Genealogy Chat

This topic was covered back in May...have just bumped the thread back up to the top so that those who are helping Jean can see what was said before. (See 'Advice Please' by Jean Abbott).

bookmarking julie

The name Cooper came in when I found a George Anstead married to a Louisa Cooper. I also found a Frederick Ayres and a Frank Ayres married to a Louisa Cooper. It was just a coincidence, although a relative of mine has her tree on here and has Louisa Cooper as the wife of George Anstead, although there is no evidence of a marriage and the cert I have say: My nan's birth cert says her mother was Louisa Ayres (formerly Bradford) and father was George Ayres. Her sister Rebecca has mother Louisa Anstead (formerly Bradford) and father George Anstead.

There is a George Hamstead on the 1871 census with no place of birth, age 20, not in employment. He's at St George, Southwark. Could he be the same guy? Still no sign of that marriage. Where did the name Cooper come from, as apposed to Bradford for Louisa. Helen

Hi The 1901 census is correct. Emma Louisa Anstead belongs to Julia Anstead - fathers details are left blank. I think the 1881 and 1891 are probably the family I'm looking at, although as said earlier I can find nothing on John Henstread born in 1890. My grandad's brother Arthur William Gritton married Julia Anstead and brought Emma up. Nothing before 1881 - Nell lthinks the Marylebone link is a red herring. There are a whole bunch of Anstead's hailing from Great Marlow in Bucks, but on all 3 census where we probably find the right George his birth always says London (Whitechapel or Shadwell). What would you do from here ? Jeanne

Is the family in 1901 the right one - George with the 4 girls? Louisa died Jun qtr 1898 Emma Louisa was registered Dec qtr 1899. Who's Emma's mother. Helen

Sorry Jools, I posted about the Henstead/Hunstead entries later in the day without spotting your message. I agree that it looks like the same family and either Julia was really Louisa Julia or quite possibly the 1891 enumerator read the wrong line as he wrote up his returns and gave her her mum's (or step mum's) name in error.

Is anyone going to offer an opinion on my post from half eleven this morning:- If you look at the 81 and 91 for hensted and hunstead, it looks to me like Julia 1880 =Louisa 1880. What do you think?

Again Hunsted is the only hit in 1881 - no bmds or other census info. nell

OK 1881 3 York Place, St Geo in the East George Hunsted 28 carman b Whitechapel Lucia Hunsted wife 23b Whitechapel Julia daur 1 b St Geo E. Well, George is still born Whitechapel and is right age for the 1891 and 1901 chaps. Although working as a carman, he is on a page with other dock labourers and people did change their jobs. the question now is Is Lucia Hunsted the same as Louisa Anstead? Was the enumerator deaf, did she just like to change her name, or were there two wives? I am still a bit bothered about the gap in ages of the children, though of course George may have been away from home, or his wife ill or not terribly fertile, or the gap may have been when she miscarried. nell

Judith Off to check it out!

Nell do you not think George Hunstead in 1881 is the same as George Henstead in 1891? This time the daughter IS Julia and the occupation carman

Jeanne Since John doesn't appear in 1901 I looked for a death - nothing on freebmd. I suppose you could trawl through the deaths page by page, but you don't know a) that he died or b) whether he is really Anstead or Henstead and c) whether this really is the same family! I guess if you exhaust the online possibilities, you could try looking in the St Geo in the East parish registers for baptisms for the children and see just who their parents were. Good luck. nell

Thanks Nell This family is a nightmare. I have tried to find a John Hunstead/Hunsted/Anstead born in 1890 (as mentioned on the 1891 census for Hunstead) and he is as hidden as Julia !! Thank you for your trouble though, it is really appreciated. I'll just keep plugging away. Jeanne

Short answer is no! Relatively few (less than half a dozen) hits for Henstead name at all and none that match except the 1891 census entry. So its possible that this is them. There's still a big gap between the first child and the 2nd and of course the relationships are to the head of the household, so you can't assume the wife is mother of all the children. nell

Jeanne Sorry, must have missed the bit about the marriage cert - lots of info to take in! I've looked at the Henstead entry that Judith found. the image definitely says 'Henstead' -although I suppose the enumerator could have misheard Anstead. 73 Lucas Street, St Geo in the East George R Henstead 36 gen labourer b London Shadwell Louisa wife 29 b St Geo in the East Louisa daur 11 [possibly Julia, misrecorded or maybe another of her names? Maybe she was reg. Louisa after her mother and Julia as 2nd name?] St Geo in the East Elizabeth 3 St Geo in the East John 1 St Geo in the East With a relatively common occupation like labouring, and the differences in Julia/Louisa and Eliza/Elizabeth's names, this is a tantalising family. It's in the right area. I'll see if I can find a Henstead lot in 1901 and/or 1881 to help eliminate them. nell

Hi Judith They seem to be Hunsted in 1881 and Hunstead in 1891 - Anstead (their actual name) in 1901. Jeanne

And here they are in 1881: St George in the East RG11; Piece: 456; Folio: 99; Page: 15 3 York Place George Hunstead 28 carman born Whitechapel Lucia Hunstead 22 born Whitechapel Julia Hunstead 1 bn St Geo in the East

Could this be your family in 1891: St George in the East RG12; Piece: 287; Folio 168; Page 44 George R Henstead 36 General labourer born London Louisa Henstead 29 born St Geo in the E Louisa Henstead 11 Eliza Henstead 3 John Henstead 1

Hi Nell As have already mentioned that Julia states her father as George Anstead on her marriage cert to Arthur Gritton. I am aware that I don't KNOW who Julia's mother is, but having looked and failed to find George as you suggest - my options are somewhat limited. Thanks for your input anyway.