Folks, Matthew Lilley was born 1839,Yaxley,Huntingdonshire and in 1841,1851 and 1861 census is still with his parents and siblings,working as ag lab,so far so good. 1871 census Chorlton on Medlock RG10/3988,fol 146,page 38 married to Fanny with three children and servants,but the kicker is his occupation,Professor of Medicine!! General Medical Council indicates historical records are on A******y but this drew a blank. Date and place of birth match,but i have trouble understanding how an ag lab to professor transformation occurs in 10 years. Distant relative so not critical to tree.One tree shows he went to US and died there. Any clever ideas,please? Eric
What's also odd is that, according to the entry, his wife is also a professor of Medicine and against her occupation is something like N6D U S.A. Of course 'professor' usually just meant 'teacher' and not the elevated academic position we think of today. Even so it's all rather mysterious. Thinking cap is on!
Immediate thoughts are that he was maybe a quack (sorry!) - 'wonder potion cures all', that sort of thing.
From the Oxford Journal 22 November 1873. "Matthew Lilley, a professor of Medicine [?] Banbury Market, and Mr R Gregory of K[illegible], farmer, were summoned.….for cruelly illusing [sic] and torturing a horse. B[……] that Mr Gregory had sold the Professor a [?] that it could only go on three legs, and the [?] was the sending it from King's Sutton to Banbury [?] a state. The case was adjourned for a fortnight [?] opinion of a veterinary surgeon." The [?] are because the right hand side of the page is folded over.
This might help fill in some details, Eric: From Oxfordshire FHS Parish Register Transcripts of Watlington: 25 July 1864 Matthew LILLEY, 25, bachelor, Optician, of the parish, son of David LILLEY, Farmer & Ann (not Fanny) ROBINSON, 20, spinster, of the parish, daughter of Charles GOOD, Shoemaker. Witnesses: William SHAW & Sarah SHAW. Matthew signed but Ann made her mark. I wonder if Ann died and Matthew remarried somewhere because if she were semi-literate she would hardly be qualified as a Doctor. No baptisms of any LILLEY children at Watlington nor LILLEY burials either. If daughter Fanny was born c1863, she is not the daughter of Matthew & Ann nor the daughter of an Ann ROBINSON prior to the marriage as she does not appear in the baptismal transcripts under either name. Will look some more. Janet
This looks like his second marriage, courtesy Ancestry's London Parish Registers: 25 February 1875 at Islington Matthew LILLEY, full age, widower, Herbalist, 7 St James Rd, father David LILLEY, Farrier & Frances PENFOLD, full age, widow, 2a Roman Road, father Richard NIXON, Plumber. Witnesses: George PENFOLD & Caroline WELLS? All parties signed. So it does not appear that they were married when they were living together in the 1871 census - unless of course Matthew had 3 wives! Janet
1880 US Census, Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut. All born England Mathew Lilley 42, physician Annie Lilley 43 Fannie Lilley 17 Rosa Lilley 14 1900 Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut. Married 45yrs. Immigrated 1877 Matthew Lilley 64, retired physician Annie 73
Further to what Flook found for you in post 5, Matthew is described as follows: Mr R GREGORY of Kings Sutton & Mr Matthew LILLEY, known as "Professor LILLEY", a "travelling physician". Sounds like Bay Horse had it dead to rights! There is a death registration for an Ann LILLEY in 1870, aged 22, at Islington reg district. Perhaps Ann ROBINSON lied about her age on her marriage record and was in fact only 16. Lots of porkies seem to be going on as regards this line! Janet
I'm interested that he is described as a herbalist as I have an ancestor in Shoreditch in 1881 who is also one - before that he was a porter in 1871 as he was in 1891. I'm very much inclined to agree with Bay Horse in post 4 - i.e. that a little self-aggrandissment never did you any harm when you're trying to relieve others of their hard-earned cash!!
Wow, what a family. There is another snippet in the Ipswich Journal dated 22 June 1875 to the effect that a William BETTS, Confectioner of Burlington Road was summoned for assaulting Mrs Frances LILLEY, wife of "Professor" Matthew LILLEY and threatening to kill his daughter Caroline BETTS - she would appear to have been the witness at wedding of Matthew & Frances judging from subsequent information in the article. The cross examination stated that Frances LILLEY's husband was not a Professor of any College and that Frances LILLEY was accused of assaulting William BETTS. Much more on the case if you can manage to see the article. Janet
Ancestry also have a Naturalization record for Matthew LILLEY of Waterbury Connecticut, aged 44, dated 24 October 1883. Janet
This seems to be Frances Penfold, nee Hixon/Nixon in 1871. 1 Grove Cottage, St James, Finsbury. RG10 Piece 273 Folio 52 Page 37 John Penfold 48 Frances Penfold 38 Charlotte Penfold 16 Henry Penfold 14 Emily Hixon 14, dau Adelade Pizzey 33
It certainly is confusing, Eric. Puzzle 1) Matthew Lilley marries in 1864 Ann Robinson, a spinster whose father is Charles Good? Puzzle 2) 1871 census Matthew wife FANNY M, born Worcester. Puzzle 3) 1874 Matthew marries Frances Penfold nee Nixon, a widow who cannot be the Fanny in 1871 census, as she is with her husband John Penfold in 1871. Puzzle 4) 1880 and 1900 US census have Matthew with wife Annie Puzzle 5) Not found on passenger lists.
Rose E Lilley and James Walter Lilley's births were registered in Peterborough which was the reg district for Yaxley. James Walter appears to have died in Chorlton Dec qrt 1871, age 2, 8c 464 Not as yet found an appropriate birth reg for Fanny circa 1863
On the 1900 US census Matthew and Annie claim to have been married 45yrs, I do think it's the same couple as 1880 as they are living the same location and Matthew is a "retired physician". The 1900 census asked 'mother of how many children', the answer is [annoyingly] difficult to read but is either 8 or 0, but as she also claims none have died I'm inclined to think it's 8??? Another puzzler! Or, is it 0, as neither Fanny nor Rose are her daughters.
If 0 children then she either told a fib, or Annie is not Frances Penfold nee Nixon. In the 1871 census John and Frances Penfold are with two Penfold children [probably John's but not Frances'] and Emily Hixon/Nixon daughter.
1861, London City, RG 9; Piece: 224; Folio: 63; Page: 19 Frances Hixon * 22, paperbag maker, St ?????? Emily Hixon 4, Christchurch, Middlesex *Hixon has been corrected by a user to Nixon. In 1871 John Penfold and Frances are both paper bag makers.
