right of the image, one of those present (witness) was a Brooks.
Regarding 25 Balmes Road, Southgate
Road, N1 that was the address on the Navy Index Card
Navy Index Card
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
-
From https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/224916665/edith-may-harmer
Mary Elizabeth HARMER
Birth Date 1877
Death Date 17 Aug. 1964
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
Name
William Alfred HARMER
Birth Date 1905
Death Date 3 May 1961
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
Name Julia Louie HARMER
Birth Date 1903
Death Date 14 May 1927
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
Name Edith May HARMER
Birth Date 1900
Death Date 12 Dec. 1923
Cemetery Chatham Maidstone Road Cemetery
Burial or Cremation Place Chatham, Medway Unitary Authority, Kent, England
James Carl HARMER lived until 1973 and died in Nottingham
Sue
See also Reply #144
These above are all given a reference B, 45
Except
James Carl Harmer, DDA, 297
Which is shared with Beatrice Lilian Harmer, DDA, 297
----------
Joseph Brooks, 3 June 1922, Burial date?
DDA, 115
-
Transcript only:
Chatham, Maidstone Road & Palmerston Road Cemetery, Section DDA Grave No. 115 (C), burial date 3 Jun 1922.
Entry No. 28361. 10'
Joseph Brooks age 46.
Pensioner R.N.
Died at 47 New Road. Removed from St Paul
Apologies if I cannot post any of this, if so please can the moderator remove any offending details.
-
Brad – some background information for you on Mary Elizabeth SAYLES
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES - born 12 June 1877, baptised 29 June 1877 St John the Evangelist, Westminster
Father:- Edwin Thomas SAYLES a labourer
Mother:- Maria, nee HEMMING
Edwin Thomas Sayles died in 1885, and his widow Maria seems to have partnered with a Mr. LeBeau
Mary Elizabeth SAYLES married 5 Nov 1899 Harlesden to Albert Alfred HARMER
4 children born: Edith May 1899, Julia Louie 1902, Alfred William 1905, James Carl 1906.
Her husband Albert Alfred Harmer died in 1907.
-
For interest as we wait and hope regarding the GRO ;D
Here are two instances of the written name of woman SAYLES/HARMER/( and possibly AKA BROOKS.)
The top one from 1921 where it looks as if each resident has written their own name on the schedule
The bottom one from the marriage certificate of Mary Elizabeth SAYLES to DARMER
Particular attention to the name ELIZABETH .
Same hand? I think yes.
The inserting of the second name and perhaps also the scribble over in the first name were done by Mary Elizabeth to correct something she was not satisfied with after her original writing of her name on the page.
She herself carried out the alteration. IMO
Brad, I don’t have access to the 1921 census, but Sc00p says that it would appear that the name Mabel Harmer was written and then changed to Mary Elizabeth Harmer. Others may be able to comment on what they see.
-
Yes, I would agree, It does look as if she has first written Mabel, and then changed her mind to Mary and added Elizabeth.
The formation of letters in the writing of her name, is similar to her signature on the marriage certificate.
-
...It does look as if she has first written Mabel....
I don't agree that she completed the form. IMO Joseph completed it and she probably changed it later.
1911 snips where each completed their own forms as household head - Look at the H in Halliford.
-
Hi guys, document has arrived
Cannot clearly upload a picture on here so created a Dropbox link for you all to see
https://shorturl.at/mYB1G
-
How very fortunate Julia Louie Harmer also made the statutory declaration.
-
Is anyone able to decipher/elaborate?
I don’t quite fully understand
Thanks
-
Maybe something like this
The death was registered by Mary Elizabeth
The registrar probably assumed she was the widow, as would have been presenting in that guise, and filled in surname as Brooks.
The death certificate then arrived in the post and someone, maybe Julia?, said “but your name isn’t really Brooks “
So they had to go back to the registrar and swear an affidavit that M.E.Brooks on the certificate should read M.E. Harmer (as sworn by Mary Elizabeth Harmer & Julia Louie Harmer).
Julia Louie is Mary Elizabeth’s daughter by Mr Harmer (need to go back in the thread to find his name)
And confirms the connection (I.M.O). I think the underlining of the name on the cert would have happened at the time of the corrected entry note.
-
It Says
In column 7 for Brooks read Harmer and omit widow of deceased.
Corrected on 19th June 1922 by me (Name of registrar ) on production of 2 statutory declarations made by Mary Elizabeth Harmer and Julia Louie Harmer.
