Where is this?

Just another snippet of information - the 1841 census of Eltham (HO107/482/8, folio 21, page 23) shows William BROOK as a 20 year old Ag Lab living in the household of Thomas GIMSON & family at Pope Street and the next entry down, Belmont Farm, shows a 20 year old Sarah LARKIN - is this how they met? Now I am getting confused. The 1871 census of Biddendon (RG10/953, folio 37, page 3) shows John MITCHELL, Head, Unm, 74, Tea Dealer born High Halden, together with widowed sister Sarah BROOK, aged 72, born High Halden, nephew William BROOK, aged 52, Dust Contractor, born Biddendon & William's wife Sarah BROOK, aged 53, born Biddendon. Were William & Sarah visiting John MITCHELL on the night of the 1871 census and did one of their children fill in the census form as if they were at home in Eltham? And if so, how does Sarah BROOK nee MITCHEL (baptised 13 May 1799 at High Halden daughter of William & Elizabeth) fit with William BROOK, Dust Contractor. Ah, she is probably his Aunt as a Sarah MITCHELL married James BROOK, a widower, on 4 November 1822 at Maidstone and a Sarah BROOKS, widow, aged 52 born High Halden is in the 1851 census of Maidstone (HO107/1617, folio 369, page 9) living with son Thomas at Stone Street.

It still does not help finding the baptismal record for James MITCHEL(L) but does tie in the William BROOK(S)/MITCHEL(L) connection as a Mary MITCHELL is baptised at High Halden on 27 December 1794, daughter of William & Elizabeth as Flook has already found for you.

Janet
 
janetbooth said:
Both of William BROOK's marriage records show his father to be William BROOK, Labourer, so we are presumably looking for a marriage of a William BROOK to a female MITCHEL prior to 1818 which is the approximate birthdate for William according to his 2nd marriage record. FMP have the transcription of a marriage at Hellingly on 15 June 1817 of William BROOK of Biddendon to a Mary MITCHELL of the parish, so that presumably links the MITCHEL(L) relatives of James to Hellingly in some way.

Janet
Click to expand...
Yes I like that a lot better than my shot in the dark. It all makes much better sense. (BTW I see the marriage date as 7 July 1817).
 
That's all good Janet. I hadn't noticed the overlap between the 1871 censuses before. I suspect you're right and that Charles filled in the Eltham return (or William may have filled it in before he travelled to Biddenden).

I'm trying to ignore William Mitchell the potter born 1793 in High Halden as he and his family are a constant distraction and I can't pin down his baptism anyway!).

Having said that, there is a James Mitchell who could be ours.

1841 Census: HO107 Piece 459 Book 16 Fol. 5 Page 3
Hams House Cottage, Lamberhurst
James Mitchell, 30, Ag Lab, not born in county
Mary Mitchell, 35, born in Kent

There is also a burial on Family Search for a Mary Anne Mitchell in Lamberhurst 21 June 1841 - the birth year is given as 1804. This would justify James being described as a widower in the 1871 Eltham Census.
 
Where the heck did I get 15 June 1817 from! I know I was thinking about Christmas things but really!! Apologies and thank goodness for Flook checking things out.

As a follow on from the above post, a James MITCHELL is in the 1851 census of Lamberhurst, Kent (although Ancestry have shown it as in Sussex) - HO107/1639, folio 492, page 5 - and he is shown as a Widower, aged 43, Farm Lab, born Sussex, Bollington?, lodging in the household of Willm PARKINS and family.

Janet
 
Could James's place of birth in the 1851 census actually be Dallington? 1861 census of Brenchley, Kent (RG9/496, folio 38, page 13) shows a James MITCHELL, Widower, aged 53, Carter's Mate, born Warbleton, Sussex lodging at the Blue Boys Inn. I'm afraid I know very little about Sussex or Kent, but Warbleton looks to be very close to Dallington. However, try as I might, the only baptismal record for a James MITCHEL(L) 5 years either side of 1808 in Sussex with parents William & Elizabeth is the one at Hellingly on 20 September 1805 according to FMP and he is in Hellingly in the 1871 census with wife Susan and is in Ely in the 1851 census.

FreeReg do have a baptism in Smarden, Kent which according to a Google search is fairly close to both Biddenden & High Halden for a James MITCHELL in 1808 but there are no other details, so I have no idea whether he is likely to be your James or not. No, we can scrub that one out as FMP show his parents to be James & Hannah. Back to square 1!

