Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[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.

The question about this marriage certificate is also been asked on the "victim-MJK" thread so I posted this reply there as well.

Craig

[MayBea]

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.

Thanks, Craig, but aren't you jumping to conclusions?

This Joe Barnett still has to be the Joe Barnett found in the 1911 Census, occupation Fish Porter, 'married' for 23 years to a woman Chris Scott identified as Agnes Louisa Rowe.

There are no other alternatives I found in 1891. Joe Barnett/Agnes Louisa Rowe have to be Joseph Barnett/Louise Rowe. How can it not be?

As for the father John, that was the father of Kent Joe which even Chris Scott was beginning to deny. He could also have lied about his job to hide his identity. If he married in the third quarter of 1887, he'd have to be considered a liar with regard to his statements regarding Mary Kelly and himself.

[MayBea]

Correction: Chris Scott was saying he was convinced his "Kent-based" Barnett is not our Joe. That would be the Barnett who moved to Kent, married and became a labourer.

The father John who lived in Kent is still the correct father.

But does that mean we don't have the right marriage certificate? I don't think it does, if we agree that Joe 'wife' was Agnes Louisa Rowe. All indications are that he did.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10339&page=4
http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ettporter.html

[Sally]

Hi May,

But does that mean we don't have the right marriage certificate? I don't think it does, if we agree that Joe 'wife' was Agnes Louisa Rowe. All indications are that he did.

Except that the identification with Agnes Louisa Rowe appears to be a speculative assumption to start with. I've had a quick look at the family tree on which Agnes Louisa Rowe appears as Barnett's 'wife' and it is highlighted as a speculative identification - that means that they don't know, to put it plainly.

As I thought, the likelihood is that 'Louisa Rowe's appearing on Barnett - related family trees on Ancestry are assumptions based on the only recorded marriage between a Joseph Barnett and a 'Louisa' being the only one to take place anywhere near 1888 in London.

In other words, there is no evidence to tie them together. As Chris, and now Craig, have said, the details on this marriage certificate do not match what is known of Kelly's Barnett.

This is not the same man, and the Louisa Rowe marrying him is not the same Louisa 'married' to him for 23 years in 1911.

They are not the same people, it is not the marriage certificate of Kelly's Barnett to his 'wife' Louisa.

[MayBea]

If you believe that this 'false' Joe Barnett was telling the truth when he said he was a Mariner with a father Michael, is there then such a person fitting those details in the census record?

[Cogidubnus]

Conversely if he was a mariner and often away, it's quite feasible for him not to appear...depends really on what kind of mariner...clearly there's a bit of a difference between the Woolwich Ferry and the China Station!

All the best

Dave

[MayBea]

That's more reason to pick Mariner as a phoney job. The census can't catch you!

Searching all the records on Ancestry, I found only one matching Joseph Barnett with a father Michael. He was born in 1845 in Lancashire. He's a colliery carpenter in 1881 still with his parents. (Someone might want to look in 1891 to see if he's a Mariner or if there's a Louisa Barnett who's a Mariner's wife.)

The only other ones are one born in 1878 in Kent and one in London born 1905.

[Craig H]

Attached is Joseph Barnett / Louise Rowe marriage certificate September1887.
Joseph, 28 years old, was a musician, father Michael Barnett, 28 years old (coachman)
Louise, 22 years old, father was John Rowe(sign painter)
No signature

Rgds
Craig

[MayBea]

Thanks for posting the certificate, Craig. It's too bad there's no signature of the groom.

Although the details don't match our Joe Barnett, we still haven't found this Joe Barnett and Louise Rowe on the same census records as our Joe and Louisa Rowe, indicating they are different people. The latter are missing in 1891 and 1901.

The Clerkenwell Louisa from the 1881 Census was eliminated by Debra.
http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10339&page=2

Are we to believe that a Joseph Barnett happened to drop in from Ireland and marry a Louise/Louisa Rowe, in the only Joe Barnett/Rowe marriage in the record, the same year our Joe 'married' a Louisa Rowe?

[Craig H]

I've been thinking more about ideas from others on Joseph Barnett's wife "Louisa".

Louisa said in 1911 Census that she was 55 years old. As the 1911 census was conducted on April 1 - 2, then she must have turned 55 sometime between April 1855 - March 1856.

