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

[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.

[lynn cates]

all

Hello Richard. Absolutely--it says it all.

Not to mention "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[Sally]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[GUT]

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

Thanks for the post.

[Sally]

Louisa Rowe

Craig -

Thanks for posting the marriage certificate.

This Louisa Rowe was born in Hackney at some point between 1865 and 67 (there are a couple of possible candidates in the bmd). Her father was John Rowe, her mother Alice Rowe. She had younger siblings called Emma and Franklin. In the 1871 census, the family was living at 58, Slingsby Cottages, Hackney. Her father John is listed simply as a ‘Writer’.
In the 1881 census, John is living with his family, minus Louisa, at 15, Morning Lane, Hackney. He is listed as a Sign Writer; as he is in the 1901 census, by which time he was living in Camberwell with his wife Alice.

An entry for a Louisa Rowe, a 15 year old domestic servant living at 76, Powerscroft Road, Hackney in the 1881 census may be the same Louisa Rowe as above.

There is an entry in the 1891 census for a Louisa Barnett, born in Hackney* in 1867 and married to a Joseph Barnett, born 1859 in Waterford, Ireland – then working as an asylum attendant in Prestwich, Lancashire. It is possible that these Barnetts are the same individuals listed on the 1887 marriage certificate. Their ages in 1891, and Louisa’s place of birth are compatible with the details on the marriage certificate, and from what can be determined for her census records.


If this Joseph Barnett originate in Ireland, there is no guarantee that he had lived in England for very long in 1887 - he could have migrated at any point - and there is no guarantee that he brought any other family members with him.

Further digging might reveal more information - but at any rate, thie Louisa can be accounted for in the record and there is no indication at all that she was the same Louisa Barnett married to Kelly's Joe.

* The transcription cites her birthplace as ‘Hackney, Lancashire’ but of course this is an error. The actual census return cites her birthplace as ‘London Hackney’.