Bios of Maria Harvey & Joe Barnett after 1888?

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
Regarding the listing for 31 Old Gravel Lane of Joseph and Emily Barnet, it is certainly interesting but my main thought is that there are too many unresolved features at this stage to be more emphatic. The name (albeit with one T) and general area are really the only items in support. The age, name of spouse, age of spouse, trade - all are at variance so at the present stage I think all one can say is that it is an interesting possibility.

[lynn cates]

calculation

Hello Chris. Thanks. Is it possible that Barnett is merely off in his calculations? That seems a frequent occurrence in genealogies.

If correct, what are the implications? Two women?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris Scott]

Personally I would think that for a man to get his age wrong by 5 years (when previously and after the records of his age are spot on) and also to get his own wife's name and age wrong takes a lot of believing.
I am 99% certain that this is NOT the Barnett who lived with Mary Kelly.

[Bridewell]

Hi Chris,

If it's the same Joseph Barnett and he didn't miscalculate the length of his marriage, is there any other possibility than that he was leading a double life?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
Regarding the listing for 31 Old Gravel Lane of Joseph and Emily Barnet, it is certainly interesting but my main thought is that there are too many unresolved features at this stage to be more emphatic. The name (albeit with one T) and general area are really the only items in support. The age, name of spouse, age of spouse, trade - all are at variance so at the present stage I think all one can say is that it is an interesting possibility.

Hi Chris, Thanks. Sally also found another entry for a Joseph Barnett b 1859 in the Raine Street infirmary records in 1899? Do you think this could be the same 1911 Barnett seeing as the age matches and also Louisa was known to have been at Raine St in 1911?

[Bridewell]

Harvey

Ask for it again: what on Maria Harvey past nov' 9 ?

Hi Gene,

Ancestry has seven Maria Harveys listed of about the right age to be Mary's friend. One seems to have been based in Buckinghamshire throughout, but she could easily be any one of the other six, from a cursory examination at least, although none is really convincing.

There's one who may interest Lynn Cates - married to Edward E Harvey & living at 'York Villa', Park Road, Plumstead. Her husband's occupation is listed as :
2nd Div Clerk: "War Office".
If this is her though, what was she doing on Dorset Street in 1888?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris Scott]

With regard to Maria Harvey, I thought I had lost these notes!
Way back when, as I was doing the work for the "Cast of Thousands" project, I did some work on Maria Harvey which, as it turned out, I did not use.
For what it's worth below are the notes on the woman I considered at the time as the best bet to be Kelly's friend. This was only ever a possible and I make no definite claim that this IS her, only that it is a possible.

1891
65 Westmoreland Place, Hoxton
Head: Maria Harvey (Widow) aged 42 born Clerkenwell - Mangler (Wash)
Children:
Charles aged 23 born Islington - Stick dresser
Alfred aged 21 born Bow - Stick dresser
Caroline aged 18 born Clerkenwell - Machinist
Florette aged 15 born Clerkenwell - Envelope folder
Herbert aged 13 born Clerkenwell - Stick dresser's apprentice
William aged 10 born Hoxton
Lawrence aged 7 born Hoxton
Edith aged 4 born Hoxton
Brother: George Scott aged 38 born Islington - Stick dresser
The fortuitous presence of maria's brother tells us that her maiden name would have been Maria Scott.

Westmoreland Place is now named Westland Place and runs north off the City Road north-west of Old Street. At the northern end, Westland Place runs into Nile Street, one time street of residence of Henrietta, Joseph Fleming's mother.

The oldest child listed was 23 in 1891 so would have been born about 1868, so assuming all were legitimate, the marriage should be probably not long before this. In fact Maria married in 1865.
Church of St Philip, Clerkenwell
Date: 25 December 1865
Groom:
Name: Charles Harvey
Age: 23
Condition: Bachelor
Profession: Carver
Residence: 17 Green Terrace
Father's name: Joseph Harvey
Father's trade: Printer
Bride:
Name: Maria Scott
Age: 19
Condition: Spinster
Residence: 7 City Gardens
Father's name: William Scott
Father's trade: Watch finisher
Witnesses:
William Scott
Emma Thomas

Regarding the date of Maria becoming a widow, in 1891 the youngest child, Edith is listed as 4 years old, therefore born about 1887. Allowing for the term of the pregnancy, Charles Harvey could have died any time after about mid 1886. From the marriage record we know he was born in about 1842.
The only likely record is:-
Name: Charles Henry W Harvey
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1843
Date of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec 1890
Age at Death: 47
Registration district: Shoreditch
Inferred County: London

