Genealogy Chat

Please tell me I haven’t been tracking the wrong family all this time :(

I have been searching for information for years about my CHARLES FLEWERS born 1828-31 Hackney or Kingsland. I can’t find him on any census before 1871 but from his marriage in 1854 in Bethnal Green I know that his father was John Flewers, brickmaker I have been tracking the family of a John & Susan Flewers, brickmaker and have them in 1851-71 along with most of the younger children’s baptisms and marriage certificates. I have trawled through the parish records of W. Hackney church and found baptisms for all the older children except for Charles.The only definate connection besides my gut feeling is that their daughter Ann married a Henry Softly and this Henry was a witness at Charles’ wedding. Now with huge thanks to PatGr I now have John & family in 1841. The trouble is that Charles is not with them. Instead there is a daughter called Caroline aged 10 in his place. The children’s birth dates are too close to squeeze in any more children so unless Charles was a twin to Caroline he can’t possibly be part of this family. And why isn’t he with them on the census anyway? This is the first I have heard about Caroline who is also not in the W Hackney parish records. I really don’t want to give up on John & Susan after all these years and expense but please tell me honestly, am I flogging a dead horse? Lyla

Is it deffo Caroline ? Charles was often written Carolinus in them there olden days. What address ref did Pat give you, I'll have quick peek. dave

Could Caroline be a mistranscribed Charles. I have a Louisa H Tudd who was really Lewis Henry Judd?I know this as he married a day after the census so I have the address. Kim

Really? Carolinus means Charles? That would be brilliant! I think it definately said Caroline and her age was written in the female column. Maybe Charles looked like a girl? I'm clutching at straws aren't I? Unfortunately I'm at work so I can't give you the ref no. just yet. Thanks Lyla

If Pat sent you the image and it does read Caroline with the age in the female column, don't give up entirely, I believe the images we see are copied from the schedules which were detroyed after copying. Carolinus is the Latin version of Charles so could be someone was being a bit posh and it was miscopied. dave

Brickmakers were very close-knit families. The whole family would be involved in brickmaking: the children from a fairly young age. They would work like crazy in the summer months, and hope their earnings would keep them through the winter. Having seen a census return where a mysterious Clarence appears, while there is no sign of Florence the only daughter, I'd definitely subscribe to enumerator error in this case. (He was probably being a smarty-pants with Carolus and then forgot how clever he'd been)

Finger crossed for you Lyla but so many mistakes on the census anything could be wrong. I have found many females down as sons and sons down as daughters. Could be a mistake. Best check for this young lady is later census and BMD. Good Luck Irene

Dave thankyou. There is some hope after all! I havent been able to find Charles baptism anywhere and so the 1841 was going to be the only way I could prove that these are his parents. I really dont know where to go from here - any ideas?

Check out this website. It is largely for brickmakers south of the Thames, but may have useful links/suggestions www.davidrcufley.(b)tinternet(.)co(.)uk/brickintro.html Brickmakers would live in temporary accomodation where the brickfields were and this may be why you haven't found your Charles so far.

Have you found Charles in 1851? If not, I'd suggest hunting him down. Since he didn't marry till 1854, he should be still at home. He could, of course, be a lodger or visitor somewhere.

Brenda, thanks for that interesting snippet about brickmakers. I did notice that the 12 year old son was already working as a brickmaker. Irene, I had a quick look at FreeBMD etc for a Caroline and couldnt see a marriage or death which is encouraging although Flewers is a very very mistranscribable name. Thankyou all. Feeling a little bit better now :)

LOL. when my cousin sent for the brickmakers index she received all the information my mum had sent him a few years earlier! I'm still trawling 1851 in search of Charles. I do have John & Susan and a few of the children who by now have relocated to Poplar (where Charles eventually lived). Got to pack up and go home now so I'll have a think about all this on the train. Thanks very much for your input. Lyla

I think I might have found them in 1861 :) I'll look more when I get home.

Lyla - as far as I know, the 1841 census doesn't give relationship to head of household, so Caroline could be some other relation other than daughter. Also, the ages given on censuses aren't always that accurate, especially on the 1841. Charles could well have been away from home that night so I wouldn't worry too much. Out of 13 children in one of my ancestral families, only 7 were at home on census night in 1841 (including the oldest, aged 19, rounded down to 15 on the census). Kate.

Lyla Pat kindly mailed me the reference, it quite clearly says Caroline with 10 in the female column, but still possibly a copying mistake between the original schedule completed by the householder and the enumerators return. If you look at the child below 'Caroline' you can see an error where the age has been overwritten. The poor old enumerator having done his day job, had to issue and collect the census returns in some cases where the household were illiterate completing the form for them. Then trudge home and copy the details into his book, with a scratchy dip pen and bottle of ink possibly be candle or oil lamp light, and remembering all the time to round the ages down to the nearest 5 except when the person was 15 or under. I've seen some census books where there are two sets of handwriting, where probably one of the elder kids had given dad a hand with his homework. Bound to have a few errors creeping in. I've checked all book 14 in case Charlie was with a neighbour but no luck. happy hunting dave

Dave, it was really kind of you to look through book 14 for me. I should have mentioned that I do have a copy of the 1841 census. Thanks to everyone else too. I now feel a little bit of hope that Caroline could really be Charles. These are the dates of the baptisms and their ages in the census. I can't see that there is room for another child. Samuel - May 1825 (1841 aged 14) Amelia - Mar 1827 (not on 1841) John - May 1828 (1841 aged 12) Caroline about 1830 (1841 age 10) Ann - Mar 1832 (1841 aged 8) Matthew -Jan 1837 (1841 aged 4) Emma about 1839 (1841 age 2) Eliza - Mar 1842 I just can't think of any way to prove that my Charles belonged to this family. Why does he have to be the only one missing from the baptism register? Lyla PS Charles fell down the stairs and broke his neck in 1888 - serves him right!

By the way, Lyla, I forgot to mention earlier that I have one family of rellies with a daughter Bertha who only appears on one census - on all the rest she is replaced with a son Arthur the same age that Bertha would have been! Kate.

Arthur/Bertha - well they do sound a bit similar! I have really come to despise this man. I purchased his marriage certificate in 1991 and yet I still haven't traced him any further back. All my hopes were pinned on the 1841 census and now I'm at a total loss as to where to look next:(

And I have son Larry who actually turned out to be daughter Fanny!