Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joseph Barnett

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sally
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Originally posted by Sally View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    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 -

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Daniel 26 October 1851.JPG
Views:	128
Size:	95.6 KB
ID:	771792

    Margaret -

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Margaret Barnett 10 July 1856.JPG
Views:	131
Size:	81.2 KB
ID:	771793

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

    Joseph -

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Joseph Barnett 17 April 1858.JPG
Views:	130
Size:	85.9 KB
ID:	771794

    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 -

    Click image for larger version

Name:	John Barnett 6 November 1863.JPG
Views:	132
Size:	87.4 KB
ID:	771795

    Leave a comment:


  • gallicrow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gallicrow
    replied
    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:

    John Barnett 1847 scan

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by gallicrow View Post
    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.

    Joseph Barnett marriage 1847 q4

    Catherine Brian marriage 1847 q4

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gallicrow
    replied
    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.

    Joseph Barnett marriage 1847 q4

    Catherine Brian marriage 1847 q4

    There's also the minor problem that St Giles isn't in the east end...
    Last edited by gallicrow; 10-21-2021, 08:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    This is really interesting. Could have been possible that Barnett was married in 1888? That he was seeing MJK on the side, as it were? Unlikely I presume but the census entry does make you wonder??

    Leave a comment:


  • gallicrow
    replied
    Regarding Joseph Barnett's mother, Catherine, who may have had the surname Bryan or O'Bryan - as Debra mentioned above, Catherine appears to have worked as a servant in the household of Thomas Allman for a while after the death of her husband and may have ended up marrying him in 1885 (the entry in the freebmd has the bride's name as "Katherine Barnetto"). However I think that Catherine died later in 1885.

    Anyway, Thomas Allman married again (for at least the third time!) in 1891 to someone called Mary Leary. Mary was a widow, born in Ireland around 1845, and her original name was Mary Bryan!

    I can't help wondering if Catherine and Mary were related. There's probably too large a difference in ages for them to have been sisters.

    There was a photo on ancestry of Joseph Barnett's sister, Catherine (1853-1911) on a family tree of someone who appears to be directly related to the Barnetts. I copied it and attached to the tree I've been constructing on Family Search:
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/pe...tails/G85X-FQC
    Unlike ancestry, Family Search is completely free and you don't even have to become a Mormon to use it.
    Last edited by gallicrow; 10-20-2021, 08:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by gallicrow View Post
    I guess the 1921 census will be the last one many of us will see - the 1931 census records were destroyed during WW2 (*) and the government seemed to be too busy doing other things in 1941.
    (*) I wish we could blame the Germans, but I think it was a fire that was started accidentally!
    Fortunately we have the 1939 Register which sort of bridges the gap. That may sound too late to have any relevance to the Whitechapel Murders, but I looked at it just a few weeks back to check the occupations of various members of the Lechmere family.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post

    Me too. Not to mention forgetting what my conclusions were the last time I trawled a certain archive and having to perform the same task again six months later, looking for the same information. Bloody amateur!
    Only today I remembered a timeline thing I’d done about the Old Red Lion but struggled to find it until I remembered the name ‘Blinkhorn’ to search by. For a man who has trouble remembering his handful of online passwords, that was quite a feat.

    Leave a comment:


  • gallicrow
    replied
    I guess the 1921 census will be the last one many of us will see - the 1931 census records were destroyed during WW2 (*) and the government seemed to be too busy doing other things in 1941.
    (*) I wish we could blame the Germans, but I think it was a fire that was started accidentally!

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    I often find it hard to track down my own posts on the boards. And it’s easy to forget exactly what you have posted on a particular subject.

    The Catholic records Debs mentioned are full of interesting nuggets. A number of the people involved in the case were of Irish Catholic descent and used St. Mary and St. Michael’s in the Commercial Road for weddings and baptisms. There was also a Catholic census in 1893 that has some very interesting entries.

    Personally, I can’t wait for the 1921 census to become available early next year. That may tie up a few loose ends.
    Me too. Not to mention forgetting what my conclusions were the last time I trawled a certain archive and having to perform the same task again six months later, looking for the same information. Bloody amateur!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by gallicrow View Post
    Thanks Gary. I must admit I find searching the casebook and jtr forums trickier than the 19th century records! The inclusion of the mother's maiden name in the GRO birth records and the age at death in the death records (both of which became available fairly recently) has made this sort of job much easier than it used to be.
    I often find it hard to track down my own posts on the boards. And it’s easy to forget exactly what you have posted on a particular subject.

    The Catholic records Debs mentioned are full of interesting nuggets. A number of the people involved in the case were of Irish Catholic descent and used St. Mary and St. Michael’s in the Commercial Road for weddings and baptisms. There was also a Catholic census in 1893 that has some very interesting entries.

    Personally, I can’t wait for the 1921 census to become available early next year. That may tie up a few loose ends.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X