Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Well I am stunned...

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

  • Well I am stunned...

    I have had a bit of a week this week I won't go into other stuff just yet but this is one of the happenings.

    I have spent the best part of 3 months searching for my grandfather, grandmother and her second son on the 1911 census. I tried everything absolutely everything I could. I found her first son aged 3 living with her parents in Bethnal Green and her remaining siblings quite easily.

    I found everybody I could ever wish to find on the 1911 census but those three were elusive. I came to the conclusion that it was probably badly mistranscribed or a damaged page.

    I found someone I thought could be my grandfather but he was in prison...

    So in desperation I sent for my mother's oldest sister's birth certificate - she was born in Nov 1911 I thought perhaps the address on it may give me a clue. I didn't need the cert really I knew all her information I always had done except for exactly where she was born address wise.

    It arrived this morning, I immediately searched for that address and there they are under the name WHITE everything else is spot on. I started to save the image and thought hellfire thats a really bad transcription but no...

    ... I opened it up and my grandmother had clearly written White has her surname! Its her writing I recognise it I have seen her handwriting many times and have stuff with it on still.

    Just her and her son living in one room. So I think that must be him in Pentonville prison.

    So she clearly broke the law herself too she has even signed it White.

  • #2
    Maybe she was just living under an assumed name to disassociate herself from her OH, because he was in prison? I don't think you can say she was breaking the law if that was the reason she was using a different surname.

    Do you know if they got back together later?

    Comment


    • #3
      I thought that if you knowingly filled in a census with wrong information you were breaking the law. Although I know it happened a lot.

      Yes thats probably why she did it.

      I was just surprised that she had, because I grew up with her and she seemed not to be that bothered about what people thought. In fact if anything she like to shock at times maybe she felt differently then in 1911 society wasn't so forgiving then.

      Oh yes they got back together and had another 10 children including my mother! they were together until he died although he died relatively young 52 in 1940.

      I'm not bothered about the prison bit nothing about him would surprise me.


      Edit to say: I'm assuming its him in pentonville prison.
      Last edited by Guest; 06-03-09, 11:41.

      Comment


      • #4
        Using a different name is not and never has been breaking the law.

        You can call yourself absolutely anything you want to. You can wake up and decide to be Mrs Bloggs today and Mrs Smith tomorrow. The only time it is illegal is if you are pretending to be someobody else for gain or for malicious purposes.

        Legally, a person's name is what they are known as - and if she was known as Mrs White (for reasons of her own) then that is what her name was on the day she filled in the census form.

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post

          You can call yourself absolutely anything you want to.

          OC

          :D Just look at some of the names on here !
          ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            Might be worth checking the Old Bailey site, which now goes up to 1913. If he was tried there, you should find the details.

            Old Bailey Online - The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913 - Central Criminal Court

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
              Using a different name is not and never has been breaking the law.

              You can call yourself absolutely anything you want to. You can wake up and decide to be Mrs Bloggs today and Mrs Smith tomorrow. The only time it is illegal is if you are pretending to be someobody else for gain or for malicious purposes.

              Legally, a person's name is what they are known as - and if she was known as Mrs White (for reasons of her own) then that is what her name was on the day she filled in the census form.

              OC
              Yes I know all that but to fill in a census return knowingly putting a name that you weren't 'generally known under' is slightly different. A name you have never used before and as far as I know never used again escept on that form. Eveything else at that time is in her real name.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mary from Italy View Post
                Might be worth checking the Old Bailey site, which now goes up to 1913. If he was tried there, you should find the details.

                Old Bailey Online - The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913 - Central Criminal Court
                I will, I expect it was for something stupid though but you never know I might be surprised again.

                I know he was arrested many times for being drunk and disorderly and being a bookies runner or whatever you call a man standing on a street corner taking bets and giving odds.

                I think he decked a few men in his time too. Like I say nothing would surprise me about him. I'll probably find out a lot more when his army service records arrive.

                He had a very full and varied life its probably the reason he dropped dead at 52! ;)

                Comment


                • #9
                  By the way when I searched I didn't fill in Last Name just first name with a wildcard approximate birth date 1888 +-3years and the residential address.

                  I thought it always required a Last Name I did it by mistake actually I pressed search before I should.

                  I was going to try different combinations but didn't have to because of the first search accepting no Last Name.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Maggie

                    But you don't know that White WASN'T the name she was known as, by the neighbours, in 1911!

                    You were supposed to tell the truth on a census return, but no one ever checked because the purpose of the census was for statistics, not working out who was who.

                    It would be very satisfying to know WHY she was calling herself White, of course!

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by maggie_4_7 View Post
                      By the way when I searched I didn't fill in Last Name just first name with a wildcard approximate birth date 1888 +-3years and the residential address.

                      I thought it always required a Last Name I did it by mistake actually I pressed search before I should.
                      No, they amended it recently so you can search with either first name only or last name only.
                      Last edited by Mary from Italy; 06-03-09, 12:14.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                        Maggie

                        But you don't know that White WASN'T the name she was known as, by the neighbours, in 1911!

                        You were supposed to tell the truth on a census return, but no one ever checked because the purpose of the census was for statistics, not working out who was who.

                        It would be very satisfying to know WHY she was calling herself White, of course!

                        OC
                        I expect that was the reason she would have hated to be associated with him, she wasn't happy to be assoicated with him most of the time actually although she did stay with him.

                        He was a bit of a rogue. Her own mother refused to talk to him never did even when she was living in the same house. My mother said her maternal grandmother Worley called him uncouth and the only way she described or acknowledged him ever was 'that uncouth man'.

                        :D
                        Last edited by Guest; 06-03-09, 12:34.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Have you checked he's not somewhere else calling himself "White"?



                          Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

                          Comment


                          • #14


                            No I will do though - I don't hold out much hope to be honest

                            I'll let you know if I find him...

                            Who knows he could be calling himself anything.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                              Maggie

                              But you don't know that White WASN'T the name she was known as, by the neighbours, in 1911!

                              You were supposed to tell the truth on a census return, but no one ever checked because the purpose of the census was for statistics, not working out who was who.

                              It would be very satisfying to know WHY she was calling herself White, of course!

                              OC

                              What I don't get is this though. She either moved there after he was in Prison otherwise they would know who she was anyway she wouldn't have had any reason to change it and if she did move there after they wouldn't know him anyway if he was already in Prison so no reason to change it! I don't know if you can understand what I am getting at.

                              I know it doesn't matter but I think there may be another reason.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Redacted

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  If it is him it could be anything. Like I said before nothing surprise me anymore about him. Although having said that if it is him he was out by December 1912 because the next daughter was born October 1913 and she was definitely his.

                                  As for newspapers I have no idea how to find any court reports or any reports for that time.

                                  Whatever it was I expect it was either local Crown Court or Magistrates Court I don't know the difference and I don't know if Magistrates can sentence people or just fine people.

                                  Edit to say: I'm being really thick here, daughter born 11 Nov 1911 census 1911 april! Daughter born October 1913

                                  There's not much of a time frame there at all so if it is him he went in after March but before the census returns 1911 and out by December 1912 - 18 months by the look of it. so I expect it wasn't for murder anyway although I didn't think it would be. He was just a nuisance to socierty and everyone around him I think.
                                  Last edited by Guest; 06-03-09, 15:37.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Nowadays magistrates can sentence but I think the limit on it is a max of 6 months. In the past they could probably bang you up for longer!

                                    Can you put up his real name or PM it if you prefer, then maybe we can find him on The Times Digital Archive or similar?

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I don't think it'll be there and I don't have access anyway.

                                      But his name is John (Jack) Kendall born 1888, Bethnal Green.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        as an aside... my OH's 2x gt grandfather is in the Knutsford house of correction on the 1851 census. I found a newspaper article saying that someone of his name had been arrested in central Manchester for being drunk & disorderly & assaulting a police officer. He was fined 40shillings (£2); it also said he would serve 2 months in prison if he couldn't pay the fine. This was 15 March. The name isn't that rare so its possible it was someone else of course, but what a turn up for this to hit the census! Its things like this, that make these real people not just names.
                                        Vicky

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X