Barnett's Brother

[miss marple]

Daniel Barnett was not born in 1849. The eldest Barnett brother Denis was born in 1849, Paley obtained the birth certificate for Denis and his other dates match. Daniel was born 1852/3, he was 28 in 1881.On 1861 census Daniel is nine, three years younger than Dennis. Unless one has seen the death cert one does not know how accurate the age is. 1 could be mistranscribed as a 7
Wild theories are a lot of fun, but check your facts first,Richard.
Regards Miss Marple

[Chava]

Silly question: Did one have to pay for a license to be a fish porter? In which case, could 2 licenses be spread around 4 boys? So that Daniel and Denis, say, have licenses but all 4 boys work, and when asked their names reply Daniel or Denis. Which could be why Joe is called 'Danny' by some people.

The Victoria Home does loom large, don't it!

[miss marple]

Licenses were enforced in 1878. I don't know if it cost,but all four brothers, Denis, Daniel, Joseph and John recieved their licenses in July of that year.

In 1881 Census, although both Daniel and John are described as Fish Porters, Joseph was not, on census night he was being visited by brother John at[ I Horatio St] and is described as a General Labourer which leads me to believe that Joe did not work consistently as a fish porter. Having a license did not mean permenant employment. Although some men were. Porters started at five in the morning and were finished by nine. The permenant men stayed on for another four or five hours cleaning and gutting fish,
Miss Marple

[richardnunweek]

Miss Marple,
With Respect, may I quote your post 16th Jan.
Dan Barnett died in 1906, ref ic.202.
I too have seen that reference, and it is quoted that he was 57 years of age, which does place his birth as 1849, which would place him as 39 years in 1888.
So it would appear that we have both seen that reference, so is it only Paleys research that places him younger, in your estimate, or did you not observe his age at death?
Regards Richard.

[miss marple]

Richard,
You dont seem to understand genealogy, you look at a lifetime's records, not one reference, without even seeing the certificate.I am fed up with repeating myself because you don't seem to get it. There are birth, marriage and census records for the Barnett family and Denis was born in 1849 not Daniel, just because you want Daniel to be born in 1849, you cant make it so.As I said in the previous post unless you check the actual writing on the certificate, you do not know what age is given, a 7 could be a 1, He could be 51, Also all his other entries check out to a birth date of 1852/3.
Miss Marple

[Robert]

Paley gives Daniel's birth year as 1851.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Miss Marple,
Sorry if my genealogy is not up to your standard, I was simply going by your 16th jan post, which stated he died in 1906, and as his age was given as 57 years, my maths informed me a D.O.B of 1849.
However as you have informed me that Daniel was born now in 1851/1852/1853 and the age on the reference mayby should have been 51 years we now have a birth date of 1855 do we not.
Simply what you are saying is he died in 1906[ as stated on jan 16th] but [ correct me if i am wrong] you made a wrong identification, or you have the right person, but the reference should have been age 53/54/55.
Which is nothing like the slip of a pen..in my estimation.
So are you still stating that Daniel Barnett connected to that autumn died in 1906 .
Regards Richard.

[miss marple]

Ages are not always accurate ,except on birth certificates. If the birth certificate can not be traced and births did not have to be legally registered until 1875 then all the evidence from a family has to be considered when working out a birth date, it a subtle art
Daniel Barnett's birth certificate seems not to have been registered. I have only traced one Daniel Barnett born in in 1847, in Kennington, and he is not the brother of JOE. There are none registered in London or Kent in late 1840s /1850s.We have Denis's certificate so we know he was born in 1849
So we are left with
1861 census, Dan is 9 which gives us a birth date of 1852
Census 1871.
Daniel is head of family looking after Joe, his age is 20, that could be a rounded up age,which gives us a birthdate of 1851/3
Census 1881
Dan is 28 which gives us a birth date of 1853. Paley favours 1851
Sister Catherine was born in 1852 which leaves us 1851 or 1853.
I believe Paley saw the certificate.
The question of the age on the death certificate is open until a copy is obtained. It could something as simple as the wrong age. All the evidence from the other official documents points to a birth in 51/53,
When the register indexes are transcribed for the internet sometimes mistakes are made. I always used to look at the original indexes at FRC before they removed them.
i was looking for my great grandfather Comer on a internet census index, when and could not find any record of his family until i discovered they had miss transcribed his name into Corner rather than Comer.
I hope this answers your questions.
Regards Miss Marple

[Robert]

The age in the register is definitely 57, which is close enough given the vagueness that surrounded age at death for working-class people in those days. I don't know whether any baptismal records might survive.

[miss marple]

After I posted I went on a hunt for Paley's crumbling paperback to remind myself what he said about the death certificate.
The death certificate is definitely Daniel as in 1906 according to Paley, the death certificate address is 18 New Gravel Lane, also Joe's address on his new market license. Joe was probably the informant on the death certificate.
So if you put all the evidence together Daniel was born 1851 and died 1906.

The age of 57 is clearly wrong as it doe's not match any other evidence. I will order the death certificate a some point.
Miss Marple