My next query is my Great Great Grandfather, Joseph Benjamin Allbrook born in the Spitalfields area in 1820 and died in Hackney in 1907 and buried in that wonderful Abney Park Cemetery. I have managed to track him in census, certificates (he had 10 Children) throughout his life and I have a photo of him a couple of years before he died with his son (my great Grandfather) and his wife and also Edgar, my Grandfather. But in 1841 he is missing, once again I have spent hours searching without success. All I know is that his parents and siblings are around Curtain Road. So can anyone spot in the 1841 Census, Joseph Benjamin Allbrook born in the Spitalfields area in 1820. Please Michael Allbrook

Hello Nivard, Margaret and Lawrence Yes I think we are in some form of time warp. I did not receive your comments but thanks to the kindness of several listers the situation is resolved - and the I thank you all. I am working my way through a series of these "hidden" records, tonights special concerns a relative who started producing a family 12 years before she married and is missing in one census so I am trying to establish what I have missed. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington [mailto:ovington.one@gmail.com] Sent: 02 March 2015 21:59 To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] missing from the 1901 census All very strange I posted the answer 20 minutes after Michael posted the enquiry, which he does not appear to have received Then Michael acknowledges three posts I haven't seen, I assumed off list replies Then one of those posts appears *after* the acknowledgement Are we in a time warp? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Sent: Monday, 2 March 2015 4:24 a.m. > To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [MDX] missing from the 1901 census > > Can anyone tell me the details of the census entry for a couple: > Charles FRITH 1849 who > Was married to Mary Ann (nee Allbrook 1846) And lived at 26 Pownall > Road Haggerston, Shoreditch: This address is confirmed by her death > registration in 1902 and the fact they were there in > 1891 > I should add that none of the contributors to Ancestry's Public Trees > has tracked them down If you can tell me how to search for an address > in an Ancestry Census, I would be very grateful > > Michael Allbrook

All very strange I posted the answer 20 minutes after Michael posted the enquiry, which he does not appear to have received Then Michael acknowledges three posts I haven't seen, I assumed off list replies Then one of those posts appears *after* the acknowledgement Are we in a time warp? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Sent: Monday, 2 March 2015 4:24 a.m. > To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [MDX] missing from the 1901 census > > Can anyone tell me the details of the census entry for a couple: > Charles FRITH 1849 who > Was married to Mary Ann (nee Allbrook 1846) And lived at 26 Pownall Road > Haggerston, Shoreditch: This address is confirmed by her death registration > in 1902 and the fact they were there in > 1891 > I should add that none of the contributors to Ancestry's Public Trees has > tracked them down If you can tell me how to search for an address in an > Ancestry Census, I would be very grateful > > Michael Allbrook

My next query is my Great Great Grandfather, Joseph Benjamin Allbrook born in the Spitalfields area in 1820 and died in Hackney in 1907 and buried in that wonderful Abney Park Cemetery. I have managed to track him in census, certificates (he had 10 Children) throughout his life and I have a photo of him a couple of years before he died with his son (my great Grandfather) and his wife (Great Grandma) and also my Grandfather. But in 1841 he is missing, once again I have spent hours searching without success. All I know is that his parents and siblings are around Curtain Road and he was destined to be a Bank Clerk. Once again the public trees on Ancestry are lacking this detail, strange isn't it that one detail missing on one tree is missing from all the others! Please can you help? Michael Allbrook