We know Louisa was born in 1856 (Raine Street Infirmary Records). Therefore Louisa was born sometime January - March 1856.

I couldn't find any Louisa's born in that time and living in Whitechapel area in 1881 Census, and single, who could have met Joseph in 1888.

Both Joseph and Louisa said in 1911 Census they had been married 23 years, which means 1888. This seems difficult as Joseph was with MJK when she died November 1888.

However, as others have noted - Joseph and Louisa were poor - and many folk back then said then said they were " married" when living together.

Joseph & Louisa had no children so may be no need for a civil wedding.

Others have quoted the "Wheeling Register" of November 1888 which said Joseph was living with a woman who testified at MJK's inquest. This woman was a "certain notorious Whitechapel character"

If Joseph and his wife were "married" in 1888, then it is likely that this is his "wife"

Only 6 women testified- Elizabeth Prater, Sarah Lewis, Julia Venturney, Mary Ann Cox, Caroline Maxwell and Maria Harvey.

We can exclude those who had children (as Louisa had none) or were married.

This leaves Mary Ann Cox - a widow and. "Unfortunate" .

If we look for women called "Mary Ann" who married a Cox, who then died, it would appear to be Mary Ann Levine who married Robert Cox who then died in 1886.

Looking at previous census records, this Mary Levine was born Mary Lepine in June quarter 1886.

Is it possible Mary Ann Cox was the notorious character who moved in with Joseph and became his wife. This may explain why she changed her name to "Emily" in 1901 census and the "Louisa".

Also curious why they had no children.
over to you

Craig

[curious]

Is it possible Mary Ann Cox was the notorious character who moved in with Joseph and became his wife. This may explain why she changed her name to "Emily" in 1901 census and the "Louisa".


Craig

Are you able to find "Mary Ann Cox" in the 1891 census?

curious

[GUT]

G'day Craig

Is it possible Mary Ann Cox was the notorious character who moved in with Joseph and became his wife. This may explain why she changed her name to "Emily" in 1901 census and the "Louisa".

I may be just tired but...

I can see how it might explain the Emily but how does it explain the Louisa?

Also why Cox change her name but not Joe?

[Craig H]

Hi Curious,

I looked in the 1891 Census and couldn't find her.

In 1888, Mary Ann Cox was a widow, 31 year old so born in 1857. No one like that in 1891 living in Whitechapel area.

If we broaden the "Living in" area to beyond Whitechapel, we find several "Mary Ann Cox". However they are married (unlikely Mary Ann married someone with same surname as her first husband), or living with own parents (who would have a different surname).

Craig

[curious]

Hi Curious,

I looked in the 1891 Census and couldn't find her.

In 1888, Mary Ann Cox was a widow, 31 year old so born in 1857. No one like that in 1891 living in Whitechapel area.

If we broaden the "Living in" area to beyond Whitechapel, we find several "Mary Ann Cox". However they are married (unlikely Mary Ann married someone with same surname as her first husband), or living with own parents (who would have a different surname).

Craig

Hi, Craig,
Very interesting. According the notes about her, I think of Mary Ann Cox as being quite homely.

So, would Barnett have gone from Kelly to Cox? Of course, when people are going through devastating events such as Barnett did, it was most likely whoever was there for him.

interesting. Thanks.

curious

[Sally]

Hi Craig

A few points to consider if you plan to pursue the Cox line of enquiry:

Your argument depends on the accuracy of the report in the Wheeling Register; which may - or may not - be accurate. A good test might be to see if you can find the same information repeated elsewhere. If the Wheeling Register is the only example, I'd treat it with caution if I were you.

As for Mary Ann Cox - have you considered that she may have died before the 1891 census; or have remarried? I did a cursory check and found quite a few women with the same name born in or about 1856 getting married in London - For example a Mary Ann Cox, widow, born 1856, remarrying in Islington in December 1888 - I don't necessarily think that it's the same woman, but it could be - what's to stop a person from moving around?

And why change her name? Mary Ann was a common christian name; there'd have been nothing really to tie her to a particular individual once she and Barnett had moved away from the immediate area.

Just things to keep in mind. Good luck with your reearch.