Neale's theory is good. But it is also possible that Mary Elizabeth Harmer hoped to assert a position as the deceased widow, perhaps for financial reasons, but was confronted by the actual widow Martha Hall and "persuaded" to be truthful.
Sue
-
But it is also possible that Mary Elizabeth Harmer hoped to assert a position as the deceased widow, perhaps for financial reasons, but was confronted by the actual widow Martha Hall and "persuaded" to be truthful.
Sue
;D ;D
-
;D ;D
What's your take mckha?
Sue
ADDING
Sorry, rather incomplete post ::)
What is your feeling on the part played by the genuine widow?
-
I don’t know. But I agree if there is money involved there is at least likely to some argument. Although the correction date isn’t very long after the initial registration.
-
My thoughts ….....
Mary Elizabeth genuinely signed as widow Brooks on the death certificate, because that is how she saw herself. She would not willingly / openly admit to being a party in an adulterous affair. I don’t think she had any devious intentions when she informed on Joseph’s death.
A short while later, problems occurred with the military pension and final payout of funds – name and address of the real wife conflicted. Mary Elizabeth then was required to make amendments at the registry office, so everything was legally correct. We only have Joseph’s pension index card, as all other pension related papers, that might have told the full story, have been destroyed.
What is important here is that this is confirmation that M E Brooks and M E Harmer were one and the same person, and that she was Joseph’s partner. The signature on the 1921 census where we see Mabel changed to Mary endorses the fact that Mary was known as Mabel. (As I pointed out earlier, Mabel is a derivative of the name Maria. )
I think we have correctly identified the parents of Brad’s ancestor. The only way to be certain is through DNA. As Joseph Brooks and Mary Elizabeth Harmer both had children, there is the potential to do that.
-
Hi,
All possibles I guess, but yes, it's true the good thing is we have pretty positively settled the original question except for the absolute DNA avenue.
A good delve and dig experience!
Sue
-
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all the help, deciphering and theory’s , I believe this has given me a very good understanding of the situation.
I will relay all this information onto my family summarising all the above information.
It’s been a interesting journey
Brad
-
The Index Card was a
World War I Pension Ledgers and Index Card.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61588/records/157209377?tid=&pid=&queryid=d8c30741-8687-4ebc-8cfa-f43a084adc83&_phsrc=Rnp636&_phstart=successSource
A Disability pension was in payment for Joseph Brooks.
The Pension Card also records his Wife's address as 25 Balmes Rd, Southgate Rd, N1 (same on the 1921 Census for his estranged Wife and their children).
Also 1921 Census for Joseph Brooks, "Royal Navy Unable to work" "Invalid" (between two lines).
Brooks actual Widow would complete a Form and obtain a Copy 1922 Death Certificate to prove Death and post it for her and/or child dependants Pension/s, her status was now "Widow".
When the Copy Death Certificate was produced, his estranged Widow would complain to the Registrar, that isn't correct, I'm his Widow and I can't send that to the Ministry of Pensions, I wasn't present at death.
Harmer would be compelled to go back to the Registrar and admit by Statutory Declaration with a Family Witness, that the information she originally gave needed to be corrected.
Comment
If I was the Widow, I wouldn't send the Copy Death Certificate with my claim or change of circumstances that I was now a Widow, which implied that I was present at Death, when I was not present and lived at another address.
Mark
Added:
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/disability-dependents-pensions-first-world-war/
"Pensions were granted for servicemen who served in the First World War and relatives were able to claim even if the serviceman died from a war related injury many years after the end of the war."
-
Yes, the way the form reads is very misleading and the corrections by declaration do not fully correct it.
The widow was not present at the death and was not the informant.
Ambiguous, whether by intent or design we may never know.
Sue
-
Hi All,
Unsure if anyone would still be interested in this, my great aunt read this thread and has been in contact with Barnardos Charity as they have a section of adoption papers ect, so hopefully some information comes out of that
I am now re picking this line of family back up to see if i can find anything else.
1. Other than an entry of FindMyGrave (224916668) - Memorial ID, i cannot see any records of Mary Elizabeth Harmer or any other variants of her name dying in 1964 in Chatham or surrounding areas. Would anyone be able to help with this?
2. Joseph Brooks Snr who died in 1922 i cannot seem to link him to any parent names or follow his family tree, Ancestry keep suggesting his father as someone with the surname Field and mother with the surname London.
