Find Ancestors

Oh Christine, you have paid no attention whatsoever.

If you have Rupert's 1919 marriage certificate, can you not just ANSWER the questions asked?

How old was he?
What was his occupation?
What was his address?
What was his father's name?
Who were the witnesses?

We KNOW that Edith Maud Hitchcock is not the one you are asking about.

The fact is that the name RUPERT LYLE is so unusual that we are casting about trying to find one, and there is one who married Edith Maud Hitchcock earlier, and then he and she and their child all completely disappeared.

Depending on how old Rupert Lyle who married in 1919 was, he could be *the same* Rupert Lyle as the one who married Edith Maud Hitchcock.

What was Maud's sister Jessie's married name? It would be nice to at least identify the right Maud Hancock, and if we can find them together in a census, that would help ... seems to be this family in 1901, matches the 1894 birth info for Maud Ethel Hancock given on page 1.

Name: Maud Hancock
Age: 6
Estimated birth year: abt 1895
Relation to Head: Daughter
Gender: Female
Father: Thomas Hancock -- is this the father's name on the 1919 marriage??
Mother: Susannah Hancock
Birth Place: Battersea, Surrey, England
Civil Parish: Battersea
County/Island: London
Country: England
Registration district: Wandsworth

Thomas Hancock 45 - tailor's [something] maker
Susannah Hancock 41
>> Jessie Hancock 16
Walter Hancock 13
John Hancock 11
George Hancock 9
>> Maud Hancock 6
Robert Hancock 4
Ernest Hancock 2
Beatrice Hancock 4/12

in 1911, Jessie has left the family

Name: Maud Hancock
Age in 1911: 17
Estimated birth year: abt 1894
Relation to Head: Daughter
Gender: Female
Birth Place: Lambeth
Civil Parish: Battersea
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street address: 220 Bridge Road, Battersea, London S W
Marital Status: Single
Occupation: TAILOR CHALK MAKER
Registration district: Wandsworth



....... you're welcome ........

As Jessie was born 1885 Lambeth, according to the 1901 census, this will be her birth:

Births Mar 1884 (>99%)
Hancock Jessie Henrietta Lambeth 1d 455

So, her marriage ??:

Marriages Sep 1906 (>99%)
EDWARDS Emily Beatrice Camberwell 1d 1585
HANCOCK Jessie Henrietta Camberwell 1d 1585 <<<<<<<
LANGLEY Charles Edward Camberwell 1d 1585
TEBBUTT Albert Alfred Camberwell 1d 1585



and in 1911?

Jessie Langley
in the 1911 England Census
Name: Jessie Langley
Age in 1911: 27
Estimated birth year: abt 1884
Relation to Head: Wife
Gender: Female
Birth Place: Lambeth, London, England
Civil Parish: West Ham
County/Island: Essex
Country: England
Street address: 23 Peter Street, Canning Town E
Marital Status: Married
Years Married: 5
Estimated Marriage Year: 1906
Registration district: West Ham
Registration District Number: 188
Sub-registration district: Canning Town
ED, institution, or vessel: 34
Household schedule number: 58
Piece: 9504
Household Members:
Name Age
Charles Langley 49
Jessie Langley 27
George Langley 4

Sadly, Christine, you've fallen into the trap, as so many people do, of clicking on "Mark as answered".

That's supposed to mean that your query has been answered to your satisfaction, and adds a green tick which is supposed to let helpers know that no more help is required.

However, many people think, wrongly, that they should click on it when they have answered a question by one of the helpers.

It's a bad feature of GR, which we have been complaining about for years, to no avail.

Once done, it can't be reversed.

To let people know you still want help, you can edit the title of your thread, to add "Not answered" or similar message.

I very very specifically said to Christine by PM that she NOT mark anything in the thread as answered, and explained why.


I guess that interesting as the situation is to many of us, and much as we would like to try to help if we had the information that might assist us, Christine isn't really wanting much help.

*I am really needing the help, I am sorry if I did something wrong....
I am a pensioner with not much skills on computer, only basic stuff
I have edited my original post.....
The Rupert Lyle that was in St Pancras workhouse could be the one, but still canot find a birth

so Christine is there any chance you will just give us the information that you have?

I will copy the questions again here.



You have Rupert's 1919 marriage certificate.

What does it say on it??????

How old was he?
What was his occupation?
What was his address?
What was his father's name?
Who were the witnesses?

Hi Christine- not sure if Joonie's seen the change in your original post so I'm just adding it for other people to see:

Rupert Lyle born in 1861, who married a Maud Hancock born in 1894, in the year 1919 in Lambeth London

on his marriage certificate it states

Occupation: Insurance Clerk

Resided at 220 Battersea Bridge Road, Battersea, London.

