A little help required please.

[Richard]

I have a Margaret Stamper Clemetson born 15 Nov 1815 in London City.

On the 1841 census she is at South Conduit Street Bethnal Green with parents.

She is on the 1871 census at 7 Havelock Place, Bethnal Green unmarried with her mother, and I have a death ref for her for 1884 in Bethnal Green Sep 1884 CLEMETSON Margaret S 68 Bethnal Green 1c.

However I'm having real trouble finding her on the other censi 1851,61, 81

..can anyone help?

Thanks

[Little Nell]

Can't see her in 1841 with info you provided.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

She's here Nell.

HO107; Piece 691; Book: 9; Civil Parish: Bethnal Green; County: Middlesex; Enumeration District: 17; Folio: 12; Page: 16; Line: 24

I only found it be looking for her mother, Hannah!

I've seen Hannah and William in 1871 and Marg isn't with them then.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Oops, that was 1861 (parents). I've now seen them on all the censues and Marg isn't at home at all.

[Richard]

Hi yes the parents are all nicely accounted for, just strange Margaret is missing from so many census. I can't find a marriage which would explain it, so can't figure out what could be going on..it's strange.

[Little Nell]

She's probably working somewhere and mistranscribed.

[Northern Light]

Sorry but I cant find her, maybe shes using another christian name..

[Richard]

I suppose I could order the death cert and see the address on there, but she's not actually a direct ancestor, rather my 4xg grans sister. She (4xg gran) had died at 7 Havelock Place Boxing Day 1865, this was the case I posted here about a couple of months back, where the mother was alleged to have been complicit in her death from starvation, though still not sure what the real truth of that situation was. I imagine this is why Margaret then reappears in 1871 as the mother would have then been alone and need looking after, she eventually died 1877. It's wierd though Margaret dissapears from the census so long before this, and does again after..I wonder if she was abroad?..though since she died in Bethnal Green I guess not.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Maybe she lived with a man and used his name, but went "home" to look after mum (he might have died or that separated) who put her "real" name and marital status on that census. Then there's only the 1881 census that she's missing from, which isn't so out of the ordinary (or maybe she used her assumed name on that too?)

Maybe my imagination is running away with me! lol

[Christine in Herts]

I had a look in 1861, but none of my usual tricks would bring her to light.

Christine

[Richard]

I suppose that's possible Merry, though strange because I'd think if she was consistent on using another surname on these censi, I'd expect her death to also be registed in the name. Wouldn't it have been dreadfully frowned upon too..living in sin at the height of Victorian Values? Unusual at least...intriguing, if of course that is what has happened, another rather more unpleasant scenario has also occured to me, which could also explain it, but I'm for the time being hoping I'm letting my imagination run away.

[Christine in Herts]

I suppose that's possible Merry, though strange because I'd think if she was consistent on using another surname on these censi, I'd expect her death to also be registed in the name. Wouldn't it have been dreadfully frowned upon too..living in sin at the height of Victorian Values? Unusual at least...intriguing, if of course that is what has happened, another rather more unpleasant scenario has also occured to me, which could also explain it, but I'm for the time being hoping I'm letting my imagination run away.

You haven't been reading enough threads, Richard!

The Victorians seem to have been do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do types! Certainly there seem to have been plenty that got around the need for an Act of Parliament for a divorce by simply ignoring a previous marriage.

In my own tree I have ancestors who weren't married but seem to have been treated as such. They couldn't marry (at the time) because the husband had been married to my ancestor's elder sister, who'd died.

Christine

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I was surprised to see that the residents of Havelock Place, Bethnal Green hadn't changed much between 1871 and 1881, except for number 7, of course! lol

Maybe you should get the death cert to either put us out of our misery, or give another lead?!! :D

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Whoever registered her death knew she had a middle name, which I find quite interesting as she was single and of mature years.

[keb]

Hi Richard -- I just noted a couple of curiosities that you probably know of, but thought I'd mention them.

William Clemetson and Hannah Clark's marriage:

19 AUG 1815 Saint Peter Cornhill, London, London, England
Batch M001561

These are the children of William Clemetson and Hannah in the IGI batch C001532. Is Julia your ancestor?

1. MARGARET STAMPER CLEMETSON - born 15 NOV 1815
Gender: Female Christening: 21 MAR 1816 St Thomas Apostle, London, London, England
2. WILLIAM CLEMENTSON - born 16 SEP 1813
Gender: Male Christening: 21 MAR 1816 St Thomas Apostle, London, London, England
3. JULIA SARAH CLEMETSON - no birth date given
Gender: Female Christening: 20 JUL 1817 St Thomas Apostle, London, London, England

Were William and possibly Margaret not William Sr.'s children? Or not Hannah's? Do you know the significance of the Stamper in her name?

Or vice versa. In 1841, William Sr. and Margaret are shown as not born in county, while Hannah is born in county.

Julia "Clementson" married George Bellenger in Q1 1838; they're the others in the household. Julia also shows as not born in county in 1841, while her husband and son, both George, are born in county. I have no idea: is London not in the same county as Bethnal Green? Hannah shows as born in London in 1851. In 1851, William Sr. is shown as born in Cumberland, and George Jr. in London.


Anyhow, no help from this quarter I'm afraid. I'm with Merry Monty on the unmarried, cohabiting, using partner's surname theory as the best one.

Her birth date is consistent, 1816. And her birth place in 1871 is London City. And I can't pick out a Margaret in the other censuses who matches well consistently!

[Richard]

I think they bought Havelock Place new, it was built in the 'nice' area of Bethnal Green at that time, on the tip of Victoria Park, so was 'posh' by local standards. The reason I think they bought from new, or rented maybe, is there was an army officer Havelock, who put down the Indian Mutiny at that time around 1858 if I remember right, and the street doesn't appear on maps before then. It is actually my family there on 1861, 4x g gran Julia Bellenger, (nee Clemetson) and her children, her parents who owned the house were away on holiday in Ramsgate at time of the census. Margaret of course isn't with them in Ramsgate or back home at Haverlock place.....

I do think the cert may help, as you say whoever reported must have known her middle name. I just get this horrible feeling she's not appearing on the census because she's in some sort of local instituion under her initials....I hope I'm wrong though.

[Richard]

Hi Keb, Margaret must have been William Seniors, as he was the son of a Wilfred Clemetson of Whitehaven and Margaret Stamper, so she was named after paternal grandmother.

Julia is my 4xgreat grandmother, and she was born in Bow Lane Cheapside, London city. William was trading there as a Tea broker from at least 1811, so I imagine thats where Margaret and the son were also born. I think the son was baptised twice quite simply because he was born out of wedlock..though could be wrong.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

If she was in a local institution under her initials, then she should still be on the census!

But I can't see anyone to fit.........(though mistranscriptions of initials must be even more likely than with names)

[Joan of Archives]

I wonder........1851 , I am reading Margaret Cemetson's age as 35, not 55 as it's been transcribed. A possible ?

HO107; Piece: 1539; Folio: 469; Page: 23; GSU roll: 174769.

[Richard]

hmmm, thanks for looking Merry, not checked yet. Well hopefully that theories wrong then, I certainly was hoping it would be.