Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Claude henry uhthoff, 133 finborough road

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by LorraineK View Post
    Thanks Carolyn for your excellent instructions, haven't been confident enough to use that before - but do now! Priscilla presumably bought the house at auction in 1895 as you find her in the London Electoral Register at that address and is the address on her 1900 death certificate, wonder why the house was sold?

    Daughters: Ruth married in 1900 Fulham to Albert Court (as Ruby Jezard and Edward Albert Court), Alice stays in 13 Finborough Road in 1901 census living on own means, Eliza has disappeared (Eliza Priscilla Thrasher born 1868 St Giles), Louisa is a servant at Dorset Mansions in 1901, her married sister Ruby Court is living in the same apartments with her husband Edward.
    Alice Thrasher is Grace Courtenay by 1901, just as her son Horace Thrasher is Horace Courtenay by 1901 - but not by marriage.

    Albert Edward Court was Chief Of Staff at London Coliseum.
    Ruth performed at the Royal Drury Lane Theatre and then late emigrated to America leaving her husband and son behind, after meeting Edward Warren Congdon and becoming his 'wife'.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by cbcarolyn View Post
      So Claude (and the Uhthoffs) are not your family at all, just parents using the address as their abode, and it is 133 Finborough Road you are interested in?



      Me too - how do you know that they are false parents?


      They were baptised in July 1896 - but parents both have listed 133 Finborough road as their address. (I think you meant 1897 not 1907)

      Horace and Violet live at 133 Finborough Road with their grandmother Priscilla, they are baptised in 1896 at the same church as Claude.
      Horace has Alice Thrasher and Robert Thrasher (her father) as parents on birth certificate, has Louisa Thresher and Percy Thresher as parents on baptism (his aunt and husband-to-be)
      Violet has Eliza Jezard and Alfred Jezard (no such person) as parents on birth certificate, has George Jezard and May Jezard as parents on baptism (her grandmother, could be Priscilla's brother)

      Claude and his unmarried parents Enrique Uhthoff and Annie Louisa Brookes live at 133 Finborough Road, Claude is baptised in 1897 at the same church as Horace and Violet, the birth certificate and baptism say they are married.

      I wish I could find that story about the clergy and Kensington in the 1890's, taking bribes knowing the parents weren't married when the children were baptised.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
        I have to say I am struggling to understand what kind of scandal could be attached to baptism. What would be the point of any wrong doing?

        OC
        The children are baptised outside the parish of 133 Finborough Road, as we spoke to the church.

        The children could have been baptised, with the mothers' names and without the fathers' names - but they all made up stories to the church and to the authorities, who would give heavy penalties to to those giving false information on birth, marriage and death certificates - if found out!

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Jill on the A272 View Post
          The baptism register does not show Claude being baptised with anyone called Horace or Violet, he was bapt 1st Aug 1907 at St Philip, Kensington and on the same day Mary Eleanor Connett and Bertie Edmund Pullin.
          Yes that's right, the connection is 133 Finborough Road where all three live,

          Comment


          • #45
            There are no penalties - well, not earthly ones anyway - for giving false information on baptism. The church's interest is the soul of the child being baptised, not in the details of its parentage. I have several baptisms in my tree where I know the parents named are actually the grandparents. The vicar would have been well aware of this but his interest was who was the legal parent, not who was the natural parent. Church records belong to the church, not to the state.

            Hefty fines for lying deliberately to the registrar, but giving a false name is not a lie, because anyone could and still can, call themselves by any name they wish, as long as they are not impersonating someone else.

            OC

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by LorraineK View Post
              Horace and Violet live at 133 Finborough Road with their grandmother Priscilla, they are baptised in 1896 at the same church as Claude.
              Horace has Alice Thrasher and Robert Thrasher (her father) as parents on birth certificate, has Louisa Thresher and Percy Thresher as parents on baptism (his aunt and husband-to-be)
              Violet has Eliza Jezard and Alfred Jezard (no such person) as parents on birth certificate, has George Jezard and May Jezard as parents on baptism (her grandmother, could be Priscilla's brother)

              Claude and his unmarried parents Enrique Uhthoff and Annie Louisa Brookes live at 133 Finborough Road, Claude is baptised in 1897 at the same church as Horace and Violet, the birth certificate and baptism say they are married.

              I wish I could find that story about the clergy and Kensington in the 1890's, taking bribes knowing the parents weren't married when the children were baptised.
              The baptism differs to the register? but you think neither parents are right for your 2? I can see that other people have had same problem with certificates, the baptism has been known to be fake as is 'public' and the register should be right.

              You are thinking the house is the connection? would it just be because they are rented rooms, so people can come and go quite easily? The vicar would have no knowledge of the families if they were not local and just take them at face value?
              Carolyn
              Family Tree site

              Researching: Luggs, Freeman - Cornwall; Dayman, Hobbs, Heard - Devon; Wilson, Miles - Northants; Brett, Everett, Clark, Allum - Herts/Essex
              Also interested in Proctor, Woodruff

              Comment


              • #47
                Baptisms aren't necessarily public but even if they are, if you are calling yourselves Mr and Mrs Bloggs when your child is baptised, then that is perfectly acceptable and not illegal. Church records are only available "on demand" and in my limited experience, not available for idle curiosity regarding the neighbours!