Anymore help would be much appreciated as always thank you.
Brad
-
2. Joseph Brooks Snr who died in 1922 i cannot seem to link him to any parent names or follow his family tree, Ancestry keep suggesting his father as someone with the surname Field and mother with the surname London.
I think in 1891 census Joseph (15, born Bermondsey ) is in the Barnados Boys Home at Stepney Causeway.
-
Yes, i have just seen that - Interesting..! Thanks for finding. :)
-
Possibly this death? We know they were not averse to relocating for burial (as in the case of James Carl). Were any other of the Harmer family in Grimsby?
Deaths Sep 1964 (>99%)
HARMER MARY E 87 GRIMSBY 3B 167
-
I thought this was rather coincidental however have no idea why she of been 3/4 hours away - I cant see any census proving this however on FindMyGrave she is in the same plot as 3 of her children i believe.
-
I hope this is not too confusing - I am noting things down briefly, as I am short on time.
Please ask if unclear.
Elizabeth LONDON (b 1840 Norfolk) married John BROOKS in 1859 Martham, Norfolk
1861 census
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M76C-YDS?lang=en
Joseph FIELD was a lodger in the BROOKS household in 1871 census
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VFNV-5SR?lang=en
John BROOKS died in 1872
Then widow Elizabeth becomes Elizabeth FIELD “married” to Joseph FIELD
1881 census
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27Q-62VW?lang=en
Edith FIELD 17 is really Edith BROOKS
Alice FIELD 10 in really Alice BROOKS
Births of other children
FIELD, FLORENCE MAUD MARY Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1874 J Quarter in SAINT OLAVE SOUTHWARK Volume 01D Page 279
FIELD, JOSEPH THOMAS Mother- LONDON
GRO Reference: 1876 J Quarter in SAINT OLAVE SOUTHWARK Volume 01D Page 240
FIELD, KATE Mother- LONDON
GRO Reference: 1878 S Quarter in SAINT OLAVE SOUTHWARK Volume 01D Page 226
FIELD, ETHEL MAUD registered in 1880, same mother.
Joseph Thomas FIELD birth date on school enrolment in 1883 is given as 27 Apr 1876
This is 1 year off his dob given when your Joseph Thomas BROOKS joined the navy. He may have lied about his age to get in earlier.
Your Joseph T Brooks named his father as Joseph on his marriage with same occupation of fireman (so he may have also been a stoker / seaman). Witness at the marriage is his sister Kate.
There are various seaman’s records for the father Joseph FIELD. He appears to become unfit for work from about 1886. Then there are workhouse records for various family members.
I don’t know why your Joseph decided to become a BROOKS, but he was using that name by 1891 (at least) when in the Barnardo’s home. (If applying for his Barnados records, they might be under either surname).
Joseph’s younger sister Ethel Maud FIELD also went by the surname BROOKS. In 1911 she is working in the furniture business with the Hall family.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWGQ-JGQ?lang=en
The Mrs. Alice Hall had died in 1899, and was Ethel’s half sister Alice Brooks born 1870 Norfolk.
Thomas P Hall was the brother of Martha Hall who married your Joseph Brooks (aka Field).
-
Elizabeth LONDON bapt 27 Sep 1840 Runham, Norfolk
Daughter of James LONDON (aka LUNNING) and Charlotte LARKE (married 1823 Runham)
Birth rego.
LONDON, ELIZABETH Mother - LARK
GRO Reference: 1840 S Quarter in EAST & WEST FLEGG Volume 13 Page 104
1841 census London family
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M792-ZYF?lang=en
- James London died 1878 Yarmouth
1881 census for Charlotte London
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q278-915B?lang=en
Children of Elizabeth LONDON AND John BROOKS
BROOKS, ANN ELIZABETH Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1860 D Quarter in EAST AND WEST FLEGG Volume 04B Page 35
BROOKS, EMMELINE Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1862 M Quarter in EAST & WEST FLEGG Volume 04B Page 37
BROOKS, EDITH Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1864 M Quarter in EAST & WEST FLEGG Volume 04B Page 43
BROOKS, WALTER (& he died age 2) Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1868 D Quarter in YARMOUTH NORFOLK Volume 04B Page 20
BROOKES, ALICE HANNAH Mother - LONDON
GRO Reference: 1870 D Quarter in YARMOUTH NORFOLK Volume 04B Page 26
• Alice Hannah Brooks married in 1891 Hackney to Thomas Panter HALL; Alice d 1899.
(His sister, Martha Hall who later married your Joseph was witness. And when Joseph married Martha in 1901, Thomas Panter Hall was witness)
• Ann Elizabeth Brooks married in 1881 Bermondsey to Thomas WHITTLETON
(Joseph and Alice FIELD were witnesses.)
• Edith Brooks married 1881 Rotherhithe to George Trew PERRY, occupation Butcher
(This is the Mrs E. Perry who in 1888 admits her ½ siblings Joseph Brooks age 12, and Ethel M Brooks age 8 to the Brighton Road Poor Law School.
As far as I can find, before this date, Joseph and Ethel were enrolled in schools under the surname FIELD)
——————-
Photo of Martha Brooks nee Hall, wife of Joseph.
https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/LVD8-6BK
-
@Neale1961
These are some amazing finds and they definitely all add up and make sense thank you so much for finding, I think I can follow the family tree up now!!
I guess we may never know why they changed their names to Brooks? Perhaps at the time both parents were dead the sisters had to look after them and as they were a brooks they gave them that name?
What do you think to the below on perhaps a reason why 1886 is listed as death date by a lot of other family trees? I can’t find anything online about this? The dates make sense so I believe this is him
Canada, Seafarers of the Atlantic Provinces, 1789-1935
Name Joseph Field
Record Type Crew
Age 39
Birth Year 1846
Birth Place London, England
Vessel Name Lydia
Vessel Type Ship
Voyage Departure Date 25 Nov 1885
Voyage Departure Port London, England
Voyage Arrival Date 10 May 1886
Voyage Arrival Port England
Vessel Registration Number Y874034
Vessel Registration Place Yarmouth, Nova Scotia
Year Vessel Constructed 1874
Date Joined Present Ship 15 Dec 1885
Place Joined Present Ship London, England
Crew Number 18
Literacy Signed name
Completed What Signed On To Do? No
Discharge Date 25 Feb 1886
Discharge Place Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Discharge Deserted
Registry of Last Ship English
Company From Last Ship 0
Capacity (Rank) Able-bodied Seaman
Payment Type (Time) By the month
Wage 215
Wage Currency Sterling
-
Brad, You're back! Good. I thought you might have disappeared, just as things with the FIELD family are looking interesting.
Yes the record you attached is for the correct Joseph. He was discharged Feb 1886.
• In June 1886, he was admitted to the Dreadnought Seamans Hospital (off the ship Lydia). He was in hospital for 50 days and the notes say “incapable of further relief. Unfit for work” I cannot read the scrawl that records the nature of his illness.
• From 9 Sept 1886 to 26 Oct 1866 Joseph was in the City of London Workhouse. “Not able bodied”. He was discharged at his own request.
• It is 1886 where his children start to appear in workhouse records, so he obviously was not able to earn a living.
• I don’t think he died in 1886. I have NOT found a death record for him in the few years after he stopped work. I haven’t looked at any ancestry trees (they are often incorrect), but my guess is that nobody actually has a death record for him. There is more work to do there to find out what happened to him.
It will be very useful for you to follow Joseph Field’s career as a seaman, so you get a better understanding of his life.
• In the 1871 census for Yarmouth, Joseph is a fisherman, and lodger with the Brooks family.
• In July 1873 in Yarmouth, Joseph Field joins the Royal Navy Reserve.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D8177173
This wonderful document is important for you to get. It is free to download once you have signed in.
It gives you detail of all the ships he served on. It gives his physical description, including his tattoo. Importantly it gives you his parents’ names, and his date and place of birth.
• Joseph is discharged from the Navy in 1875 due to “defective vision”.
• Straight away Aug 1875, he joins the crew of the Aurora out of Greenock in Scotland, as Able seaman.
• There is a record from 1880 Dorset Crew Lists, where Joseph Field is on the ship “Orleans” working as a fireman, or stoker.
• Then another record for the same position on the same ship in 1881. (Fireman was the occupation that his son gives his father when he married.)
• Then Joseph joins the ship “Lydia” in 1885 (the record you have posted above).
-
We know by now that Joseph FIELD was born in Islington, London in 1847, the son of Thomas and Mary.
So, I went looking to see what else I could find. ………
It seems that Joseph Field spent most of his early life in the workhouse, as well as in older age!