Hi Michael, Just a thought - Joseph Benjamin ALLBROOK - b 1820 - would be 21 in the 1841 Census At that age - perhaps no longer living with parents - siblings ; Obvious _ you have probably also searched ALBROOK - and also tried the reverse of given names to Benjamin Joseph ? from experience - family research into family - finds - reverse names constant - Can't remember my history - perhaps - Military Service ? destined to be a Bank Clerk - perhaps not in the same location as his parents Where was Joseph Benjamin ALLBROOK - married ? Where did he work - Where were children born Family Search Org - online - Perhaps your Benjamin - marriage Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D45-P59>Joseph Benjamin Allbrook Event Type: Marriage Registration Quarter: Oct-Nov-Dec Registration Year: 1843 Registration District: Islington County: London Event Place: Islington, London, England Volume: 3 Page: 185 Line Number: 115 Joseph Benjamin Allbrook probably married one of the following people Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4R-XCG>Ann Dicks Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4R-X85>Elizabeth Dimmock Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4R-F5G>Ann Durbridge Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4T-T9S>Henry Pyrke Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4Y-W5J>Mary Ann Stillwell Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4Y-CWB>John Teat Name:<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/2D4Y-F8R>William Wells Cheers, Stella At 09:14 AM 02/03/2015, Michael Allbrook via wrote: >My next query is my Great Great Grandfather, Joseph Benjamin Allbrook born >in the Spitalfields area in 1820 and died in Hackney in 1907 and >buried in that wonderful Abney Park Cemetery. >I have managed to track him in census, certificates (he had 10 Children) >throughout his life and I have a photo of him a couple of years before he >died with his son (my great Grandfather) and his wife (Great Grandma) and >also my Grandfather. >But in 1841 he is missing, once again I have spent hours searching without >success. All I know is that his parents and siblings are around Curtain Road >and he was destined to be a Bank Clerk. >Once again the public trees on Ancestry are lacking this detail, strange >isn't it that one detail missing on one tree is missing from all the others! >Please can you help? > >Michael Allbrook > > > >. >************************************** >Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all >previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. > >*MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with >surnames only in CAPS. > >List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com > >The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: >http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk > >. >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sandra, Judy and Jay, Thank you so much, if only you knew how long I have spent trying to find them all Michael Allbrook -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Murphy [mailto:somers1949@orcon.net.nz] Sent: 02 March 2015 12:07 To: 'Michael Allbrook'; middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [MDX] missing from the 1901 census Hello again Michael Re: 1901 England Census I have found your people in the 1901 Census, listed as Charles Futh and corrected by a subscriber to Ancestry as Firth.....so I have added another correction to Frith. The Frith family are still living at 26 Pownall Road, Haggerston, Middlesex, England in 1901. Mary Ann nee Allbrook is still living in 1901, however, Charles Frith is listed as a Widower in the 1911 Census. Hope this helps you. Sandra Melbourne, Vic, Australia -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Allbrook via Sent: Monday, 2 March 2015 4:24 a.m. To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: [MDX] missing from the 1901 census Can anyone tell me the details of the census entry for a couple: Charles FRITH 1849 who Was married to Mary Ann (nee Allbrook 1846) And lived at 26 Pownall Road Haggerston, Shoreditch: This address is confirmed by her death registration in 1902 and the fact they were there in 1891 I should add that none of the contributors to Ancestry's Public Trees has tracked them down If you can tell me how to search for an address in an Ancestry Census, I would be very grateful Michael Allbrook . ************************************** Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Michael Try a search for a Charles FUTH aged 52 wife Mary RG13 279 85 15 Someone has already entered a correction to FIRTH in April 2011 user murray232 Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 01/03/2015 17:24, Michael Allbrook via wrote: > Can anyone tell me the details of the census entry for a couple: > Charles FRITH 1849 who > Was married to Mary Ann (nee Allbrook 1846) > And lived at 26 Pownall Road Haggerston, Shoreditch: This address is > confirmed by her death registration in 1902 and the fact they were there in > 1891 > I should add that none of the contributors to Ancestry's Public Trees has > tracked them down > If you can tell me how to search for an address in an Ancestry Census, I > would be very grateful > > Michael Allbrook

Can anyone tell me the details of the census entry for a couple: Charles FRITH 1849 who Was married to Mary Ann (nee Allbrook 1846) And lived at 26 Pownall Road Haggerston, Shoreditch: This address is confirmed by her death registration in 1902 and the fact they were there in 1891 I should add that none of the contributors to Ancestry's Public Trees has tracked them down If you can tell me how to search for an address in an Ancestry Census, I would be very grateful Michael Allbrook

On 01/03/2015 08:48, Caroline Bradford wrote: > It certainly doesn't look very hopeful. What else do you know about "your" > Sophia? Nothing! I've tracked back to the marriage on 5 June 1843 in Limehouse of William David JOHNSON, blacksmith, (s of John Plummer JOHNSON, shipwright, and Martha HOPKINS) and Sophia JOHNSON, (d of William JOHNSON, shipwright). Bride and groom were both given as "full age". They are in the 1851 census where Sophia says she was born in Limehouse. Her age is given as 29. I haven't found the family in the 1861 or subsequent censuses. The only entry in the 1841 census that has a daughter Sophia with father William has the mother as Sophia. There's also another daughter, Prudence. William is given as 40 (+/-), master mariner, Sophia snr as 50 (+/-), florist, Sophia jnr as 18 (+/-) and Prudence as 15 (+/-). All were born in Middlesex. Ancestry has a baptism of a Prudence Elizabeth Barlow JOHNSON, d of William (mariner) and Sophia, in Limehouse on 11 Aug 1834 but with no DoB, making her at least 7 in 1841 but possibly older. There is no corresponding Sophia baptised around 1821/1823 or later with a DoB around those years. There are other Sophias in the 1841 census in Middlesex of around the right age but they are working so no help. I've found 16 children with parents William and Sophia between 1816 and 1834, with 8 different occupations for the father ranging from labourer to gold and silver refiner, 5 of the occupations are connected to the water. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