Janet
 
janetbooth said:
As a follow on from the above post, a James MITCHELL is in the 1851 census of Lamberhurst, Kent (although Ancestry have shown it as in Sussex) - HO107/1639, folio 492, page 5 - and he is shown as a Widower, aged 43, Farm Lab, born Sussex, Bollington?, lodging in the household of Willm PARKINS and family. Janet
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in the end, this would appear to be James Mitchell son of Henry & Elizabeth, baptised Dallington 20 September 1807.

However I have a theory which I think identifies James which I'll post in a while when I've got my act together (having just come back from a very pleasant lunch!). It's very simple:).
 
Flook said:
However I have a theory which I think identifies James which I'll post in a while when I've got my act together (having just come back from a very pleasant lunch!). It's very simple:).
Click to expand...

Ah, I've hit a snag I'm afraid, but I'm still working on it.
 
janetbooth said:
It still does not help finding the baptismal record for James MITCHEL(L) but does tie in the William BROOK(S)/MITCHEL(L) connection as a Mary MITCHELL is baptised at High Halden on 27 December 1794, daughter of William & Elizabeth as Flook has already found for you.
Click to expand...
Am I right in saying that you're thinking that William Brooke 1818 is the son of William the brother of Richard Bap 1794 Biddenden who married Mary Mitchell sister of Sarah?
Or William is the son of William who married a Mary Mitchell whose brother James married her sister Sarah

There is a bap 1786 for William Brook in Biddenham same parents of William and Catherine as Richard 1794, but I can't find a James
 
janetbooth said:
so we are presumably looking for a marriage of a William BROOK to a female MITCHEL prior to 1818 which is the approximate birthdate for William
Click to expand...

Confusingly, could be a red herring o_O
William Brook
Gender: Male
Marriage Date: 7 Jul 1817
Marriage Place: Hellingly, Sussex, England
Spouse: Mary Mitchell
 
1871 Census: RG10 Piece 762 Fol. 92 Pages 42 & 43
Pope Street, 1, Theobalds Buildings, Eltham, Lewisham, Kent.
William Brooks, Head, age 52, Dust Contractor, born Biddington [Biddenden]
Sarah Brooks, wife, 54, born Biddington
Charles Brooks, son, single, 20, Dust Contractor, born Eltham, Pope Street.
Eliza Brooks, daughter, 14, born Eltham, Kent
Emily Gregory, granddaughter, 6, born Tunbridge Wells, Kent
James Mitchel, uncle, widower, 60, Farm Labourer, born Biddington


1871 Census: RG10 Piece 953 Fol. 37 Page 3
Brickwall House, Biddenden, Kent
John Mitchell, Head, Unmarried, 74, Tea Dealer, born High Halden, Kent
Sarah Mitchell, Sister, Widow, 72, Formerly Laundress, born High Halden, Kent
William Brook, Nephew, Married, 52, Dust Contractor, born Biddenden
Sarah Brook, Niece, Married, 53, Formerly Dressmaker, born Biddenden

I must say that I've searched everywhere I can think of but just cannot identify this James Mitchell. A real possibility is that his name is in a baptism register but hasn't been transcribed.

janetbooth said:
Were William & Sarah visiting John MITCHELL on the night of the 1871 census and did one of their children fill in the census form as if they were at home in Eltham?
Janet
Click to expand...

I think Janet may have put her finger on a key part of the problem.

I think it's safe to assume that William and Sarah were visiting John Mitchell in 1871 and were not at home in Eltham. If they had been in Eltham then there would have been absolutely no reason for them to be on the Biddenden census.

This means that Charles filled out the Eltham census and quite logically he put down the Head of the family, William, and his mother Sarah. Having said that, Charles must be describing James as his own uncle, not William or Sarah's. As all the Mitchel children born after 1799 were born in Hellingly rather than Biddenden, then unless James told a big fib about his age it seems to me that Charles decided he had been born in Biddenden where he knew there were other Mitchel's. Charles was born about 1850 and it's quite possible he didn't know anything about a family connection with Hellingly. This leads me to think that James only had a cursory input in to the information on the census form (maybe he was out when Charles completed it) or that he wasn't really interested.

So we can't rely on James's place of birth or even, possibly, his age. Another thing we can't rely on is the description of 'uncle'. He could, for example, be a cousin of Mary Brook (née Mitchel (married 1817)).

