Picturing our ancestors lives.

[IgorStrav]

While not a Londoner by birth, my great, great gran was born in Sussex but her parents moved to London when she was a few months old in 1864. Her paternal grandparents came from Bermondsey anyway. They lived in Stoke Newington, then moved to Bow in 1865, then to Lambeth in 1876, then to Walworth in 1877 and then to Holborn in late 1878. All this is tracked from the 1871 census, siblings birth certs, school records and a poor relief application in December 1878. So that said gggran grew up in various parts of the capital. She lived in Bow from about mid 1865 to 1876. And I have been to all the locations where the streets were where she grew up.

That's fascinating, Coombs - were they moving about for work, do you think?  Because Stoke Newington, Bow, Holborn are all North of the River and Lambeth, Walworth and Bermondsey are South.  I come from London, and the two sides of the River are distinctly different populations.

My ancestors came from Kent into Bexley, Greenwich, Woolwich and then my grandfather broke with convention and moved (with his job in the police)across The River to Walthamstow and thence to Leyton/Leytonstone.  My father, born in Walthamstow, was definitely a North Londoner (as, I fear, am I). 

I also have ancestors who came from the Essex coast to Walworth in South London, also ending up in Greenwich, as well as what seems to be a very London based line who lived in the very very worst bits of East London.

[coombs]

While not a Londoner by birth, my great, great gran was born in Sussex but her parents moved to London when she was a few months old in 1864. Her paternal grandparents came from Bermondsey anyway. They lived in Stoke Newington, then moved to Bow in 1865, then to Lambeth in 1876, then to Walworth in 1877 and then to Holborn in late 1878. All this is tracked from the 1871 census, siblings birth certs, school records and a poor relief application in December 1878. So that said gggran grew up in various parts of the capital. She lived in Bow from about mid 1865 to 1876. And I have been to all the locations where the streets were where she grew up.

That's fascinating, Coombs - were they moving about for work, do you think?  Because Stoke Newington, Bow, Holborn are all North of the River and Lambeth, Walworth and Bermondsey are South.  I come from London, and the two sides of the River are distinctly different populations.

My ancestors came from Kent into Bexley, Greenwich, Woolwich and then my grandfather broke with convention and moved (with his job in the police)across The River to Walthamstow and thence to Leyton/Leytonstone.  My father, born in Walthamstow, was definitely a North Londoner (as, I fear, am I). 

I also have ancestors who came from the Essex coast to Walworth in South London, also ending up in Greenwich, as well as what seems to be a very London based line who lived in the very very worst bits of East London.

Well the father Thomas Roberts was a servant in 1865, then a soap factory labourer in 1868, his father in law died in 1876 and he was a wheelwright. Thomas' wife got her share of her dads will money and they moved to Oakley Street, Lambeth, ran a coffee shop, then to 20 Steedman Street, Walworth, then to Alvey Street to run a beer house. They gave up that license in September 1878 and moved to Holborn where they applied for poor relief. They must have lost all their investments on the beer house. His daughters became tailoresses and he was a soap boiler and night watchman then shoeblack. Thomas had a sister in Bermondsey, where his parents were born, he was born in Kent. They probably did move around for work.

[pinefamily]

Excuse my Australian ignorance, but is there really such a difference between north and south of the river?

[StevieSteve]

Yes

[IgorStrav]

Excuse my Australian ignorance, but is there really such a difference between north and south of the river?

And notice it's not referred to as The Thames, either.

Nowt so queer as folk.  That applies to Londoners also. 

[jbml]

Excuse my Australian ignorance, but is there really such a difference between north and south of the river?

Excuse my English ignorance, but aren't Australians and New Zealanders all the same, really?

It's a bit like that, only more extreme.

Bear in mind that South of the River isn't really London at all ... it's Surrey, and Kent, and Berkshire ...

(There is also an important historical point here, to do with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. London always had its bishop close at hand, and ecclesiastical oversight was tight. Southwark, on the other hand, just across the Bridge (in the days when there was only one bridge) was in the diocese of Winchester. The bishop was very remote, and ecclesiastical oversight comparatively laxer. Therefore the "stews" (or brothels) which served the needs of the citizens of London were all established in Southwark, not London ... where the chances of being cited to answer for sexual immorality in the ecclesiastical courts were very much lower. The ladies of the stews were referred to as "Winchester Geese", because they were not within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of hte Bishop of London.

Thus Southwark, to the South of the River, was a very much seedier place in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries than London on the North bank.

[pinefamily]

Probably why one of my collateral ancestors was a tanner in Southwark; no-one likely to complain. 

And don't compare the Aussies with the Kiwis, they still haven't forgiven the underarm incident!

[jaybelnz]

 

And they're two different countries with an ocean between them, not just a river!!

[pinefamily]

One day, Jeanne, one day........