Father was Rupert William Lyle, deceased, of Independent means

Christine, can you tell us the names of any witnesses? Sometimes witnesses were family or friends that can help trace the correct person.

Christine -
have you checked out the death record suggested twice now, posted by AustinQ on page 2, and by Pam on page 1?

I'll post it again here for ease of reference:

Death
Name: Rupert Lyle
Birth Date: abt 1860
Date of Registration: Dec 1938
Age at Death: 78
Registration district: Pancras
Inferred County: London
Volume: 1b Page: 112


This will be the Rupert who was in the workhouse, so if you think he might be the right one, then it seems worth your while buying a copy of the certificate to see what details are on it.

As has already been said - we can't find any trace of his birth as Rupert Lyle.
So either he was born with a different name, and changed it, or had it changed for him in childhood, or he was born in some country which doesn't allow us to search its records online.

I can't see any sign of his stated father Rupert William anywhere, either.

Evening All,

Just to confirm that the Rupert Lyle born 1867, the Army chap who joined 1891 aged 24 in Warrington, and married Edith Maud Hitchcock, they are one and the same person except that when he married in 1896, he was 35 years old!
A Colour Sergeant, address The Camp
Father is listed as Archibald **** Lyle, clerk in Holy Orders, I can't read the middle name but have saved the image from Seax

Edith is aged 21, address South Street, father John Hitchcock, Occupation Cooper

So he's the same age according to this Marriage as Christine's chap is!

Kind regards
Amanda

thanks Austin, no, I don't tend to check OPs for changes that aren't mentioned in the thread :-)

if I'm reading it right, we still don't know how old 'our' Rupert stated he was when he married in 1919 ... a rather crucial bit of info !!

... Amanda how do we know how old Christine's chap is? ... oh the OP says:
"Rupert Lyle born in 1861"

... Christine is that info taken from the age on the marriage certificate?

Christine please tell us what age the 1919 marriage certificate says / how you know he was born in 1861!

Rupert was very much older than Maud when they had their sons.. On the marriage certificate date of marriage 12th Sept. 1919, Rupert 58 yrs Maud 25 yrs he was an insurance clerk both lived at the Hancock family home 220 Battersea Bridge Road Battersea London. fathers: Rupert William deceased of independent means, Thomas James Hancock Tailor Crown manufacturer retired

Something must of happened to Rupert, if it is him who died in 1938 in the work house St Pancras/ Highgate Hospital. For some reason ending up in the workhouse after having a good job as an insurance clerk. Maud married William Charlton I think while she was still married to Rupert. 1929. Cant find any proof they ever divorced, she put herself down as a widow.

There is a Rupert who was in South Africa and a constable in the SA police force, they are not related to us as I have enquired with the family.

so ........... he was 58 when he married in 1919 .... finally we know!!

married 12 Sep 1919 - if born in 1860, he had not yet had his 59th birthday in 1919.

which matches with a DOB of 1860 as for the death in 4th quarter 1938 at age 78 - which would be after his 78th birthday in late 1938, if born in 1860

died Dec quarter 1938 aged 78, so his birth date would be in 1860 between 12 Sep and the end of Dec, if age at marriage and death were reported accurately.


When the Rupert who married Hitchcock enrolled in the military on 23 Nov 1891 he gave his age as 24 years and 'no months' ... it is very likely that if he faked his age, he did not fake his birthday (my grandfather did just that when he enrolled in the military while underage: made himself two years older, but the same number of months)

... so we might imagine his birthday was between approximately 23 Oct and 23 Nov, which would mean a birth registered in the 4th quarter of 1860 (if born in England/Wales)


The father named on the 1919 marriage certificate looks made-up to me -- same name as the groom and occupation 'independent means' (my gr-grfather, who was by then successful in business, said when he remarried that his long-deceased father was a 'gentleman', although he was in fact a gardener / ag lab) ... and there is no trace of the father Rupert William Lyle anywhere either.


If our Rupert was 58 when he married in 1919, he is not the Rupert who married Hitchcock -- IF the info for that Rupert was true in the military records (i.e. that he was born about 1867 in Somerset, there being no such birth of course)

>> BUT Amanda posted info from the 1896 marriage certificate showing that the Rupert who married Hitchcock was in fact *35 in 1896*, which contradicts all other info about him, but perfectly matches our Rupert's age of 58 when he married in 1919 (in the 2nd quarter 1896, he had not yet had his 36th birthday which was later that year).

