Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 20:56 |
Yeah, the two theories are actually mutually exclusive:
1. He was born to an unmarried woman named Anderson, possibly of Prittlewell
2. He was born to an unmarried woman not named Anderson, could have been anywhere, and later took the surname of his father who was Anderson
If it weren't for that 1881 hawker Charles Anderson, I'd plump for the first theory.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 20:59 |
if he were born to an unmarried Anderson woman wouldn't he have the last name Anderson? In which case there should be a birth record for him, unless he has changed his first name to Charles then the record would be ? Anderson I guess.
Getting slightly confused now
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:18 |
That's right -- unmarried Anderson woman = Anderson surname.
That's why I looked at those ones born in London around the right time, since the unmarried Emma Anderson from Prittlewell I was following around was working in Paddington in 1871.
If that theory were correct, he may not have known he wasn't born in Prittlewell, since that's where all the family was.
A whole lot of ifs, obviously.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:26 |
Without a birth record I can't prove or disprove who Charles Anderson Juniors father was. As we only have the 3 certificates to go on, all of which say he is Charles Anderson do I just assume that he was a ompulsive liar and accept that I am unlikely to ever know the truth?
I don't think I even found a death cert for him.
Maybe by 1911 he will use his real name/age/place of birth.
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:29 |
Just when you thought Ancestry couldn't do anything stupider ... check out this list in 1871:
Ann His Wife 40 Charles Her Child 7 Charles Their Child 12 Edmond Her Child 2 Eliza Her Child 2 Ellen Her Child 12 Ellen Their Child 9 Frederick Her Child 7 George Her Child 3 John Her Child 10 Lucy Her Child 6 Mary Her Child 2 Walter Their Child 14 William Her Child 1 William Her Child 1
It's part of a list of workhouse residents -- I was searching for Charles-s any surname born in Prittlewell 1863 +/- two years, and this one came up:
Name: Charles Her Child Age: 7 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1864 Relation: Inmate Gender: Male Where born: Thaxted Civil Parish: Great Dunmow County/Island: Essex Country: England
Not yours, no doubt, but an idea of what yer up against sometimes ... (he's the child of Louisa Bilay?).
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:31 |
I think you'll be stuck with theories. At least for now.
Do you know where they were in 1911 -- the address? Even the address from the last birth, if they might have been there?
It costs a bit, but you can get access to the 1911 census if you have an address.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:31 |
That made me laugh!
Where did you get the Louisa Bilay name from?
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 21:34 |
Maybe Louisa got together with Charles the sailor or Charles the prisoner. Stranger things have happened.
Last known address was 2 Albert Road North but I understand that a 1911 search is very expensive
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 22:16 |
Ya never know ...
Louisa's name -- looked at the image. Not very clear what it is.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/1911census/
Info about accessing the census -- it's £45.
The page isn't loading properly for me right now, but check it out.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 22:32 |
Thank you Kathryn,
You have put so much time into this and it is much appreciated, even though we have not found what i started out looking for. If you would like to have a go at any of my other unsolvable lines sometime please let me know.
Maybe I will post on this again in 2011.
Thank you again,
Jane
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 23:05 |
You're welcome!
The thing about all this is it's supposed to be finite: if someone was there in 1901, they WERE born, and they WERE there in 1871 or whenever, so we CAN find them!!!
I did it with my great-grandfather, after a lot of hard slogging -- a thousand times this, and quite a few more wild theories, before the wild theory I settled on proved to be pretty much indisputable. An audience is always welcomed! --
Ernest Monck - Australia sojourn c 1885-1895 http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=976217
JohnRogersCheshire/MaryEmmaHill 1860s-descendants http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=954394
Mid-life name changes are my specialty. ;)
|
|
WayneTracey
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 23:14 |
Jane,
I can highly recommend the 1911 census, altho the cost is £45 it arrives amazingly quickly. I ordered mine one bored Sunday night and the postie had it in his hands Tuesday morning... the only issue is it's a rigid A3 envelope... so a short trip to the central office to collect was the only issue for me!
