Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1861 census. Can anyone find this child?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1861 census. Can anyone find this child?

    Birth reg:
    Thomas Leigh Hare
    1859
    Q2
    Kensington
    Volume 1a
    Page 31

    He had a sister, Mary L Hare who would have been born about 1853, somewhere in London, but I'm not sure exactly where. Both children lived to adulthood.

    I don't know who their mother was (this is what I am trying to find out)

    Their father was Sir Thomas Hare b abt 1807 at Stow Bardolph in Norfolk.

    The above two children seem to have been of Thomas Hare's first marriage. When he died in 1880 there was an obit in The Times, but his first wife and children don't get a mention, though these children were mentioned in Thomas' will. He married for a second time in 1864 and had further sons.

  • #2
    Who did he marry the first time round Merry? The mother may have gone back to her maiden name and the children registered under that?

    Oops - ignore the idiot. I have just realised that you don't know !!
    Chrissie passed away in January 2020.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think I'd found him in 1861 Tom. I'll have a look at that in a sec.

      There is something very odd happening. The first son from the SECOND marriage inherited the baronetcy (sp?) ......but Thomas Leigh Hare (the real eldest?) was called "Sir" too. I must look for his obit. :(

      Going to look at the 1861 you found.........

      Comment


      • #4
        Merry

        It might help to remember that although the baronetcy was inherited, you do not inherit it automatically - you have to claim it.

        Maybe the eldest son was "persuaded" to forfeir his claim?

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chrissie Smiff View Post
          Who did he marry the first time round Merry? The mother may have gone back to her maiden name and the children registered under that?

          Oops - ignore the idiot. I have just realised that you don't know !!
          lol!! Exactly!

          Tom...that is 100% him in 1861 (addy is one of his houses).

          So, I wonder who he had these two children with?? Mystery.

          If your wondering why I'm doing this, you can blame Vivienne!!!

          She did a Somerset lookup and found a bap for my gg-grandfather and localed a brother for him. The brother was butler to Sir T Hale in 1841 and 1851 and so I started wandering around his family too!! lolol Now I have found this mystery!! Why does it always happen to me??!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
            Merry

            It might help to remember that although the baronetcy was inherited, you do not inherit it automatically - you have to claim it.

            Maybe the eldest son was "persuaded" to forfeir his claim?

            OC
            Ah, I didn't know that.

            Odd that dad said he was single in 1861 which was only a couple of years after his first son ws born.

            I'm smelling large rats here!! lol

            Comment


            • #7
              In later years both half-brothers call themselves "Sir" and "Bart" (not Simpson!) in The Times.

              The younger one is on all the online sites as being the inheritor of the baronetcy....Hmmm....

              Comment


              • #8
                There are a couple of references to Thomas Hare b abt 1807 at Stow Bardolph in Norfolk on Ancestry World Trees - married to Angelina Grace Vaughan born c 1820 Norfolk.

                Just realised this is probably the second wife!
                Elaine







                Comment


                • #9
                  Merry

                  This sounds very similar to my Harry and Bessie scenario, the Mad Magician.

                  If you remember (how could you forget!) they were the illegitimate children of my Lord Lieutenant and his mistress - both were married to someone else at the time.

                  They subsequently married each other but the children were never publically acknowledged as THEIR children, not even in his Will. And not on the census either - they appear with their mother as "visitors".

                  It was only the fact that he left both of them a huge wodge of money (and no one else got anything) that made me suspicious and the truth was revealed.

                  Which doesn't help you find yours...but they will be hiding somewhere either under a different name, or with the relationship disguised.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jiust seen Elaine's post...NOT the Vaughans!!! My lot were Vaughans!!!

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elaine ..Spain View Post
                      There are a couple of references to Thomas Hare b abt 1807 at Stow Bardolph in Norfolk on Ancestry World Trees - married to Angelina Grace Vaughan born c 1820 Norfolk.

                      Just realised this is probably the second wife!
                      Yes, that's the second wife (or the only wife, if he didn't bother with marrying the mother of the other child/children)

                      My rellie probably died before all this potential scandal. Or maybe discovering his boss was a philanderer was the death of him?!!

                      OC - I have tried to forget, but it's impossible!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Elaine ..Spain View Post
                        Angelina Grace Vaughan
                        OC, she probably is one of yours. I've seen her name quoted as above, but also as Angelina Grace Vaughan Norman. On the census she is Grace Vaughan one one and Grace Norman on another and when she married Thomas Hale she said she was Angelina Norman!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Those Vaughans! Top drawer stock, going back to the year dot.

                          Philanderers and liars, the lot of them, including the women.

                          I'm interested now...

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I can't find her in 1851 and 1861 and I know I did yesterday, as her parents had a differentsurname to her, so I assumed the head was a stepfather, but now I'm wondering.

                            (I wasn't looking for THIS wife until now! pmsl!)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Merry, your Sir Thomas wasn't a barrister, was he?

                              Beverley



                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Hm, only family I can find which has a Thomas AND a Mary of the right ages is the Davies family in Wales - Thomas is described as "wife's cousin", born London.

                                Not the right one I don't think.

                                OC

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Wife 2 (Angelina/Grace) has accepted Mary L Hale, aged 18, into her home in 1871. Thomas Leigh Hale aged 11 is away at school.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    *repeats patiently* Was Sir Thomas a barrister?

                                    Beverley



                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Merry

                                      Thomas would have been 21 in 1871, or am I up the wrong tree?

                                      I did find a Thomas LEIGH in 1861 at Hendon Grammar School.

                                      OC

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Macbev View Post
                                        *repeats patiently* Was Sir Thomas a barrister?

                                        Sorry Bev. I would have to check. Someone in the family was called to the bar.....probably never practiced.....I've forgotten which man it was now!!


                                        OC Quote:

                                        Thomas would have been 21 in 1871, or am I up the wrong tree?

                                        Erm....no - he was born in 1859!!

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X