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

[toni*]

until that marriage has been explained its all circumstantial

[tn17]

until that marriage has been explained its all circumstantial

True. Right now I find it too difficult to dismiss as so many of the details line up, but also difficult to accept as the right marriage given the name discrepancy and the time elapsed between their first child and the marriage date.

 

[toni*]

yes i wasnt say dismiss it but what is the explanation for the Burgess / Barrett name

[Cherryexile]

Hello all,

Let me tell you where my starting point was and that may help strengthen the coincidences. For the record I think the Richard Burgess / Letitia Forbes union is simply a red herring that relates to another family and that Lydia/Letitia Barret simply used two forenames.

Anyway, sometime in the 1950's my mum saw a document relating to her mother's purchase of a Sewing Machine on Hire Purchase. My mum's grandfather stood as guarantor for the loan and signed his name as George Macland Burgess. This name also appears on his 1955 Death Certificate. However, on all other records he appears only as George Burgess.

A quick trawl of Ancestry for 'George Macland Burgess' produces nothing, but with the addition of the 'k' into Mac(k)land, it reveals, one born around 1823 and two subsequent people with the same name. These turn out to be descendants of Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett, as is my great grandfather's grandfather, Richard Burgess b. 1815.

My George Macland Burgess' father, John, was born in 1848, so appears on the 1851 Census, as the son of Richard Burgess of Rainham and Lydia Burgess of Woolwich. The oldest surviving child is Richard b. 1842. John Burgess' Birth Certificate gives his parents as Richard Burgess junr. and Letitia Burgess, formerly Barrett. Given the small gap between 1848 and 1851 I have always presumed that Lydia and Letitia were the same people.

Having looked at the 1841 Census and finding a Richard, Lydia and George all living together (along with John Barrett) I ordered George Mackland Burgess' 1842 Marriage Certificate which gave his occupation as Paper Stainer (a match to the census) and his father as Richard Burgess, Paper Stainer. The 1851 Census gives both John and Richard as coming from Rainham and Rainham is where we find Mackland Farm, which ties in with the information I posted previously.

The two halves fit together very well and all of the individuals seem to be accounted for.

That still leaves an element of doubt about whether Richard's wife was Letitia, Lydia or (my preference) both and the Burgess/Forbes marriage, but I don't think they alter the basic foundation of Letitia/Lydia being Richard's only wife and the mother of all his children; unless something else emerges.

[Cherryexile]

Looking at the witnesses at John Burgess' 1868 marriage:
Witnesses: Frederick Webb and Lydia Webb

found this marriage:
Frederick WEBB (leather dealer) = Elidia Tisha Burgess (sic)  ...she makes her mark as does Fred.
Witnesses: Emma Edwards, who witnessed 3 marriage on the page
and Henry Congdon
Her father = Richard Burgess, leather dealer

married: 4 Sep 1865, Bethnal Green, St James the Great

good grief ... She is Elizabeth in 1871 and Elesia in 1881

deb

She goes on to be worse than this,

Marriage    04 Sep 1865                Elodie Tisha Burgess
Census      1871                            WEBB, Elizth               Wife    Married
Census      1881                            WEBB, Elesia           Wife    Married
Census      1891                            WEBB, Latitia            Wife    Married
Census      1901                            WEBB, Lydia            Wife    Married   
Census      1911                            WEBB, Lettitia       Mother    Widow    

I suppose its a girls prerogative to change her mind.

Neil

[tn17]

Hello all,

Let me tell you where my starting point was and that may help strengthen the coincidences. For the record I think the Richard Burgess / Letitia Forbes union is simply a red herring that relates to another family and that Lydia/Letitia Barret simply used two forenames.

Anyway, sometime in the 1950's my mum saw a document relating to her mother's purchase of a Sewing Machine on Hire Purchase. My mum's grandfather stood as guarantor for the loan and signed his name as George Macland Burgess. This name also appears on his 1955 Death Certificate. However, on all other records he appears only as George Burgess.

A quick trawl of Ancestry for 'George Macland Burgess' produces nothing, but with the addition of the 'k' into Mac(k)land, it reveals, one born around 1823 and two subsequent people with the same name. These turn out to be descendants of Richard Burgess and Letitia Barrett, as is my great grandfather's grandfather, Richard Burgess b. 1815.

My George Macland Burgess' father, John, was born in 1848, so appears on the 1851 Census, as the son of Richard Burgess of Rainham and Lydia Burgess of Woolwich. The oldest surviving child is Richard b. 1842. John Burgess' Birth Certificate gives his parents as Richard Burgess junr. and Letitia Burgess, formerly Barrett. Given the small gap between 1848 and 1851 I have always presumed that Lydia and Letitia were the same people.

Having looked at the 1841 Census and finding a Richard, Lydia and George all living together (along with John Barrett) I ordered George Mackland Burgess' 1842 Marriage Certificate which gave his occupation as Paper Stainer (a match to the census) and his father as Richard Burgess, Paper Stainer. The 1851 Census gives both John and Richard as coming from Rainham and Rainham is where we find Mackland Farm, which ties in with the information I posted previously.

The two halves fit together very well and all of the individuals seem to be accounted for.

That still leaves an element of doubt about whether Richard's wife was Letitia, Lydia or (my preference) both and the Burgess/Forbes marriage, but I don't think they alter the basic foundation of Letitia/Lydia being Richard's only wife and the mother of all his children; unless something else emerges.

Hi Neil,

I completely agree - I'm satisfied that Lydia and Letitia are the same person and Richard's only wife.

I'm not convinced about the Burgess/Forbes wedding, though. Many of the details line up, except Letitia's surname and the date, and there's no clear sign of a second Richard/Letitia on the 1851. I don't think it's definitely a match, I just think there's a bit more out there to find out before all the pieces are on the table.

The search goes on!

[Cherryexile]

I am now in receipt of the Will details of Richard Burgess from the London District Probate Registry. The hope was that I could compare the signature to that on the Marriage record, to see if they match. Unfortunately, what I have been sent appears to be a photocopy of a transcript, rather than a photocopy of the original (although it is difficult to be sure).

Everything seems to be written with the same hand, including the names of the witnesses, but the point where it says signature of 'Richard Burgess', it is written larger, so that it stands out from the page. I think this is just to make it easier to pick the name out and not a reflection that Richard signed in the space provided.

As far as I can tell the Banns no longer exist either (unless they are still in the Church), so that would seem to be another avenue closed off.

Neil

[tn17]

Ahh, that's a shame. Thank you for chasing that up 

I've also tried to track down Banns, but haven't had any luck.

[Elainepooky]

Hello my name is Elaine
I belive that Richard Burgess was my great great grandfather.
My grand mother was Charlotte Louise Burgess.  Please could some one tell me why they are a Kent travellers site.
My sister has just recently told me.