You'll not have too long to wait they are releasing the 1911 census in 2009 (except disabilities and other minor data), and as the government are arguing as we speak looks like the 1921 will come out at the same time. They are considering reducing the waiting time to 70 years, which will keep us all busy for a long while to come!
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 23:25 |
Great news, Wayne.
You may have heard that pretty much the opposite has happened here in Canada.
On the 2006 census, there was a question: did the individual consent to personal information being released after the statutory 96 years?
Unless the individual specifically checked off the YES box (and imagine how many people with some vague distrust/dislike of gummint didn't do that), his/her census info will remain FOREVER inaccessible, and so on for every census thereafter.
I figure sometime in the next 96 years that law can be changed ...
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
12 Jan 2008 23:31 |
Hi Kathryn and Wayne,
Thanks for the info about the 1911. I think that it will really have to wait for a while. Just had xmas and 2 kids b'days coming up in the next month. Expensive time of year!
Kathryn, Have just read through your first thread. Very confusing. No wonder you have so many ideas about Charles. Just about to read your second thread to see if you got any answers.
As I said before, another couple of apparently illigitimate/non existant people in line for future threads.
Jane
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
14 Jan 2008 08:02 |
Back again,
I have been thinking about this Charles George thing and something occured to me. My family have many rumours about many people and one of them (which I had forgotten about) is that my Gt grandfather Edward George was adopted. I have proved this to be wrong, but what if the story was confused and it was his father, Charles, who was the adopted child. Would there be any records or any way to prove this may be the case?
|
|
JaneyCanuck
|
Report
|
14 Jan 2008 15:46 |
Heh, yeah ... I've never been straight on whether it was my gr-grfather or his father who was the offspring of the black sheep brother of the Viscount. ;)
There would virtually certainly have been no formal adoption, if that were the case. Adoptions were mainly informal and within family -- siblings' kids, kids' kids more often. And of course spouses' kids. Sometimes the surname was changed, sometimes not.
What you'd be looking for is a child with a surname different from the head of household's, if the surname wasn't changed --
- child's surname Anderson, head's another name - head Anderson, child's another name and child subsequently adopted Anderson name - another possibility: child with same surname as head, subsequently reverted to Anderson, the birth surname.
Got a busy couple of days ahead, but will be happy to give it a go and see what possibilities there might be, a little later!
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
14 Jan 2008 16:02 |
Thanks Kathryn, I will keep noting on here anything that I find, (or don't find) that way we won't both end up doing it.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
15 Jan 2008 09:05 |
I am back tracking for the minute and looking for the children of the elusive Charles George. I have found 8 children of his but can only find birth records for 5 of them. The missing records are Helen/Helena Anderson c1889, James c1896 and Phyllis c1897 all noted on census as being born Loughton. Maybe they made a habit of name changes.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
15 Jan 2008 09:20 |
ok, on to Charles.
Search of 1871 census for male Andersons b anywhere 1860-64 living Essex.
No Charles Andersons showing, one George William. 25 results of which 21 are "son". The other 4 are:
Alfred b 1860 Dartmouth, Devon. Inmate. Orphan Asylum for the children of deceasde British Merchant Seamen, Wanstead.
Alioton b 1861 East Indies. Pupil in Dedham.
Joseph b Whitechapel 1862. Scholar. Industrial schools, Whitechapel.
Robert b 1862 Leyton. Inmate. West Ham Union Workhouse.
|
|
JayneB
|
Report
|
15 Jan 2008 09:26 |
1871 census, male Andersons b Essex 1860-64 living anywhere gives 20 results. No Charles Anderson, 2 George Anderson.
17 showing as son. The other 3 are:
Albert b 1861 Stratford, Essex (mistranscribed as Stafford). Grandson. Living with an Anderson family in Enfield
George b 1864 Shoeburyness, Essex. Grandson. Living in Petersfield, Hampshire. Mother Louisa with family.
Robert Anderson b 1862 Leyton. Inmate at West Ham Union Workhouse
|