Sarah Ann Robertson - the other Mrs Maybrick

[rjpalmer]

Judging by how frequently adults are shown with ages ending in 0 or 5 on some early censuses, there seems to have been a practice of rounding ages up/down or guessing to the nearest 5 years.

Good point.

[rjpalmer]

Surely she or the enumerator would not get both details wrong?

In case you're fairly new to genealogy, let me give you a tip: the enumerator very often gets everything wrong and sometimes people lie about their age or simply do not know it. Further, there is always the possibility the information came from a neighbor or a fellow tenant who was simply guessing, or the enumerator made notes before filling out the census form and couldn't read the handwriting afterwards. You have to piece together information and a hypothesis from various uncertain sources while keeping your wits about you, and, in the end, the truth is not always certain. It may not be her, but based on what we have, I suspect that it is.

By the way, how do you explain the year of birth for Christiana being wrong as well her name? We know from baptism records that Christiana Lindsay Roberston was born 8th November 1817 - four years prior to the one on the 1841 census as Christiana Robinson.

Yes, I noticed that--more in a minute. But it is only three years different, though. She was born/baptized 4Q of 1817 and the 1841 census wasn't taken until the night of June 6th. One thinks of an age as a whole number.

Second, I don't "explain it"--that suggests I have an agenda and am trying to squeeze the peg in the hole. I duly note the discrepancy and keep working.

But why do you think this poses a problem? Go back and study Chris Scott's initial post.

Once Christiana is in London, her ages are given as follows:

1851- 31 (born 1820 - the exact same year as my Christiana Robinson in the 1841 census)
1861- 42 (1819)
1871- 48 (1823)
1881- 59 (1822)
1891- 69 (1822)
1895- 75 (1820)

Hardly consistent, and not one of them accurately aligns with her actual baptismal date. Her birth years in these records range from 1819-1823. We know she was baptized in 1817. There is also the slight possibility (it sometimes happens) that an earlier child was born and died, and the parents used the name again for a later child. I've seen cases of this.

Anyway, as you can see from the first entry from 1851, she is down as having the same birth year as Robinson in Sunderland.

She probably lied about her age--many women do, and so do men.

The name 'Christiana' is not particularly common, and she's living down the street from Robertson's father, and Sarah's age is correct.

If you want confirmation, I would suggest ordering the birth record for George Frederick Taylor Robertson, born Sunderland in 2Q 1840. This should tell you the parents' name.

I was considering ordering it myself, out of curiosity, so if you plan on doing it, please let me know and I'll save myself the trouble.

As I say, I think she is the right woman, but I could be wrong; the birth record should prove or disprove the working hypothesis.

[MrBarnett]

Judging by how frequently adults are shown with ages ending in 0 or 5 on some early censuses, there seems to have been a practice of rounding ages up/down or guessing to the nearest 5 years.

[erobitha]

This thread was abandoned 13 years ago, but since Sarah Ann Robertson's name has recently come up, I'd like to post an update of sorts, with a couple of things I've discovered.

In Chris Scott's first post, he has Sarah Robertson in the 1851 Census living with her 'aunt' in the Tower Hamlets. This is the woman who has been identified as Maybrick's first wife or mistress.

1851:
1 Pastern Row, Tower Hamlets
Head: Charles James Case aged 36 born Strand, London - Tobacconist
Wife: Christiana [Robertson] Case aged 31 born Sunderland
Niece: Sarah Ann Robertson aged 15 born Sunderland [about 1836]

For future reference, the marriage cert. shows that Charles James Case married a Christiana Lindsay Robertson.

Based on this 1851 entry, Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner speculated that Sarah wasn't really Christiana [Robertson] Case's niece, but her daughter, theorizing that the 'niece' designation was to hide the fact that the child had been born out-of-wedlock.

Feldman also writes that they couldn't find any earlier trace of Sarah Ann Robertson, nor any registration of her birth.

I think I can explain why.

As we can see, Christiana's middle name was Lindsay, which is one reason we know this is the same woman who was later in London and Deptford, married first to Charles Case, then to Thomas Conconi, and who was supposedly Sarah Ann Robertson's aunt. (Her name is listed as Christian Lindsay Conconi, for instance, in her 1895 death cert).




As can be seen, her father was Alexander Hay Robertson. He was born Edinburgh, Scotland.


In the 1841 Census, he can be found living on Flag Lane, Sunderland.


Three pages earlier in the same census, also on Flag Lane, is a woman whose name is given as Christiana 'Robinson' who has a daughter named Sarah.



