tn17's Scavenger Hunt...Everyone Welcome To Join In

[momo22]

My 2xgrt grandmother was illegitimate. She was registered under the name of Beavons. Her mother married an Langston. She used the name langston in all the census till she married. On her marr cert she used her 'real surname' but made up a father using her step fathers first name and 'real' surname. When she registered her children after birth she gave her maiden name as either Beavons or Langston depending on how the mood took her. 

Who knows perhaps Lydia/Letitia is doing something similar!?

[toni*]

i did look to see if they had been christened under Junior 

[toni*]

1841 St Lawrence (Woolwich)
Hewson
eliza scates 25 F.S
Sarah Scates 30 do.
William Butler  65 do. 
all NBIC
 
HO107 467 16 35 38

[toni*]

1861 for that Sarah scates but is she the same one as yours?

RG9;  536;  90; : 20

[toni*]

Richard is with Lydia in 1841 she is listed as Burgess in 1841 he marries Letitia Forbes
he is old enough to have a marriage pre Letitia he could have lied about being a bachelor or he could have lied about being married in 1841 as relationships arent given we have may have wrongly assumed this is the case and lydia and Richard and George are in fact siblings or cousins ?

[tn17]

Hey everyone,
A big thankyou   to everybody whose pitched in.
When I get a chance to duck into the library next to work today (ooooh how tempting!), I'm going to chase the addresses on the 1843 marriage, and to see if I can find evidence of another Richard/Letitia or at least a widowed Richard/Letitia that might fit...

In terms of this marriage, am I right in saying the options are:
1. Letitia is lying about her maiden name, marital status and/or Father's name on the 1843 marriage. Possibly because she was born out of wedlock, or had been married before. This would explain the paper-stainer link, and fits in that there's no other marriage we can find.
2. Letitia is lying about her maiden name on the birth certificates. Don't know why, but she could be.
3. That's not my couple. Either:
     A. There's another wedding out there (non-conformist? Dreadfully mistranscribed?), or:
     B. They just didn't bother with a wedding.
This option would explain the late marriage and name difference, but not where my couple came from or what happened to the 1843 couple (unless Letitia Fotbes died and the 1851 Lambeth Richard is the widower).

[toni*]

Letitia wouldnt have a birth certificate as she was born pre 1837 civil registration so we have to rely on chirstening records
have you seen the actual entry in the PR's for her christening?

[tn17]

Letitia wouldnt have a birth certificate as she was born pre 1837 civil registration so we have to rely on chirstening records
have you seen the actual entry in the PR's for her christening?

None, under either Barrett or Forbes

[toni*]

Okay ...sitting here tearing my hair out!!!!!! 

this is 1841
transcribed as BURYOSS

 1841Tower Hamlets
St  Matthew , Bethnal Green
Harrod st
Richard Burgess 25 paper stainer, Not born in county
Lydia 27, NBIC
George 20 paper stainer,NBIC
/
John BARRETT, 30, brick maker, NBIC

Richard Burgess, paper stainer marries a Letitia Forbes in 1843

What's going on?? ??

Is there any other Richard and Letitia/Lydia's in 1851?

deb

forget the marriage for a minute

this Richard b. Rainham
in  1851  HO107;  1540;  555;
1861 RG9;  251;  128;  35