                OC

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                  There are no penalties - well, not earthly ones anyway - for giving false information on baptism. The church's interest is the soul of the child being baptised, not in the details of its parentage. I have several baptisms in my tree where I know the parents named are actually the grandparents. The vicar would have been well aware of this but his interest was who was the legal parent, not who was the natural parent. Church records belong to the church, not to the state.

                  Hefty fines for lying deliberately to the registrar, but giving a false name is not a lie, because anyone could and still can, call themselves by any name they wish, as long as they are not impersonating someone else.

                  OC
                  No.40 Penalty For False Information


                  Local archves also advised about hefty fines or imprisonment for giving false information to a registrar.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                    Baptisms aren't necessarily public but even if they are, if you are calling yourselves Mr and Mrs Bloggs when your child is baptised, then that is perfectly acceptable and not illegal. Church records are only available "on demand" and in my limited experience, not available for idle curiosity regarding the neighbours!

                    OC
                    133 Finborough Road was not in the neighbourhood of St Phillip's Kensington, spoken to the vicar there, so anyone asking to see any baptisms on demand would need to know what church to visit.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by cbcarolyn View Post
                      The baptism differs to the register? but you think neither parents are right for your 2? I can see that other people have had same problem with certificates, the baptism has been known to be fake as is 'public' and the register should be right.

                      You are thinking the house is the connection? would it just be because they are rented rooms, so people can come and go quite easily? The vicar would have no knowledge of the families if they were not local and just take them at face value?

                      For the baptisms, yes, take at face value, the vicar wouldn't know the parents from Adam and Eve.

                      Birth certificate,, Horace's mother Alice Thrasher calls herself formerly Grace Courtenay, married name Grace Thrasher, father Robert Thrasher (is her father) - sorry hadn't mentioned Grace previously, Horace born at 81 Archel Road where his his grandmother Priscilla Jezard of many other names lives.

                      Birth certificate, Violet's mother is Eliza Jezard, formerly Eliza Thrasher but father Alfred Jezard doesn't exist, Violet and Alfred not in 1891 census.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                        Baptisms aren't necessarily public but even if they are, if you are calling yourselves Mr and Mrs Bloggs when your child is baptised, then that is perfectly acceptable and not illegal. Church records are only available "on demand" and in my limited experience, not available for idle curiosity regarding the neighbours!

                        OC

                        Post #8 Vicar not happy that he has been 'imposed' upon by parents saying they are married when they are not
                        Can anyone tell me please what is the difference between a "base child of" and an "illegitimate child". I have found both descriptions are used in old parish registers sometimes in the same handwriting within several entries suggesting there must be a difference between the two. Wondered if perhaps one referred to a single mother and one to an unmarried couple. Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Lorraine

                          That is one vicar having a moan about having been deceived about a marriage, which is not the same deception as the giving of false names. It doesn't amount to a scandal. It was also pre 1837, when church records were the only recordings of life events, so the truth was a bit more important for purposes of inheritance.

                          I think you are overthinking the fine details here. Your people changed their names on a whim, not to deceive as far as I can tell. They pretended to be married, as would almost any co-habiting couple in Victorian times, so I don't find anything remarkable about that.

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                            Baptisms aren't necessarily public but even if they are, if you are calling yourselves Mr and Mrs Bloggs when your child is baptised, then that is perfectly acceptable and not illegal. Church records are only available "on demand" and in my limited experience, not available for idle curiosity regarding the neighbours!

                            OC
                            what I meant is 'public' as in people can see - so want advertise it as respectable, where as register is legally binding - but no one need know.
                            Carolyn
                            Family Tree site

                            Researching: Luggs, Freeman - Cornwall; Dayman, Hobbs, Heard - Devon; Wilson, Miles - Northants; Brett, Everett, Clark, Allum - Herts/Essex
                            Also interested in Proctor, Woodruff

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by LorraineK View Post
                              For the baptisms, yes, take at face value, the vicar wouldn't know the parents from Adam and Eve.

                              Birth certificate,, Horace's mother Alice Thrasher calls herself formerly Grace Courtenay, married name Grace Thrasher, father Robert Thrasher (is her father) - sorry hadn't mentioned Grace previously, Horace born at 81 Archel Road where his his grandmother Priscilla Jezard of many other names lives.

                              Birth certificate, Violet's mother is Eliza Jezard, formerly Eliza Thrasher but father Alfred Jezard doesn't exist, Violet and Alfred not in 1891 census.
                              so what are you thinking that Grandmother Priscilla aka May and also owns Finborough road (is that the same person?) is advising people where to take illegitimate children for baptisms? So why is he living in Archel road, but put Finborough Road on baptism when wasn't even in parish?
                              Last edited by cbcarolyn; 06-06-19, 14:53.
                              Carolyn
                              Family Tree site

                              Researching: Luggs, Freeman - Cornwall; Dayman, Hobbs, Heard - Devon; Wilson, Miles - Northants; Brett, Everett, Clark, Allum - Herts/Essex
                              Also interested in Proctor, Woodruff

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X