Author Topic: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier  (Read 44743 times)

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,827
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #90 on: Monday 01 March 10 16:59 GMT (UK) »

Then he adds Mary to the equation later ....
possibly taking on her son Thomas as a stepson, who calls him his father when he later marries.


I'm thinking at the moment that Thomas is more likely to have started life as the Robert SMITH we see in 1871. Mary's a bit all over the place about her age, but if one treats 1891 as a blip she seems (probably) too young to be Thomas/Robt RICHEY's mother.
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline lizdb

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,307
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #91 on: Monday 01 March 10 17:01 GMT (UK) »
Sorry - I hadnt looked closely enough (to be honest I have lost the plot). I was rather thinking that Mary would be the same Mary who had been married to Patrick up north and had the son Thomas Richey ....
Edmonds/Edmunds - mainly Sussex
DeBoo - London
Green - Suffolk
Parker - Sussex
Kemp - Essex
Farrington - Essex
Boniface - West Sussex

census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline DarrenMW

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #92 on: Monday 01 March 10 17:04 GMT (UK) »
Liz - I agree with Thomas Smith.

I am close to discounting Robert Hollinsworth (Smith) as being the same i.e stage name as the Robert Richey that Thomas lists as Father on his 1915 marriage cert.

I think maybe he gets the Richey (from his possible birth father Patrick Ritichie husband of Mary in Midleboro) and the Robert either from lack of accurate knowledge of his real dad (Patrick) and/or Robert Hollingsworth.

No wonder Tomas Hollingworth was an actor...he'd need to be with all these simultaneous families!




Offline DarrenMW

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #93 on: Monday 01 March 10 17:34 GMT (UK) »
In 1881 HMS Impregnable was a training ship based at Devonport, Pymouth, hence the huge numbers of boys shown on the 1881 list.

Our Thomas Richey age has varied by a couple of years (though nowhere NEAR the variance of his name  :o ), so it could well be him just priory to joining the Army (Queens West Surreys) in 1883



Robert Smith aged 6 in 1871 fits perfectly with believed year of birth for Thomas Richey!


Could this be him in 1881?

Vessels: Impregnable

[In a long list]

R. HOLLINGSWORTH Boy 2nd cl. Unm 16 St Giles M'sex


Offline DarrenMW

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #94 on: Monday 01 March 10 17:54 GMT (UK) »
No history of a 'Chains Court' but there is a Grange Court which is running parallel to Portugal Street, connected by St Clements Lane...  a 1 minute walk

St Clements Dane is the famous church  which faces the Strand, and which backs onto a road right next to St Clements Lane...a 2 minute walk

Whichever way you look at it, the two address, each with a different wife, in 1861 are no more than a couple of hundred feet apart! Surely, that is TOO close for both families NOT to know about eachother. The wives & kids would've seen each other and Thomas Hollingsworth (Smith) on a  daily basis.....no way he could've kept these unsuspecting families quiet from each other if these addresses are correct,....so

1) Did both families know each other and both wives were 'accepting' of the situation

or

2) Is there more 'smoke and mirrors' regarding Hollingsworth and Smith?
 






1861

RG9 180 45 35

1 Chain Court, St Clemets Dane

Robert Smith 34 Printers somethnig bn Southampton
Eliza 25 bn Westminser
ELiza 4 bn Westm.
Alice 2 bn Westm.


Havent we already found him in 1861 though?

Do you think he had several families in different names in different places concurrantly? They all filled him in on the census as head of the house, even if he wasnt actually with them on census night, but was with another 'wife' and family and had told them some story .....


Yikes! Yes, the family with Isabella was in Portugal St, St Clement Danes in 1861 (he as Thomas HOLLINGSWORTH, 34 bookbinder b Southampton).  I wonder how far that is from 1 Chain Court?

Offline DarrenMW

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #95 on: Monday 01 March 10 18:06 GMT (UK) »
So if we accept that our Thomas (Richey) is the son of Hollingsworth and Sarah Eliza Smith,.............in all likelihood we have to discount the entire Mary Ritchie and son from Middlesboro thing?

that would be a shame because we are then without a lead for the name 'Richey'

Correct?

 :'(

Offline lizdb

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,307
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #96 on: Monday 01 March 10 18:08 GMT (UK) »
I was trying to get my mind round that too.

Our chap cant be both the Robert Smith age 6 in London with Robert and Eliza
AND the Thomas Richey age 5 in Middlesbro with Patrick and Mary
Edmonds/Edmunds - mainly Sussex
DeBoo - London
Green - Suffolk
Parker - Sussex
Kemp - Essex
Farrington - Essex
Boniface - West Sussex

census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,827
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #97 on: Monday 01 March 10 18:22 GMT (UK) »
I agree that the boy can't be both Robert SMITH in London and Thomas RICH[E]Y in Middlesbro' at the same time in 1871.

Middlesbro' chap has a number of things in his favour - name, age, dead father so family upheaval makes sense. BUT his mother Mary is way too old to be the same as the London Mary, and in any event both Marys are enumerated separately and at different ends of the country in 1881.

Which leaves the vital question - how on earth would Middlesbro' chap have come to be connected with the HOLLINGSWORTH family (and considered a brother of the HOLLINGSWORTH girls) between 1881 and 1891?
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline lizdb

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,307
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Richey and kin 1914 and earlier
« Reply #98 on: Monday 01 March 10 18:25 GMT (UK) »
.... but if he is the Smith one where did he get the surname Richey from by 1891?

What a mystery this one is!

Edmonds/Edmunds - mainly Sussex
DeBoo - London
Green - Suffolk
Parker - Sussex
Kemp - Essex
Farrington - Essex
Boniface - West Sussex

census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk