Alice Carroll, Mary Wilson, and Joe Barnett's Statement

[GUT]

Seems unlikely to be the right Joe then. Does it not?

Thanks for the post.

[Craig H]

Attached is the marriage certificate for Joseph Barnett - Louise Rowe marriage in 1887.
Joseph - 28 years old, musician, father was Michael Barnett (coachman)
Louise - 22 years old, father was John Rowe, (sign painter)

Rgds
Craig

[MayBea]

I'll post the marriage certificate here when it arrives.

That's great, Craig. Then we can compare signatures.

I can't put too much stock in the reported details on the marriage certificate. As we know, Mary Wilson's son gave a false name, false father's name, and didn't say his father was deceased, on his.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7913&page=12

[Debra A]

I have the details from the Joseph Barnett - Louisa Rowe marriage in 1887.

This Joseph was a mariner and his father was Michael Barnett. He is not "our" Joseph who was a fish porter with a father John.

I'm still waiting on the actual marriage certificate which should arrive in the next day or two. However, I emailed GRO who bounced back with the above information.

I'll post the marriage certificate here when it arrives.

Craig

Excellent,Craig. Well done.

[Craig H]

I have the details from the Joseph Barnett - Louisa Rowe marriage in 1887.

This Joseph was a mariner and his father was Michael Barnett. He is not "our" Joseph who was a fish porter with a father John.

I'm still waiting on the actual marriage certificate which should arrive in the next day or two. However, I emailed GRO who bounced back with the above information.

I'll post the marriage certificate here when it arrives.

Craig

[Sally]

The MJK candidacy of Mary Jane Wilson hinges on whether she could have had a child on Sept. 1st, 1887 and registered his birth in Liverpool on October 24th, what with Joe Barnett's statement.

If his statement can be proven to be unreliable, with a proven marriage in the third quarter of 1887, then MJW is back in play, if she was ever really out of it.

Hmm - but the marriage certificate to which you refer was seen by Chris some time ago, who reported that the details didn't match with 'our' Barnett. Whilst it'll be interesting to see what the details actually are, I think we're already at the point at which we know it's the wrong Barnett for our purposes.

If you're hoping to discredit Barnett's statement, you might have to look elsewhere for your proof.

[Sally]

Hi Richard – thanks for the update on Leanne’s book.

I think Sally (??) was right when she identified in the 1901 Census a Joseph Barnet (dock labourer) living with wife Emily (born 1855) in Old Gravel Lane.

I have Joseph Barnett’s death certificate (November, 1926) where he lists his occupation as “dock labourer” (same as in 1901).

We know from 1911 Census that Joseph’s wife was Louisa.

Maybe his wife could have been “Emily Louisa” – so she called herself “Emily” in 1901 and “Louisa” in 1911 ?

Craig

Hi Hawkecr -

Yes, an 'Emily Louisa' occurred to me too at the time. It's possible - I don't recall finding anybody who really stood out when I looked; perhaps you might have better luck?

The problems are that there may well be several 'Emily Louisa's' out there - what will there be, other than the name, to tie any of them to Barnett? We don't want to end up playing cognitive leapfrog (as the alleged Louisa Rowe connection possibly illustrates). There is also the real possibility that 'Emily' was simply an enumerator error. I'm not saying it's impossible to take this further - not at all - but it probably isn't going to be easy.

Good luck in your efforts. I'm looking foward to seeing the Barnett/Rowe marriage certificate!

[Craig H]

Hi Richard – thanks for the update on Leanne’s book.

I think Sally (??) was right when she identified in the 1901 Census a Joseph Barnet (dock labourer) living with wife Emily (born 1855) in Old Gravel Lane.

I have Joseph Barnett’s death certificate (November, 1926) where he lists his occupation as “dock labourer” (same as in 1901).

We know from 1911 Census that Joseph’s wife was Louisa.

Maybe his wife could have been “Emily Louisa” – so she called herself “Emily” in 1901 and “Louisa” in 1911 ?

Craig

[MayBea]

I don't see what the issue is.

I think it's fairly certain that the Barnett who appears as 'married' to Louisa for 23 years in the 1911 census is 'our' Barnett. 23 years puts the start of their relationship in 1888, if we accept that as a true reckoning.

The MJK candidacy of Mary Jane Wilson hinges on whether she could have had a child on Sept. 1st, 1887 and registered his birth in Liverpool on October 24th, what with Joe Barnett's statement.

If his statement can be proven to be unreliable, with a proven marriage in the third quarter of 1887, then MJW is back in play, if she was ever really out of it.

[Debra A]

Hello Richard. Absolutely--it says it all.

Not to mention "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn and Richard
It says nothing really. As sally says, there is a very good likely Barnet traceable from 1897 onwards. One possible reason no one has traced him in 1891 is something like this may have happened to the page his entry appears on:

This is a page from the register of lodgers at Cooney's lodging house on census night 1891-anyone listed amongst the last half a dozen names will not be indexed under any name and they become 'untraceable in the 1891 census.

[Sally]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5320

[Sally]

?

Hi Craig,
I can inform you that Leanne's book did not reveal any new details , the fact is nobody to date has managed to trace the Joseph Barnett in question, considering all the research that has taken place over all these years.
Says it all....
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard - I'm not sure I follow - perhaps I'm missing something here?

Is there a reason to think that the Joseph Barnett identified by Paley; almost certainly the same man who is attested as 'married' to Louisa in the 1911 census, is not the same Barnett once living with Kelly?

I don't always have time to keep up with current developments (although I try) so perhaps things have moved on?

In any case, that particular Barnett has been traced from 1897 onwards in the Raine Street Infirmary records - I'm sure I can find the thread somewhere.

Assuming that he is the same Barnett who lived with Kelly, he still hasn't been traced between the end of '88 and '97 - 9 or 10 years.

[lynn cates]

all

Hello Richard. Absolutely--it says it all.

Not to mention "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Craig,
I can inform you that Leanne's book did not reveal any new details , the fact is nobody to date has managed to trace the Joseph Barnett in question, considering all the research that has taken place over all these years.
Says it all....
Regards Richard.

[Craig H]

Hi all,

I’ve just started posting, but have been reading your posts with interest over recent months.

I’m interested in what happened to Joseph Barnet after 1888.

Thanks for the reference to Joseph and Louisa Barnett in 1911 Census where they both said they were married 23 years.

I have ordered the Joseph Barnett – Louisa Rowe marriage certificate and will post details when it arrives.

I have also organised for a London based researcher who will see if she can find any “death notices” published in a newspaper in November 1926 (when Louisa and Joseph Barnett died). One of these may be from Louisa’s family which would show her maiden name. This researcher will also try to find their burial records (am assuming they’re in Tower Hamlet cemetery) to see if they have a gravestone which mentions Louisa’s family.

I’ll post this information if we find anything

Also, I asked on another thread ….. do any of you know where I could get the Leanne Perry book “Catch me when you can” ? I understand Leanne did some research into Joseph Barnett.

Kind regards
Craig