Here I am back after 9 months and still researching the Hutchings family – there are an awful lot of them! Have finally sorted out the question of the mother of Elizabeth Ann Barton (see previous post) and the answer is – Elizabeth Gardner.
So, one problem solved, now on to the next i.e. whatever happened to Elizabeth, daughter of Elizabeth Ann Barton and William Hutchings?
She appears in the 1841 census as a 2 month old, living with the Hutchings family and born at Stoke, Kent. Now the 1841 census does not actually state the relationships of the people living in one house, but it is a fair assumption that she was their daughter.
This assumption is born out by her appearance in the 1891 census, living with her mother at Cobham College Kent – a sort of almshouse. The name, age and place of birth all fit. In the 1901 census she is still living there, though her mother has died in the meantime.
The problem is – whatever happened to her in the intervening 50 years – I can find absolutely no trace of her. There are all sorts of possibilities and I have explored quite a few of them, but she remains elusive! Fascinating stuff 🙂
I am currently looking for the mother of Elizabeth Ann Barton b. 1805, married William Hutchings b. 1799. As it happens, there are two other people on Ancestry.com who have her in their family trees. However, although both agree on the mother’s Christian name (ie Elizabeth), they have different ideas on the surname (Pearce cf Gardner).
Of course, I have explored both and found parish records for both –
1. 1797 26th February at St Nicholas Rochester a John Barton married Elizabeth Pearce
2. 1800 27th May at St Marys Chatham a John Barton married Elizabeth Gardner.
How do I choose between the candidates? I did think that perhaps John’s first wife died young and he remarried quickly (not an unusual occurrence ). However, in the first marriage, John is named a widower and Elizabeth Pearce a widow and I have to wonder if it is likely he was already widowed twice and remarried by 1800 when he would have been about 23 years old.
So, which Elizabeth shall I choose and on what grounds?
I guess I could just toss a coin!
Ok, so my short Christmas break lasted about 6 months, but here I am again at last – currently working on my mother’s side, nothing startling to report as yet, but here’s hoping!
I have just put away my family history bits and pieces until next year. I did not achieve all that I intended to this year, but have been a little more disciplined in my research – and looking forward to getting back to it next year.
Sorry to say, the death certificate I sent away for was not the right one for our Robert Hooker. I didn’t really think it would be, but hope springs eternal and the search will continue.
I have just sent away for a death certificate for a Robert Hooker died 1841. I don’t hold out great hopes of it being my Robert, but if you don’t look, you don’t find, so fingers crossed. While I wait, I’ll get back to researching my mother’s side where I have a suicide and two child disappearances to investigate!
Until recently I surmised that the elusive Robert Hooker was born in about 1792 and died in 1832. The birth date was based upon the death notice I found as I could find no evidence of a baptism for him.
Recently however, I have been in touch with a new contact Jerry – we were both interested in William Henry Hooker born 1793 – and his investigations have turned up a whole new possibility i.e. that Robert was born much earlier in 1771 and was, in fact, the uncle of William Henry and not his brother as we had previously thought. Interestingly, this possibility of an older Robert was also suggested by my other contact Sam when we met earlier in the year.
The only problem I have with this scenario is that I can find no death notice for this older Robert. It seems fairly certain he was dead, or out of action, by 1827 when his youngest daughter died in the workhouse. His son Robert also died there in 1830 and his wife Elizabeth was also living there in the 1841 census. Unfortunately, the 1841 census does not note the marital status of people. He was certainly dead by 1847 when his wife remarried. So far I have found no suitable death record in those years.
So, do I go for a younger Robert with no birth/baptism record or an older one with no death/burial record?
On evidence I think I will go with the older Robert version – the evidence for that version does not refute any previous findings except the birth date and indeed explains the close relationship between Robert and William Henry. William Henry’s father seems to have disappeared from the scene quite early so Robert may well have been close to his nephew, especially as he himself had no family until he was in his forties.
It is interesting that this change in my thinking is due to the generosity and hard work of my contacts Jerry & Sam – it is lovely to be able to share ideas & information with them and know they are not going glassy eyed with boredom as most people do when the subject of family history arises 🙂
Whenever I get frustrated with my research (like now, grr!) I reread a newspaper cutting which David found in an English newspaper – I’ll edit it a little (with apologies to “atavist”) –
“Genealogy. It’s a fascinating hobby to attract elderly people to the internet and keep them mentally active. My mother discovered I came from a long line of nobodies back to the 1700s – apart from a bigamist who died of syphilis and the aptly named Walter Damms who died in the Dale Dyke dam disaster. My only objection is the insane cost.”
This always makes me laugh, it seems to sum up my efforts exactly,I can just hear my kids saying the same sort of thing 😀
I received a very prompt reply to my request for further information re William Henry Hooker’s background from a gentleman who has spent 30 years on his research. This shows in his site which is a family historian’s delight – I still have not explored it thoroughly but look forward to doing so.
Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of a possible connection with my Robert or any other siblings, so the search continues. His site does give the names of William Henry’s parents and the dates of the mother, but even with that information, I cannot find any birth entry for Robert.
I think I will relook at my conclusions re Robert’s birth & death dates – perhaps I have it all wrong – as I said, the search continues.
William Henry Hooker b. 1873 does not appear in the 1841 census as by that time he had moved to Canada, but he is a person of great interest as he may have been the brother of the elusive ancestor Robert.
Evidence for that is as follows –
Robert was married in 1812 at Christ Church Newgate (to Elizabeth Cleaver) and a witness to the ceremony was a W.H.Hooker.
William Henry’s first marriage (to Elizabeth Tippens) was at Christ Church in 1814 and a witness to the ceremony was a Robert Hooker.
Robert’s first son was called William Henry.
William’s first son was named Robert.
Robert’s occupation was sometimes mathematical instrument maker and sometimes hairdresser.
William’s occupation (before he left for Canada) was hairdresser.
On Ancestry.com there are some family trees which feature William Henry Hooker after he moved to Canada – the amount of detail is amazing and even includes the names of his parents ie Thomas & Elizabeth! However, even with that knowledge, I cannot find Robert’s birth!
I have written to the owner of one of the sites, to see if he has any further information on William Henry’s family in England – fingers crossed!!
Family matters. 