It certainly doesn't look very hopeful. What else do you know about "your" Sophia? Caroline > > I've been told there was a baptism for a William Lawrence JOHNSON in > 1816 in Staines to parents William and Sophia. Almost certainly the couple > who married in 1814 in Feltham. The father was a wheelwright so definitely > not the couple I was looking for who had a daughter, Sophia, b about 1821. > > -- > Connie > http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/ >

On 28/02/2015 15:20, Caroline Bradford wrote: > The marriage register in question is available via Ancestry. The > pair were both single, "of" the parish and of full age. I've been told there was a baptism for a William Lawrence JOHNSON in 1816 in Staines to parents William and Sophia. Almost certainly the couple who married in 1814 in Feltham. The father was a wheelwright so definitely not the couple I was looking for who had a daughter, Sophia, b about 1821. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

On 28/02/2015 15:20, Caroline Bradford via wrote: > Fathers' names and occupations of grooms and fathers do not appear in marriage registers until 1 July 1837, after which CofE marriage registers confirmed to the format prescribed by the 1836 Marriage Act. > > The 1814 entry will, however, tell you whether the parties were single or widowed, what parish they were residing in at the time of the marriage, and, probably whether either was a minor (under 21). You will also get the names of the witnesses. > > The marriage register in question is available via Ancestry. The pair were both single, "of" the parish and of full age. The witnesses were, if I am reading it correctly, James and Jane LODGE. Mr LODGE witnessed a number of other marriages on the page so he is probably a church warden or similar and Jane his wife, rather than relatives or friends. Thank you for your reply. There's not enough information there to be sure the couple are the ones I'm looking for so I'll assume they are not until or unless I can find some other information that will confirm whether or not they are. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

Hi Connie Fathers' names and occupations of grooms and fathers do not appear in marriage registers until 1 July 1837, after which CofE marriage registers confirmed to the format prescribed by the 1836 Marriage Act. The 1814 entry will, however, tell you whether the parties were single or widowed, what parish they were residing in at the time of the marriage, and, probably whether either was a minor (under 21). You will also get the names of the witnesses. The marriage register in question is available via Ancestry. The pair were both single, "of" the parish and of full age. The witnesses were, if I am reading it correctly, James and Jane LODGE. Mr LODGE witnessed a number of other marriages on the page so he is probably a church warden or similar and Jane his wife, rather than relatives or friends. Hope this helps Caroline Sent from my iPad > On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:16, Connie via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > There is a marriage transcription on FMP for a William JOHNSON to a > Sophia LAWRANCE which took place on 7 Sept 1814 in Feltham which /may/ > be the one I am looking for, but it doesn't give the father's name nor > his or the groom's occupations which I think were given in the > registers then. > > The transcription apparently came from FamilySearch. > > Does anyone know of another online resource which may give the full > register details? > > -- > Connie > http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/ > . > ************************************** > Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. > > *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com > > The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk > > . > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you to Caroline and Eve for the information they both supplied. I have a much clearer picture now. Many thanks - June "The Fleet" refers not only to the prison itself but to a quite substantial area surrounding it, known as the Rules of the Fleet or the Liberty of the Fleet. This was a kind of no-man's land, separate from the jurisdiction of the parish authorities. Prisoners who could afford it (or whose relatives and friends could) were able to move about and even lodge within this area. Most "Fleet marriages" took place, not within the prison buildings themselves but in other premises within this area, such as rooms above pubs. The celebrants tended to be rather disreputable clergy who had fallen foul of the church authorities and who found a lucrative living marrying couples without asking too many questions. Although they were described by the civil and religious establishments as "clandestine" or "irregular" because they were not carried out under the auspices of the Church of England, they were not always the hole and corner affair which you might suppose. Some couples were runaways looking for a quick hitch but by no means all. And, as you have seen, records were kept which were not significantly different from those made by the Church of England at the time.

