Where is this?

Discussion in 'Ask The Experts' started by annabel, Dec 23, 2017.

  1. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
    annabel and Ma-dotcom like this.
  2. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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).
     
  3. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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.
     
  4. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
  5. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
  6. annabel

    annabel Puts the Heart into Hertfordshire

    Offline
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    605
    Location:
    Herts
    Thank you for this, I'm just trying to get my head round it all. I'll be back shortly
     
    Daft Bat likes this.
  7. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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:).
     
  8. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    Ah, I've hit a snag I'm afraid, but I'm still working on it.
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  9. annabel

    annabel Puts the Heart into Hertfordshire

    Offline
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    605
    Location:
    Herts
    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
     
  10. annabel

    annabel Puts the Heart into Hertfordshire

    Offline
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    605
    Location:
    Herts
    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
     
  11. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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.

    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!!
     
  12. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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: Dec 28, 2017
  13. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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!!
     
    Ma-dotcom and Daft Bat like this.
  14. Daft Bat

    Daft Bat Administrator. Chief cook & bottle washer! Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    18,571
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England.
    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...
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  15. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
    Ma-dotcom and Flook like this.
  16. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
    Ma-dotcom and Flook like this.
  17. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.

    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
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  18. janetbooth

    janetbooth Top Dog Stalwart

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Congleton, Cheshire
    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
     
    Ma-dotcom and Flook like this.
  19. annabel

    annabel Puts the Heart into Hertfordshire

    Offline
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    605
    Location:
    Herts
    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:
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  20. Flook

    Flook A True Gentleman

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    3,252
    Location:
    Nottingham U.K.
    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!
     
    Ma-dotcom and Daft Bat like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice