1851, 1861 and 1871 - Pitt COMPLETED

[Ewan]

Hello again

That is strange the fact that it has Elizabeth as the sister of Shelah Pitt on the 1861 census.  According to deportation documents of Shelah's dad he had 7 children, and there are 7 children listed on the 1841 - Able, Shelah, Luke, Fanny, Martha, Nathaniel and Alfred.  Finding Elizabeth is a new one to me, must check the documents again.  I have had a quick scout around for her on other censuses but I can't seem to find her.  Must make a mental note to try and find her

Thanks for all your help.
Ewan

[carol8353]

Ewan,

Could she be sister in law,although most of the boys didn't seem to marry did they?

Or his wife's sister of course.

Carol

[Ewan]

Hello Carol, having a good day?

Elizabeth could be Shelah's wife's sister but she has the name of Pitt, unless the enumerator got carried away with his dittos!

IN 1861 they appear with 3 year old Eliza and Shelah's(Shiloh?) sister Elizabeth who is 'dittoed' as Pitt but listed as married.

With this one I am trying to establish when the family of Pitts moved from Wiltshire to Middlesex.  I have Shelah as being baptised in 1824 in Wiltshire, so they were there then.  That is why I would like to find more censuses with Luke on to confirm his birthplace.  On the 1871 it says Middlesex, on the 1881 is says Wiltshire, but the enumerator could have just put down Wiltshire the same as his mum.  I suppose a search for Elizabeth Hughes who they are lodging with in 1881 might turn up something.

Just noticed there is a William Rogers aged 56 lodging with them is he yours?

[carol8353]

Just noticed there is a William Rogers aged 56 lodging with them is he yours?

No he's not one of mine........I did look 

All my older Rogers came from Ashford Kent. Although they don't appear in any baptism records there ....DOH

Carol

[Ewan]

Luke Pitt

On the 1851 I have just found a 'Sef Pet' born 1830 Charlton living at Nettleton Wiltshire as a lodger, also lodging is a Joseph Hughes also born in Charlton 1832.  On the image it is definitely 'Sef' could the enumerator heard wrongly instead of Luke

Also on the same page there is a Henry Lewis lodging along with his brother in law Richard Hatton.  Now ....... you are probably wondering what has all this got to do with the price of a loaf of bread etc, but that Henry Lewis is the uncle of a Luke Pitt, mum Ann Pitt/Toy's younger brother.   

Also, on the 1881 Luke and his mum Ann Toy are lodging in Hammersmith with an Elizabeth Hughes aged 64 born in Hammersmith.

There is also a Martha Davis Hughes that married (in 1809) Henry Lewises grandfather's brother.  Can't begin to think what she would be called to him or Luke Pitt.

Am I barking up the wrong tree, or could this be Luke in 1851?     
Ewan

[carol8353]

Am I barking up the wrong tree, or could this be Luke in 1851?     
Ewan

Ewan

Sometimes you're like a dog with a bone,and now you're like one with a tree 

Wait till Liz and I are back on form tomorrow and we'll let you know if you're 'up' the wrong tree

Carol

[lizdb]

Hi Carol - I just popped in and it looks like you did too!

I was just thinking that it certainly looks like this Sef Pet guy is really a Pitt - from the number of connections Ewan has found. But Luke n Sef being muddled? well, anything's possible. Sef sounds like a mishearing of Seth (another biblical name for you) and I was just looking to see if there is a Seth Pitt anywhere around. No luck in 1861.

Will keep looking though!(Interestrng to hear how these Pitts/toys etc link in with the Lewis's of Maria fame, we always wondered if she had originated from Wiltshire.)

[lizdb]

1841
HO107 1181 7

Pink Lane Charlton

Samuel Pitt 50 ag lab
Rebekah Pitt 50
Jesse Pitt 13
Seth Pitt 11
? Pitt (male) 9 (transcribed Selous)

all except Rebekah born in county

However, Index says Seth born Wiltshire - where did they get that from???

Anyway, I reckon this is the Sef pet you found in 1851, Ewan.

I would be pretty sure he is related somewhere, but he is not Luke

modified - sorry, a bit slow today, they are in a Charlton a village in Wiltshire, not Charlton in London!!!

[lizdb]

there are 7 children listed on the 1841 - Able, Shelah, Luke, Fanny, Martha, Nathaniel and Alfred. 

Have I got my k's in a t, or are there not more children in 1851? On my very scribbled on scrap of paper I have a note of 1851 having Abel 27, Fanny 21, Martha 19, Nathaniel 17, Alfred 15, Ann 8 JAmes 6 and Louisa 1 (Maybe HO107 1699 533 38, that number is amongst the jottings)

Hold on - didnt you say that ANn's first husband, Shelah, was transported in 1841? So where it says in this 1851 entry that  Abel, Fanny and Martha are "Lodgers children", but that Nathaniel alfred, Ann JAmes and Louisa are just sons and daughters (head of h/h is a James Shepherd, Ann described as lodger) does that imply that ACTUALLY Ann was a little more that what we would describe as a lodger, and that the younger children are Mr Shepherd's?
In fact, this census indicates that Nathaniel downwards are Mr S's, so ANn had finished with Shelah a few years before he was deported and therfore to make up the number of Shelah's offspring to 7 there would be some others....