I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd (widow) on September 3 1746. The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The Fleet. There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the fleet, whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called in a church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, or maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that tells me which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I know I am on the right track. Thank you - June

> I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd > (widow) on September 3 1746. > > The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The > Fleet. > > There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. > > William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's > family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. > > I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The > Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. > > None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please > confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the > fleet, whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called > in a church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, > or maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that > tells me which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I > know I am on the right track. A Quaker who wished to marry had to give notice to his meeting. They reviewed the application, slowly. They needed to be sure that he/they were free of any previous entanglements, not necessarily marriage but courting that looked to be tending that way, and if so, that the other person involved was content to relinquish claims 2. that he/they were 'walking uprightly' as regards the Meeting, well behaved, not doctrinally in contention, not in financial debt. The whole process took at least three months, more if there was any problem. And if a Quaker wanted to marry out - well, he was in real trouble. He would never get permission so the simplest thing to do was marry a 'woman of this world in a steeplehouse' and either try to get her accepted or break nright away. Marriage in the fleet was treated as dubiously legal anyway - it could be done in a flash before you thought better of it , but also repudiated if things got desperate. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

"The Fleet" refers not only to the prison itself but to a quite substantial area surrounding it, known as the Rules of the Fleet or the Liberty of the Fleet. This was a kind of no-man's land, separate from the jurisdiction of the parish authorities. Prisoners who could afford it (or whose relatives and friends could) were able to move about and even lodge within this area. Most "Fleet marriages" took place, not within the prison buildings themselves but in other premises within this area, such as rooms above pubs. The celebrants tended to be rather disreputable clergy who had fallen foul of the church authorities and who found a lucrative living marrying couples without asking too many questions. Although they were described by the civil and religious establishments as "clandestine" or "irregular" because they were not carried out under the auspices of the Church of England, they were not always the hole and corner affair which you might suppose. Some couples were runaways looking for a quick hitch but by no means all. And, as you have seen, records were kept which were not significantly different from those made by the Church of England at the time. Some sources have calculated that up to half of all London marriages were "irregular" by the time in question. This may be a bit of an exaggeration but there is no doubt that many couples for whom there was no particular barrier to a "regular" marriage chose this option for reasons of economy, speed and fashion. The best analogy is to think of modern-day marriages in Las Vegas! If Elizabeth was a widow then KIDD would have been her married name. Caroline > I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd > (widow) on September 3 1746. > > The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The > Fleet. > > There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. > > William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's > family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. > > I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The > Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. > > None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please > confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the fleet, > whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called in a > church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, or > maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that tells me > which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I know I am on > the right track. > > Thank you - June > > > >

Hello, Through the Society of Genealogists I recently obtained a copy of a Marriage Licence for a Thomas Mitchell and a Mary Hawkins, dated 31 January 1745. Unfortunately, because I had to do it "blind", it turned out to be not what I wanted. I was hoping for a marriage in or around Plymouth. Thomas was a Widower, Mary a Spinster, aged 30 years, and the Parish appears to be "St Ann Westminster in the County of Middlesex". If this is of any interest to anyone, I'd be happy to pass it on. Best wishes, Tom Thompson, St Agnes, Cornwall.

I have a Grand Aunt Victoria Rose Storey born 1897 who Married a George Frederick Boorman born abt 1888 they married 1920 Hackney, They had 6 children George is the son of George b abt 1859 & Francis Boorman nee Colley b abt 1861 they had had 7 children George was born in Charing Kent & at least 2 children born in Kent, his father who also was a George born abt 1832 Charing Kent with mother Jane b abt 1831 Do you have any connection to the family if so would love to hear from you Regards Janice

Cautiously optimistic! :) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FFHS-NEWS GRO - amendment o the Deregulation Bill relating to certificates Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:55:38 -0500 From: News from the Federation of Family History Societies The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy. This is something the SoG has long campaigned for and is grateful to Baroness Scott of Needham Market, herself an enthusiastic genealogist, who suggested to Government that this deregulation is possible. More information can be found on their website http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c (with thanks to Malcolm Austen, Oxfordshire FHS) Beryl Evans FFHS Archives Liaison Officer