I'm flummoxed. He's out there somewhere but I know not where!!
 
janetbooth said:
FreeReg do have a baptism in Smarden, Kent which according to a Google search is fairly close to both Biddenden & High Halden for a James MITCHELL in 1808 but there are no other details, so I have no idea whether he is likely to be your James or not. No, we can scrub that one out as FMP show his parents to be James & Hannah. Back to square 1!
Janet
Click to expand...

Now this is an interesting find. I didn't realise Smarden parish bordered both High Halden and Biddenden parishes and looking at the 1851 census James (baptised 1809) isn't there but his parents seem to be in Boughton Monchelsea (which by chance(?) is only 4 miles from Sutton Valence - cf Sarah Larking)):

James Mitchell, 77, Pauper shoemaker, born High Halden
Hannah Mitchell, wife, 74, born Smarden.

I've not done any digging but there must be a chance James the father is related to William Mitchell the father of John and Caroline (1861 census).

Well I've now done a little digging and Family Search has the baptism of James Mitchel in High Halden 22 May 1774 - Parents William and Susannah Mitchel.
There is also a brother William baptised 28 June 1772.

Is this the William who married Elisabeth Milton in High Halden in April 1793?

What a good place to stop for the night:)!!

(P.S. All this does need double-checking: I confess I'm getting Mitcheled out!)
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I can't resist....

James Mitchell married Hannah Shoesmith in Smarden 13 August 1807 [Family Search]. Their son James was baptised in Smarden 12 June 1808 [FMP Kent Baptisms].

Now I really must pack up as the Ashes are starting!!
 
By the way, if any of you are looking for any of these people in Smarden in 1841, you will not find them :(

The 1841 census for Smarden is one of those that was destroyed. I know this as it is where one branch of my family came from...
 
I think, no I know, I have brain ache! I do like the James & Hannah MITCHELL you have found, Flook especially the High Halden connection. Given that descriptions of relatives were somewhat tenuous in earlier times, their son James could well be the uncle James MITCHELL in the 1871 census.

Janet
 
I have no idea whether this is your James MITCHELL but, given that he was a Farm Labourer, there is an article in the Kentish Gazette dated 18 November 1845 wherein a James MITCHELL won 10s for being the driver of the best ploughman 2nd class, James STAPLEY, at the Ashford Agricultural Association ploughing match. However, I still cannot find a likely James MITCHEL(L) in earlier census records.

Further to post 32, also a sister Frances baptised at High Halden on 18 October 1789, daughter of Wm & Susannah MITCHEL.

Janet
 
Flook said:
James Mitchell married Hannah Shoesmith in Smarden 13 August 1807 [Family Search]. Their son James was baptised in Smarden 12 June 1808 [FMP Kent Baptisms].
Click to expand...


The Kentish Gazette of 18 August 1807 has the following announcement:

Married: "Aug. 14, at Smarden, Mr James Mitchell, shoemaker, of High Halden, to Miss Hannah Shoesmith, of Smarden".

Their 1841 Census entry is:
HO107 Piece 456 Book 12 Fol. 7 Page 6
Boughton Green, Boughton Monchelsea, Kent

James Mitchell, 68, Shoe-m[aker], born in Kent
Hannah Mitchell, 60, born in Kent
 
Perhaps this is the above James MITCHELL, Shoemaker: Jas MITCHELL of Maidstone, Kent, Cordwainer, takes on Wm BRYANT as an apprentice on 12 October 1792. And going back to the parents of said James & perhaps the William who married Elizabeth MILTON, William MITCHEL married Susannah DUVRAN at High Halden on 15 August 1768.

Janet
 
Flook said:
As all the Mitchel children born after 1799 were born in Hellingly rather than Biddenden,
Click to expand...

I thought that with the birth of the Edwin you found bap 1813 in Hellingly, after James, that made this part of the family less likely to be the same family. Although I can't explain the gap otherwise o_O

I like the idea about the 1871 census being filled out wrong. The rest looks good but it's very confusing. I'll have to draw it on a big piece of paper and have another think.:confused:
 
annabel said:
I like the idea about the 1871 census being filled out wrong. The rest looks good but it's very confusing. I'll have to draw it on a big piece of paper and have another think.:confused:
Click to expand...

That's a very good idea:)!!

One of the problems with research on any forum is that new finds negate older assumptions and the whole trail becomes very fluid and sometimes quite complex. Even I have got part of your family tree mapped out up here to help me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top