There are scores and scores of records from the Islington Workhouse and Poor Law Board of Guardians for Joseph Field (from age 1 to about age 7, ie 1848-1854), his mother Mary Field and his younger sister Mary Ann Field.
As you read through them all, you pick up various bits of information which ultimately gives you the complete picture.
A very brief summary:-
• In March 1848 we find Mary Field, 18, born Islington, married, workwoman, with her son 2 year old Joseph, and her daughter Mary Ann 1 month old. Destitute - Her husband has deserted her.
• By Feb 1849, we discover that the family is back in the workhouse, again destitute because the father / husband is in prison and has been sentenced to 7 years transportation.
• Along the way we have records confirming that Joseph born about 1846 / 47, and Mary Ann born 1848 are both legitimate children of Mary Field.
• We then discover that Mary has an illegitimate son named John born in 1852.
Then I went looking for the husband ……………..
Thomas FIELD born 1825 Islington, occupation Sawyer.
• Was convicted of house breaking and sentenced to 7 years on 29 January 1849 at the central Criminal Court
• Thomas Field and Henry Watson broke into the dwelling house of William Abel, and stole a silver mug and other articles valued at £20. Field had previous convictions. Both guilty, but Watson only received 1 yr sentence.
• Thomas Field was initially held on the York Hulk
• Assigned with Convict No. 471
• In March 1851, he was transported to Western Australia on the “Pyrenees” arriving in Freemantle on 28 June 1851
• Recorded as being semi-literate
• His Ticket of Leave was granted on 28 June 1851
• His Conditional Pardon was granted on 23 April 1853
Proceedings of Thomas’ trial at the Old Bailey.
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-534-18490129&div=t18490129-534#highlight
Link to the Millbank prison register (includes some important detail)
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-813058571/view
This confirms he had 6 previous convictions. Importantly it confirms his wife was Mary Field and his children were Joseph and Mary – address 2 Swan Yard Islington
Register of prisoners on the Prison Hulk, “York”
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-812073158/view
Physical description of prisoners. Scroll down Thomas Field (prisoner 471)
https://www.perthdps.com/convicts/conwad03.htm
-
Just touching the surface with this post – to add some leads.
Lots more work for you to do.
Marriage St James Clerkenwell
6 Sept 1847
Thomas FIELD, full age, bachelor, Sawyer, address 10 Paradise St. Father – Thomas FIELD a sawyer. He signs his name
Mary Ann DUCK, full age, spinster, address 8 Paradise St. Father – James DUCK a labourer. She makes her mark X
Thomas FIELD
Baptised 16 Apr. 1826 Saint Mary, Islington
Parents Thomas and Catherine. Abode Sidney Street. Father a Sawyer.
1841 census for Thomas FIELD with parents Thomas and Catherine and siblings
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQVL-JHZ?lang=en
Not long after this census Thomas Field senior is in the workhouse, and other members seem to follow.
Possible Marriage?
St Mary Islington 7 Dec 1823
Thomas FIELD and Catherine SUMMERS; both of this parish
He signs his name.
-
I guess we may never know why they changed their names to Brooks? Perhaps at the time both parents were dead the sisters had to look after them and as they were a brooks they gave them that name?
That was my thought too, and it is entirely plausible.
However, there is also the possibility that there was an intentional attempt to get rid of the surname Field because of its connection to a criminal / convict in the family.
-
Wow Neale, this is so interesting, you have worked really hard at this, fantastic.
Happy hunting
LM
-
@Neale1961
Sorry for the late response I was reading everything a few times including all the links and updating all my trees.
Thank you for all the detailed information this is amazing! To think what I knew 2 days ago vs now is brilliant!
Thomas Field is a rather interesting character!
I assume he came back from Australia and was reunited with family?
Thanks for all your help again 😄
Brad
-
Thomas Field is a rather interesting character!
I assume he came back from Australia and was reunited with family?
It is not likely. Most convicts could not afford the cost of a passage to England.
There were also more opportunities and a better life waiting in Australia.
Did you find him in the later English census?
-
Perhaps I interpreted wrong when you said about in 1853 his conditional pardon was granted, I thought this was his ticket back to England!
Would be interesting to try and see what happened to him in Australia, perhaps my next move.
Thanks
-
Yes, well with a "conditional pardon", he was free, BUT with the condition he could not leave Australia.
Australia is a big place, and many ex-convicts went on to make a success of their lives - finding stable work, taking a new wife and having a family. It was not un-common for some of them to head for the gold fields to try their luck.