I think this is why Feldman's team couldn't trace her. I suspect that this is actually Christiana Robertson and not Robinson, and her four-year-old daughter (with the correct birth year) is Sarah Robertson [Maybrick].

Besides the grandfather Alex. Hay Robertson living on the same street, and the name coincidences, there are three other reasons for believing this.

1. There are no birth registrations for a Sarah Robinson in Sunderland that fits this family, nor for the brother George Robinson, born 1840.

2. Nor is any such family listed in the 1851 Census for Sunderland.

3. There is, however a birth registration for a George Robertson, born in Sunderland in 1840, that would fit the above entry.




George Frederick Taylor Robertson. I suspect that 'Taylor' is the name of the birth father, and the child was born out of wedlock.

All of this tells me that the family in the 1841 Census is actually supposed to be Robertson, and that this is Sarah Robertson, born 1836, who was later Maybrick's first wife/mistress.

This shows, I think, that Feldman and Skinner were correct, and Christiana Roberston Case/Conconi was Sarah's mother and not her aunt.

By the way, how do you explain the year of birth for Christiana being wrong as well her name? We know from baptism records that Christiana Lindsay Roberston was born 8th November 1817 - four years prior to the one on the 1841 census as Christiana Robinson.

Surely she or the enumerator would not get both details wrong?

[erobitha]

Interesting research RJ. Definitely worth someone looking more into this. A few things that clearly don’t add up.

Who knows - maybe some further interesting information is out there.

Good work.

I know there is - who am I kidding.

Unfortunately the killer information (to me at least) is not my discovery to share, but I may have some other news on this from my own research in due course.

[erobitha]

Interesting research RJ. Definitely worth someone looking more into this. A few things that clearly don’t add up.

Who knows - maybe some further interesting information is out there.

Good work.

[MrBarnett]

I thought the Hartnett’s might have an Irish background because I found a few Catholic marriages and baptisms in Deptford for people with that name and most of the witness and maiden names were Irish in origin.

Sarah certainly carries an air of mystery around with her.

I spotted this on the OP on this thread:

“She lived for a while on Bromley Street, near Whitechapel, and on Mark Lane, across the road from Whitechapel.”

I worked in Mark Lane many years ago, and although on the map it isn’t far from Whitechapel, it really was a world apart from the environs of, say, Commercial Street.

[rjpalmer]

It appears that the census enumerator initially thought the head of the household was named Hartnett, but then amended it to Mrs Maybrick.

Thanks, Gary. It is puzzling.

Sarah Maybrick is living with the same Hartnett family in 1901 and 1911, described first as a stepmother and later as an aunt. The validity of either claim is not readily apparent.

(I see our posts have crossed)

William Hartnett married Hannah Reed in Deptford in 1891. He's described as a painter (same as in the 1901 census).





Her sister Eliza is the witness, which seems to indicate that they were the daughters of William Reed, a horse keeper in Deptford in 1881.

William Harnett, meanwhile, can be traced to No. 10 Seymour Street, Deptford in 1871. His father Alexander is an Irish laborer.

How any of these people are related to Sarah Maybrick is difficult to fathom. She's never quite who they claim she is.

[MrBarnett]

I confess that I have no real interest in anything Maybrickian, but I can take my hat off to the people on this site who do some amazing research work.

Hats off to you all!

Certainly excellent work by RJ.

Perhaps I missed it, but how would Sarah have been William Hartnett’s stepmother in 1901?

[MrBarnett]

It appears that the census enumerator initially thought the head of the household was named Hartnett, but then amended it to Mrs Maybrick.

[MrBarnett]

As the head of the household in 1921, Sarah should have signed the census form. This is the signature that appears on it.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I confess that I have no real interest in anything Maybrickian, but I can take my hat off to the people on this site who do some amazing research work.

Hats off to you all!

[MrBarnett]

Interesting stuff, RJ.

I did have a bit of a look at the Greenwich Sarah Maybrick. The 1921 census has her place of birth as ‘Dumfriesshire, Scotland’.

[rjpalmer]

Final observation.

The following won't be of any interest other than to hardcore brick heads, but it concerns a mysterious woman known as Gertrude Emily Conconi, born in Portsmouth around 1873.

She shows up living with the Robertson/Conconi clan in London in both 1881 and 1891, identified as a 'daughter.' Yet, since she was likely to have been the wrong age to be a daughter of Christiana [Robertson] Conconi, it was theorized by Feldman's team that Gertrude was actually the illegitimate daughter of Sarah Robertson. In short, she was Gertrude Emily Maybrick.

