Find Ancestors

Rifle Brigade, Captain the Honourable Willoughby
Merrick William Campbell Burrell retires from
the Service, receiving the value of his Commission.
Dated 24th September, 1873.

London Gazette.

http://www.william1.co.uk/w191.htm

Descendant of William The Conquerer.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&rlz=1R2RNRN_enGB443&sclient=psy-ab&q=willoughby+merrick+william+campbell+burrell&oq=willoughby+merrick+william+campbell+burrell&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...1735l20078l0l20844l43l39l0l4l4l0l469l11128l0j1j23j14j1l42l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&rlz=1R2RNRN_enGB443&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4217f1105603966a&biw=1024&bih=571

This family is wealthy. Very wealthy. So the missing ladies could have been anywhere in the world in 1901.

Name: BURRELL, Willoughby Merrick William Campbell
Registration district: [?] Ipswich
County: Suffolk
Year of registration: 1841
Quarter of registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
Mother's maiden name: Not available before 1911 Q3
Volume no:[?] 12
Page no:[?]327

Name: ORD, Ann Selby Burrell
Registration district: [?] Glendale
County: Northumberland
Year of registration: 1851
Quarter of registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
Mother's maiden name: Not available before 1911 Q3
Volume no:[?] XXV
Page no:[?]292

Interesting middle name. Cousins? Nah, they didn't pop in off the street Nicola.

Neither of them appear to be in the UK on the 1901 census.

Well I'm still picking spelling and pronunciation errors here so have been looking under Benton., Boot, Boothe, anything that may seem possible. Its a great long shot and I'm getting no-where so far, but shall keep looking.

I think we should explore all suggestions as look what we have to look forward to when we find them all!!

Maria

Hi Nicola

This branch of your family were not paupers, dragging folks in off the street to witness a shotgun marriage. Mr and Mrs Burrell were invited, that is my guess. But who are they?

Name: BURRELL, Willoughby M W C
Registration district: [?] St. George Hanover Square
County: London
Year of registration: 1901
Quarter of registration: Apr-May-Jun
Spouse's last name Not available before 1912
Volume no: [?] 1A
Page no: [?] 947
[?] Willoughby M W C Burrell married married one of the following people Transcript
LEWIS, Ada VIEW
ORD, Anne Selby B VIEW *******
THOMPSON, Charles Richard

Nicola EDIT trying to get this to fit page - didn't work.

One thing crossed my mind. Maybe Ethel M was visiting her
husband to be who was in Devon at the time and Edith A was
acting as chaperone as would be the thing at the time.

Maybe a Devon hotel or with a relative of Lt Col Botelier.
I love this one.

Vera

Dear Madmeg,

Sadly, the witnesses to the marriage do not appear to have any relevance at all and are probably just passersby on the day.

They are Willoughby Burrell and Anne E.B. Burrell. Odd, perhaps, that her elder sister from whose London address she was married, does not appear as a witness . . . And her elder brother Arthur Trevor Lockwood Boothe was by this time off out in India fighting for his country during the Raj days.

If anybody comes new to this thread, PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT WE HAVE GIVEN UP on these two sisters.

All help gratefully received.

:-D :-D

Thank you all again for your theories re these two missing gals.

As can be seen, they both made 'good' marriages and came from 'good' stock - prison seems highly unlikely! They're both Vicar's daughters.

Knowing this family's relations as well as we do, we feel that the only place that they could have been visiting together would have been to one or other of their aunts who were both living in London. But the census records for both aunts has drawn a blank. It is also possible that they could have been visiting one of their Great Aunts in Cheshire - but again, a blank.

'Booth/e' is not a particularly difficult surname to transcribe, whereas 'Denton' could easily get a bit squiggly in the transcription. I have certainly had some tricky ones with another prominent surname in my ancestry, but these two gals are proving very naughty indeed. One a respectable married woman with a child at home with her 'respectable' papa, the other one about to be married later in that year to a divorce.

Hey ho.

I am sure that somewhere along the line a spelling mistake has been made and that is causing the problem - elusive isn't the word!!

One wants to spend the time on Dento, Dentone, etc. to see if she can be located - anywhere!!

Will keep looking.

Nicola, are the witnesses on the marriage cert of any particular interest?

I wonder if the two sisters have been seriously mistranscribed. Or have been visiting one of those census areas whose records were destroyed.

They could even have been in prison, for some misdemeanour such as campaigning for votes for women, and might only be recorded by their initials.

Sorry, even that idea hasn't thrown up anything, despite my searching.

Thank you Sue.

This is where we all started, with the wife/mother of Charles and young Edith 'missing'.

It's all very odd indeed. It seems that both Edith Aline and Ethel Marion may be off somewhere else together in 1901, but they're being darned elusive!!