That Rupert had son Archibald Cecil (14/10/99) which fits with his reported father on the 1896 marriage certificate, Archibald Lyle, clergy. Possibly Scotland??

That Rupert's sister Louisa (Lyle?) de Capona in California does not seem to have existed anywhere ever (e.g. no marriage, residence, death, children in the US, from searches at familysearch.org).



so that is just to sum up what we don't know ... :-)



So it is still possible, I would say probable, that his name when he married in both 1896 and 1919 was completely fake, whether by choice or by having been born with another surname but grown up using a stepfather's surname ... except we can find no trace of such a person.


Rupert continues to be a complete mystery, and I'm not thinking of anything to help identify him at the moment, but that doesn't mean you should give up!

Rupert's son had sons. Would they be interested in DNA testing? It is possible, even though not very probable, that a match might turn up that would give a clue to Rupert's paternal line.

That 1890 Outgoing South Africa also has Charles Lyle aged 16. Port Natal

(looking round on google, might be connected to Sugar, as in Tate & Lyle, and if it was Robert, not Rupert)

Creation of Tate & Lyle in 1921
In 1918, Ernest Tate, the son of Henry Tate’s oldest son William, approached second-generation brothers Charles and Robert Lyle

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Tate__Lyle_PLC.aspx

http://tinyurl.com/jo3qo9a

(Leonard Lyle, Charles Lyle)

Chris :)

(not intending to confuse, just looking!)

My Rupert Lyle born in 1860, was NOT the South African one, as we have been in contact with the South African ones family........

I will have to save some money and get the certificate of marriage to Maud Hancock in 1919....

not possible to get the two sons DNA they are both deceased

my husbands father was the Charles Lyle, born in 1923
given to Barnardo's changed name to Geoffrey Battrick

his brother Rupert born in 1919....I am in contact with his daughter Janice Lyle

that is who has her fathers marriage certificate

Christine you said in your previous post

'Rupert was very much older than Maud when they had their sons.. On the marriage certificate date of marriage 12th Sept. 1919, Rupert 58 yrs Maud 25 yrs he was an insurance clerk both lived at the Hancock family home 220 Battersea Bridge Road Battersea London. fathers: Rupert William deceased of independent means, Thomas James Hancock Tailor Crown manufacturer retired'

but now you say you will have to gt the certificate of marriage to Maud Hancock in 1919 ... you don't need it because you have all the information on it from the person who has it.

also Amanda posted the info above from the 1896 marriage to Hitchcock.

Did you follow the calculations I did for how the two Ruperts, married 1896 and 1919, match up?

The two sons G and R born 1940s-50s are both deceased? ah I see, one died in infancy and the other 10 years ago, sorry.

But the recently deceased son has sons ... ? The testing works for anyone in the son of a son of a son etc. line. DNA testing is more expensive than a birth certificate :-) but if you were lucky like me, it could provide clues to the mystery of Rupert's identity.

frankly ... I would wonder whether Rupert was not your Charles's father at all ...

the enormous age difference between Rupert and Maud, the matter of weeks between the marriage and the birth making it obvious the marriage was a necessity ... they would suggest possibly not a love match.

Maud may well have had the child in 1923 with a different father, especially given that the child was then placed in care.

Was the son Rupert 1919 reared by his mother? with his father Rupert Sr?

sorry I got confused, the two sons of Rupert 1919 I was talking about are Janice's brothers, one of them has sons

obviously your husband who is Rupert's grandson, son of his son Charles, could also do DNA testing

if both Janice's nephew and your husband did a test - even the very least expensive one - it would show whether they are both descended from Rupert who married 1919, or not.

That is, it would show whether Rupert 1919 and Charles 1923 had the same father.

If it turned out that Rupert 1919 and Charles 1923 did not have the same father - that is, that Rupert was not the father of Charles 1923 - there might be little point in tracing Rupert and his ancestry, other than because he was once married to Charles's mother.

Charles born in 1923, was the son of Rupert, and Maude
Rupert born in 1919, was also the son of Rupert and Maude
this is on birth certificates, as I have stated before

Rupert born in 1919 was given to his Aunt Jesse (his mothers sister)
to raise, while she re married a Carlton

on the marriage certificate it states that he was 58 years old and Maud was 25 years old....This is definite,

We know what you stated before Christine.

Maybe you just don't know 'how things work'.

A birth certificate is absolutely not proof of paternity, for various reasons.

When a married woman registered the birth of her child, she was *required* to name her husband as the father. This is called the 'presumption of legitimacy' and is to protect the child and woman against allegations of her adultery, back before there were DNA tests.

