Joseph Barnett

[Sally]

Just passing through by chance and here's my old pal Barnett!

Losmandris - The 1911 census puts Barnett's 'marriage' in 1888, so far as I recall. Intriguing, isn't it?

[gallicrow]

I spent a while trying to find the marriage of Joseph Barnett's parents. Although they were both born in Ireland, I thought that it was quite likely that they married in the east end fairly close to the birth of their first known child in 1849.

Anyway, there's a marriage for a Joseph Barnett registered in St Giles in Q4 1847 (vol 1, page 90). If you click on the link on freebmd to see who else's marriage was registered in that volume and page, you do not find a Catherine. Oh well! However there are only seven names listed (including Joseph Barnett) so clearly there is an error of some sort, either one person's volume and page has been mis-read as 1/90 or, more likely, a different person is missing (a woman, since there are 4 men and 3 women listed).

A handy trick in these situations is to enter the registration place and quarter into freebmd and see what turns up. In this case there is a marriage for a Catherine Brian registered in St Giles in Q4 1847 (vol 1, page 82). Unfortunately there are 7 other people whose marriages were also added under volume 1, page 82, a total of 4 men and 4 women, which rather suggests that this Catherine Brian married one of the men listed.





There's also the minor problem that St Giles isn't in the east end...

[MrBarnett]

I spent a while trying to find the marriage of Joseph Barnett's parents. Although they were both born in Ireland, I thought that it was quite likely that they married in the east end fairly close to the birth of their first known child in 1849.

Anyway, there's a marriage for a Joseph Barnett registered in St Giles in Q4 1847 (vol 1, page 90). If you click on the link on freebmd to see who else's marriage was registered in that volume and page, you do not find a Catherine. Oh well! However there are only seven names listed (including Joseph Barnett) so clearly there is an error of some sort, either one person's volume and page has been mis-read as 1/90 or, more likely, a different person is missing (a woman, since there are 4 men and 3 women listed).

A handy trick in these situations is to enter the registration place and quarter into freebmd and see what turns up. In this case there is a marriage for a Catherine Brian registered in St Giles in Q4 1847 (vol 1, page 82). Unfortunately there are 7 other people whose marriages were also added under volume 1, page 82, a total of 4 men and 4 women, which rather suggests that this Catherine Brian married one of the men listed.





There's also the minor problem that St Giles isn't in the east end...

That an Irish couple who were married in St Giles in the 1840s might have subsequently moved to the East End really isn’t any kind of a problem.

[gallicrow]

Here is the scan that has been transcribed for the data used by freebmd. Remember - this should read volume 1, page 90 according to the transcription:



To be honest the "0" looks far too small to me, could it be more like the top part of a 2, the bottom part being missed out because the pen was a bit short of ink?

And as for the "9" - the stem is far too fat. It must surely be an 8 where the bottom loop has been squashed a bit!

Thus if you squint your eyes a bit perhaps you could convince yourself that this is, in fact, volume 1 / page 82, i.e. the same as for Catherine Brian.

I should add that the equivalent scan for Catherine Brian is clear and unmistakably volume 1 / page 82.

[gallicrow]

OK a check on ancestry has turned up the marriage of Catherine Brian to John Doolan on 13th December 1847 at St George's Church in Bloomsbury.

[Sally]

Here are the Barnett kids, sans Catherine, who either I didn't find in the records or have since lost - Denis I think might have been born in Ireland - from memory there's an 1851 census entry that looks like it might be John, Catherine and Denis, albeit that parental ages are curious, but that's par for the course with 19th century records.

Daniel -



Margaret -



Margaret is missing from Joseph Barnett's biography, I think she died in 1860.

Joseph -



We can see that contra his birth certificate, Joseph was born on 17th April. I'm sure others have already noted this - I'm out of touch and have trouble finding all the little bits of research scattered over the various forums out there - so apologies if this is super-old news.

John -

[Losmandris]

Just passing through by chance and here's my old pal Barnett!

Losmandris - The 1911 census puts Barnett's 'marriage' in 1888, so far as I recall. Intriguing, isn't it?

It really is. If he wasn't married until the demise of MJK, it does not give him much time to get married after. That's for sure! I can only assume it was a mistake in the census? Has anyone found where Barnett's wife from 1911 was in 1888?

[Sally]

It really is. If he wasn't married until the demise of MJK, it does not give him much time to get married after. That's for sure! I can only assume it was a mistake in the census? Has anyone found where Barnett's wife from 1911 was in 1888?

Hi Losmandris,

It's been a while, but I think there are separate entries in the 1911 census for Joseph and Louisa because she was in the infirmary? I think they both said independently that they'd been married for 23 years. As far as I know, nobody has yet found Louisa in 1888.