Here's what Chris Scott posted about her:


In the 1881 census Sarah has reverted to the surname of Robertson, and her aunt Christiana is again widowed:
1881:
237 Queen's Road, Deptford
Head: Christiana Conconi (Widow) aged 59 born Sunderland, Durham - No occupation
Niece: Sarah A Robertson aged 35 born Sunderland - No occupation
Daughter: Gertrude B Conconi aged 8 born Portsmouth [Her middle name is elsewhere given as Emily, but I think the middle initial 'B' represents Blakiston--more later. RP]
Nephew: George Smith aged 14 born Sunderland

Chris continues:

I have been unable to find a birth record for Gertrude, supposedly the daughter of Christiana. However, as Christiana is listed as 59 years of age in 1881 and Gertrude is only 8, this does throw some doubt on her parentage.

In 1891 the three women were living at a different house in the same road:
1891:
265 Queen's Road, Deptford
Head: Christiana Conconi (Widow) aged 69 born Sunderland - Living on own means
Daughter: Gertrude aged 18 born Portsmouth
Niece: Sarah Robertson aged 44 born Sunderland

___

Okay, what do we make of this?

Like Chris Scott, Feldman also wrote that he couldn't find any birth record for Gertrude Conconi or Getrude Robertson born in Portsmouth in or around 1872/3.

It was a complete mystery.

However, they noted that when she married in 1895 she listed her name as "Blackiston (sic?) otherwise Conconi."





It is not clear why Feldman's team failed to locate her, but there was very much a Gertrude Emily Blackiston (sic) born in Portsmouth in 1872, though her name in the register is given as Emily Gertrude Blakiston, which might have thrown them off. (Portsea Island is part of Portsmouth)




A look at the 1871 Census for Portsmouth comes up with the family of George Blakiston, a clerk in HM Dockyards, born Hammersmith.

Note that the mother's name is Emily, which would explain the daughter's name being Gertrude Emily or Emily Gertrude Blakiston.

This is surely the child that Feldman couldn't trace, but the mystery remains.

Why the hell this kid later turns up in the Conconi/Robertson household in London listed as their daughter is anyone's guess. It's strange. I thought it may have been a mistake in 1881 and she was just a servant, but why was the same 'mistake' made in 1891?

It seems, however, unlikely to be Sarah Robertson's daughter, as she is listed as living in Stepney in 1871, unless she made her way to Portsmouth by the end of the year and was impregnated by Blakiston.

Whatever the case, there is certainly no evidence it was James Maybrick's daughter, as Feldman theorized.

I haven't yet found any other connection between Conconi and Blakiston, but then, I haven't looked, either.

Ciao.

[rjpalmer]

Someone calling themselves rwhites made the following objection to Chris Scott's research:

1901/11 census sarah maybrick

I think the Sarah A. maybrick who died in 1927 is not the sarah ann robertson


1911

125 douglas st depford

Hannah E.HARNETT head wid 39 greengrocer DEPTFORD
Sarah A.MAYBRICK aunt wid 59 Sanker?DUMFRIESHIRE
Nellie HARNETT dau unm 19 dressmaker New Cross LONDON
Elsie HARNETT dau 9 Deptford

1901
9 the market,Greenwich

William HARNETT head m 43 decorator & painter DEPTFORD
Hannah HARNETT wife m 30 DEPTFORD
Nellie HARTNETT dau 8 DEPTFORD
William HARTNETT son 3 DEPTFORD
Sarah MAYBRICK step mother wid 50 SCOTLAND

What raised his doubts is that this Sarah Maybrick lists her birthplace as Scotland, whereas it had been previously given as Sunderland, Durham. The age is also off.

But if you recall, Skinner and Feldman couldn't actually find any birth record for Sarah Robertson in Sunderland, Durham. Her brother George, we have now seen, was registered there, but not Sarah.

Also recall that the paternal grandfather, Alexander Hay Robertson, was born in Scotland.

Could the explanation be that the unwed mother Christiana was shuffled off to relatives in Scotland during her confinement?

We've seen this sort of thing in census records before--the person's place of birth changes from census to census, sometimes reflecting where they were raised, and sometimes reflecting the actual location of their birth (such as the hospital).

I don't think there is any real doubt that Sarah Maybrick living in Greenwich is the same Sarah Maybrick who was the daughter of Christiana Conconi, who died in Greenwich in 1895. She just lied about her age and started giving the location of her actual birth, as opposed to the city she grew up in.

Maybe further research could confirm this, if anyone was interested in doing the legwork.