Other addresses:
1881 census
27 Westmoreland Place, Hoxton

Prior to her marriage, Maria is listed as follows:-
1851 census
5 Brewer Street, Clerkenwell
Head: James Aldhouse aged 76 born Ipswich - Roadsman
Wife: Maria Aldhouse aged 68 born Ipswich
Son in law: William Scott aged 27 born St Lukes - Watchmaker and finisher
Daughter: Hannah Scott aged 24 born Hoxton
Grandchildren:
Hannah aged 6 born St Lukes
Maria aged 4 born Clerkenwell
William aged 1 born St Lukes

1861 census:
7 City Gardens, Islington
Head: William Scott aged 37 born St Lukes - Watch finisher
Wife: Hannah Scott aged 33 born Islington
Children:
Hannah aged 16 born St Lukes - Flower seller
Maria aged 14 born Clerkenwell
William aged 11 born St Lukes
George aged 8 born Islington
John aged 6 born Islington
Eliza aged 3 born Islington

This I believe to be Maria's death:
Name: Maria Harvey
Birth Date: abt 1847
Date of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar 1933
Age at Death: 86
Registration district: Shoreditch
Inferred County: London

[Bridewell]

Hi Chris,

I bow my head in admiration. Awesome research! I made the mistake of assuming that MJK's friend would be of or about her own age and set the parameters too narrow. Lesson learned. Just as an aside, it's interesting that she was married on Christmas Day.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Chris,

I bow my head in admiration. Awesome research! I made the mistake of assuming that MJK's friend would be of or about her own age and set the parameters too narrow. Lesson learned. Just as an aside, it's interesting that she was married on Christmas Day.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell
I stress that this is only a possible - we cannot definitely say this is Kelly's houseguest but definitely worth a look, in my opinion

[Bridewell]

I stress that this is only a possible - we cannot definitely say this is Kelly's houseguest

It's still awesome research, Chris - & very interesting. Thank-you.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Debra A]

Awesome original research by Sally too!
Just flying the flag for us females who's posts aren't even read or even considered now? *cough* ..the 1899 Joseph Barnett in Raine St mentioned by Sally?

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
If you look at post #12 in this thread I do acknowledge the work that Sally did last year and included a link to the thread where her research was posted.
Chris

[Sally]

Awesome original research by Sally too!
Just flying the flag for us females who's posts aren't even read or even considered now? *cough* ..the 1899 Joseph Barnett in Raine St mentioned by Sally?

Thanks Debra I don't think I'm important enough to get on the research radar though.

There are entries for a Louisa and a Joseph Barnett in the Raine Street Infirmary records from 1898. I think I put the details on the 1901 thread from memory.

As for the 1901 census entry - I agree that it looks unlikely at first glance - in fact I passed it over entirely before I realised just how close Old Gravel Lane was to other documented addresses for Joseph Barnett. Since I noticed that (bit slow..) I think in all probability they are one and the same.

There is no obvious sign of Joseph and Emily Barnet in the record apart from on that occasion; and a missing Joseph and Louisa Barnett from the 1901 Census. If, as seems likely, the Joseph and Louisa Barnett in the infrimary records are the people attested in the 1911 census; then they lived in the immediate vicinity from at least 1898.

So where are they in the 1901 Census?

That's my reasoning. Others may disagree - and that's fine - but I'm happy with it.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
If you look at post #12 in this thread I do acknowledge the work that Sally did last year and included a link to the thread where her research was posted.
Chris

But if you check my later post, I ask about the Joseph barnett b c 1859 Sally found in Raine St (where Louisa was)in 1899 (slap bang in the middle of the mising years!)..

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra I don't think I'm important enough to get on the research radar though.

There are entries for a Louisa and a Joseph Barnett in the Raine Street Infirmary records from 1898. I think I put the details on the 1901 thread from memory.

As for the 1901 census entry - I agree that it looks unlikely at first glance - in fact I passed it over entirely before I realised just how close Old Gravel Lane was to other documented addresses for Joseph Barnett. Since I noticed that (bit slow..) I think in all probability they are one and the same.

There is no obvious sign of Joseph and Emily Barnet in the record apart from on that occasion; and a missing Joseph and Louisa Barnett from the 1901 Census. If, as seems likely, the Joseph and Louisa Barnett in the infrimary records are the people attested in the 1911 census; then they lived in the immediate vicinity from at least 1898.

So where are they in the 1901 Census?

That's my reasoning. Others may disagree - and that's fine - but I'm happy with it.

I'm following, Sally.Don't worry!