If the husband was not the actual father, the woman was allowed to name the real father in addition to her husband, if the real father was present at the registration and consented. In that case, the child was registered in both surnames.

The fact that the mother's husband was named as father on a child's birth certificate in no way means that he was the real father. How could it? No DNA testing was or is done when a birth was registered, and the mother was not even required to swear that her husband was the father. In fact, she was legally prevented from saying otherwise unless the real father volunteered his identity.

So you actually don't know who Charles was the son of. You know that Maude's husband was named on the birth certificate. Unless some info becomes available that the couple was actually living together, or not, at the time he was conceived, we don't know anything about the circumstances of his birth.

Refusing to consider various possibilities to explain situations in a family tree can sometimes be a barrier to finding answers ...



for info

these are the electoral roll entries for Rupert Lyle

Rupert Lyle 1918 Camden St Pancras
Rupert Lyle 1936 Camden St Pancras
Rupert Lyle 1937 Camden St Pancras
Rupert Lyle 1938 Camden St Pancras

in the last three entries, he resided at Rowton House

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Rowton/
http://www.workhouses.org.uk/RowtonCamden/

It was perhaps not an actual 'workhouse' and more of low-rent single men's lodgings.

There seem to be no entries during his marriage to / cohabitation with Maude.

Maud appears with William Carlton starting in 1933 in Brixton and Kennington.


Oh ho. Rupert Lyle, mistranscribed at Ancestry as Rupert Lyu, appears on the ER in 1919 ... living in Rowton House.

In fact, now that I check, that was where he was living in 1918. I still don't see entries for him between 1919 and 1936. I looked at the entries for Rowton House in Camden for 1923, for instance, and he is not there.

No wait ... it's hard to do this, because so many things get mistranscribed at Ancestry from the ERs ... but here we are:

Rubert Lyle 1923 Camden St Pancras Rowton Hoi
Rubert Lyle 1925 Camden St Pancras Rowton House
... checked the 1924 image and he is not there that year.

and more (the images do say Rubert in all cases)

Rubert Lyle 1927 Camden St Pancras
Ruberti Lyle 1928 Camden St Pancras
Rubert Lyle 1930 Camden St Pancras

AND here he is in 1911

Name: Robert Lyle
Age in 1911: 43
Estimated birth year: abt 1868
Relation to Head: Resident
Birth Place: Weymouth, Dorset, England
(there was no remotely similar birth in Dorset)
Civil Parish: St Pancras
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street address:
Rowton House, Lodging House For Men, 1 To 25 (Odd) Kings Cross Road, London W C
Marital Status: Single
Occupation: ENVELOPE ADDRESSOR
Registration district: St Pancras

That is clearly the same person as the Rupert/Rubert listed on the electoral roll in Rowton House, Camden, 1918-1938, who then died there.

NB: before 1918, the residents of Rowton House did not appear on the electoral roll because they did not meet the property requirements, which were removed in 1918. But the 1911 census shows him at that address.


The 1919 electoral roll listing could date from before his marriage. But in any event, he was clearly living in Rowton House in the year when he married.

And he was consistently recorded there throughout the period of the supposed marriage to Maud, with some years missing where he can't be located on the ER.

IF that is the correct Rupert Lyle, i.e. the one who married Maud Hancock.

It seems highly unlikely that an insurance agent was living in the workhouse ... even in the higher-class part of that particular workhouse. Unless that was his former occupation ...

Given what a perfect match this workhouse Rupert Lyle seems to be for the one who married Maud Hancock ... by the arithmetical calculations of the ages at various times that I did earlier ... there is just something tremendously fishy about the whole thing, to my mind.


Another case in which the 1921 census will be eagerly awaited, I think.

In the 1939 register household with Maud and William Carlton, there is a person whose record is closed, i.e. who was born after 1916 and whose death was not recorded by 1991.

Do you know who that was?

There is no record of the birth of a Carlton child with mother Hancock.

And since William was born in 1871 and married Maud in 1929, it would not seem likely that he had a child born after 1916 in his first marriage, if he was previously married (he would have been 45 in 1916), who was still living with him in 1939.

1911 census shows William Carlton, 40, born Louth, Ireland, single and living with sister in Wandsworth.


edit - sorry - it looks like the person in question in the 1939 register was actually in a separate household, a young adult living alone I guess. So ignore that!

William and Maud had no children, it seems.


for info: I looked in the 1939 register for Archibald Lyle born 14 Oct 1999 (son of Rupert Lyle and Edith Hitchcock, born in Ireland).

I found an Archibald Cowe with that birthdate, but on checking, he was born and married in Scotland.

there is also no death in England/Wales to match Archibald Lyle