1901 Census for 119 Westbourne Terrace ,,


1901 census - address transcription
Address: 119, Westbourne Terrace, Paddington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DENTON, Charles A Head Married M 48 1853 Secretary London Assurance
Charterhouse
London
DENTON, Edith J Daughter F 12 1889
Paddington
London
NEWENHAM, Eliza W Single F 24 1877 Governess
Liverpool
BOLTON, Edith H Servant Single F 21 1880 Housemaid Domestic
Abingdon
Berkshire
BROAD, Ida C Servant Single F 23 1878 Cook Domestic
Holdsworth
Gloucestershire
HATHAWAY, Florence Servant Single F 16 1885 Under Housemaid Domestic
Great Russington
Gloucestershire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RG number:
RG13 Piece:
13 Folio:
51 Page:
43

Sub District:
St John Paddington Enumeration District:
2 Ecclesiastical Parish:
Holy Trinity

Municipal Borough:
Address:
119, Westbourne Terrace, Paddington County:

Marie Celeste, I love your theory - how romantic! We shall never know . . .

And now I've hit another BRICK WALL. I cannot find the elusive Edith Aline Booth, born 1864, in the 1881 census either.

You will see that she has been variously transcribed by the incorrect middle name spelling of Eline and also there is sometimes an elusive additional 'e' added to the end of the Booth surname.

Any eagle eyes out there this evening, please?

Might they all be shopping in France together for wedding things!!

If they were anywhere in this country they *should* still be recorded even if not at home - they'd be registered wherever they were staying.

And now, to add insult to injury, I cannot find EITHER sister in 1901!!

I.e., neither EDITH ALINE DENTON [her married name] nor her younger sister ETHEL MARION BOOTHE[e]. EMB got married to the divorced Francis Wilford Boteler later on in that same census year.

Their father, the Reverend John Edmund Booth[e] died in 1892 in Chorlton cum Hardy where he was the Rector - lots and lots of history there . . .

So Ethel would not have had a 'home' to go back to once her papa had died. Now where would she have gone to?

Her elder sister EAB married Denton in 1886 back in her father's church in Chorlton.

Mystery continues . . .

Can anyone spot them, together or separately please?
:-D

Hello again Nicola S,

No luck either. You know I think I Vera2010 may be right. She may well be 'offshore' or even just visiting a neighbour when the census was taken. It is where you are when the records are collected yes/no? Anyone know how it works? Unless you know exactly, the chances get slimmer.

I lived in Bayswater - Westbourne Grove, as a baby before we came to NZ. Totally irrelevant!!

You never know this may eventually come to a solved conclusion so leave the thread on.

Maria

I thought that all my helpers may be interested to know that I have now received the marriage certificate for her younger sister in October 1901 - the little baby whose mother died three days after she was born.

Ethel Marion Booth[e] was married from her elder sister's address at 119 Westbourne Terrace, London - the address from which said elder sister is 'missing' earlier in that census year and which has sparked off this whole thread!!

Thank you all again.
:-D

Seems to be a lot of criticism, unnecessary to my mind, so confining my findings to the original precise request, I cannot find Edith Aline Booth on the 1901 census.

May I add a word of caution on the above remarks from those person who help and search.

It is important for requests to work both ways and that offence is not given by the searchers not reading the actual requests.

I had a specific request on here which I had to delete due to the fact that my whole family history was laid out before everyone who may have wished to view it on this site and had absolutely nothing to do with my original request.

I was mortified but had not the courage to make a comment - I thanked as I could see the work that the helper had gone to, but then deleted the thread.

Your help is so appreciated; most of you go the extra mile to help those less informed of how the system works and what you come up with is fantastic - I personally don't know how you do it, but someone new might make one small mistake and the barrage that is sent out can put someone off for good.

I have watched these sites with interest over the years since I joined genes and the same people put in a lot of time and effort to help. Keep it up - its precious and its great.

So from me - many many thanks.

Maria.

Hello Nicola S,

I would like to share with you my trouble in finding family members on census reports.

My grandmother is Johanna (Johannah), but when I eventually found her, her name appeared as "JEMIMA' - sitting there with her sister.

It takes time, but keep trying and we will keep looking for you. As I understand the census it is taken on a certain day and time and if your relative was anywhere else other than with her immediate family or even in the same county/country then tracing them would be difficult. I am sure you understand this.

Good luck,

Maria (down under)

Patchem and Nicola

I didn't mean to appear rude. It is a fact that when someone asks for a specific narrow search helpers (a) need to look beyond it in order to find it and (b) assume that other information has not yet been found unless it has already been stated.

It is common sense when asking for a search on 1901 to post what has already been found on previous censuses etc, as it saves people searching for that info. After all, we don't have the information before us that the poster already does. The poster should display their previous relevant results. We cannot confine our search to just the narrow request without knowing the background - at least, not if we want to do a proper job.

Well that is my feeling.

Meg