There are some mentions of Thomas Field in the WA newspapers during his ticket of leave time when he was fined for being out too late. Nothing too serious.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/3174154?searchTerm=%22Thomas%20Field%22
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/65484598?searchTerm=%22Thomas%20Field%22
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/65484731?searchTerm=%22Thomas%20Field%22
After that, there is no further mention of him in Western Australia, so my guess is that he moved to another state in Australia. I haven't looked for him at all elsewhere in Australia.
I suggest you might start a new thread about Thomas FIELD on the Australian Board. Be sure to provide ALL the information (birth details, parents, wife and children, convict details) so that time is not wasted repeating research already done.
--------------------------
The other question that you might want to look into is what happened to Thomas' young wife, Mary Field (nee Duck). What was her family background? Did she marry again? We know (from her son's tattoo) that by 1873 she had died. What happened to her other children?
There are so many questions to research for your interesting family. :) Enjoy!
As this thread really started out finding the parents of Joseph Brooks born 1915, and has now become very long, it might be best to start new threads for other lines of enquiry. Remember to include a link back to here, and to provide all the information you already know, and what you want help to find.
---------------------------
I provided in above posts links to very good / important records for you, because I know they are not on Ancestry. Importantly, remember that not everything is on Ancestry.
You will find on Ancestry convict / prison records, etc; as well as all the Workhouse and Poor Law records, ships lists, but not Joseph Field's Navy record.
I would take your time to collect all those records, and read through them to get a real understanding of your family history.
We are always willing to help, so come back and ask, or let us know how you are going.
-
By the way,
I did try to track down an exact birth for Joseph FIELD, but could not find a baptism or a birth rego.
Baptism for his sister at St Mary Islington;
Mary Ann, daughter of Thomas FIELD (sawyer) and Mary FIELD
Born 7 Feb 1848, baptised 25 Feb 1848
Abode – workhouse.
This is probably her birth rego.
FIELD, MARY ANN -
GRO Reference: 1848 M Quarter in THE ISLINGTON DISTRICT Volume 03 Page 287
The parents were married in Sept 1847, Mary Ann was born in Feb 1848, so Joseph must have been born before his parents married - perhaps in 1846, or very early 1847.
This will be birth rego for the illegitmate son, John.
FIELD, JOHN Mother - DUCK
GRO Reference: 1852 J Quarter in WEST LONDON Volume 01C Page 48
-
Hi Brad, I have just been tidying up old notes and thought these (not previously posted) might be useful / interesting for you.
Regarding Mary nee Duck, wife of Thomas Field (the convict who went to Australia).
She also had some criminal records.
Mary Field age 19, married
Central Criminal Court 28 Feb 1848
larceny - 6 months (stealing shirts, shifts, table cloths, etc)
https://www.dhi.ac.uk/san/ccc/18480228/184802280021.jpg
Latest dates for workhouse records regarding the Field family –
Oct 1857 Islington Workhouse
Joseph Field 12, and Mary Ann Field 10 born Islington
Given up to their mother on her discharge from prison
(I didn’t see a record associated to her time in prison at this date)
Liverpool Rd Workhouse Dec 1857
Mary Field 28 born Islington washerwoman from 4 Swan Yard, “husband abroad” :)
1858 Liverpool Rd Workhouse
Joseph Field age 13 (from Infant establishment Hornsey Rd)
Mary Ann Field age 11 (Infant establishment Hornsey Rd)
Hornsey Road School:- In 1853, Islington erected an infants' school on Porter's Acre at the east side of Hornsey Road. It had places for 90 boys, 60 girls, and 30 infants, with room for further expansion. Boys and girls were taught separately but had a common dining-hall. There were also infirmaries and accommodation for a master, schoolmaster, and schoolmistress. In 1864, the school contained 111 boys and 75 girls.
-
Regarding the parents of Thomas Field the convict -----
I think this is the death of his mother -
Catherine FIELD burial 2 Feb 1845 Islington, age 45; Address – Adelaide Square
Death Certificate available
FIELD, CATHERINE 40
GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in SAINT PANCRAS Volume 01 Page 246
His father in the workhouse -
1848 Islington Workhouse
Thomas Field, 48, sawyer, widower, able bodied, destitute
With daughter Susannah Field, age 8
1859 Islington Workhouse
Thomas Field, 60, sawyer, widower, aged, not able bodied, financial distress (Blundell St, Caledonian Rd)