Genealogy Forum UK

Hi there

My brother and I have been researching our family for almost a year now, and can't get back past our Great-Grandfather, Charles Herbert Hill (born 5th January 1882 in Fulham, London).

Charles Herbert's Birth
Family lore said that he was "brought up in a childrens home in Shepherds Bush, London". We thought this meant he was adopted, but then we located his birth record, got the certificate, and were suprised to find he had both parents listed:
Charles William Hill (occupation Upholsterer) and Mary Jane Hill (formerly Robinson).
The birth was registered by Mary Jane herself on 15th February 1882, and the same address in Shepherds Bush was listed as both where Mary was now living, and where the baby had been born. This is where the problems started.

http://www.spacewarp.co.uk/CHBirth.jpg

Charles & Mary's Marriage
We have been unable to find a record of a marriage of a Charles William Hill to a Mary Jane Robinson, and we've looked back as far as 1850 and as far forward as 1901.
We have also been unable to find any record of them on the 1881 Census, or prior to that, as a married couple, since we only have their names, not their ages or how long they've been married (if they even were married). There are a few Charles and Mary Hills on the Census beyond this (including 1911), but none of them have Charles Hill with occupation Upholsterer. We have looked at the Census record for the Shepherds Bush address in 1881 and there's no Charles or Mary there. There's a completely unrelated family, with a servant and two boarders. They 're also not there in 1891. So although Mary was at that address in January 1882, she wasn't there in April 1881 when the Census was taken.

Charles Herbert on the Census
We think we've located him twice. In 1891 we find Charles Herbert Hill, age 9, listed as "adopted" and living with John Pankhurst and family in Rochester, Kent. We think this is him, because there was some communication between my deceased uncle and "Pankhursts" who had emigrated to Canada.

http://www.spacewarp.co.uk/CHCensus1891.jpg

In the 1901 Census we find him on a Royal Navy boat at the age of 19. Again we think this is him because we have his Service Record from 1917 where he claims to have been in the Royal Navy for 3 years.

Charles Herbert's Marriage
Finally we find him in 1909 when he gets married. We have his certificate for that, and all the facts are correct from then onwards, because his wife's name is pretty unique (Elsie Eliza Mathilda Hughes).

http://www.spacewarp.co.uk/CHMarry.jpg

However, listed on his marriage certificate is...his father:
Charles William Hill (occupation Joiner, Journeyman).
But we can't find a Charles William Hill of that occupation on the 1911 Census, so maybe Charles Herbert was just putting down the only information he knew about his father? Maybe he didn't actually know him?
We really have hit a brick wall with this one, and without truly locating his parents, we can't get any further back than Charles Herbert!

Can anyone suggest any other avenues to search? We are currently using Ancestry and Genesreunited for record searching.

Putting their names on the birth record does not mean they were married.

Have you studied the Charles William Smith who is living at 13 St Stephen Avenue in 1881?

He has nothing to do with joining or upholstry (in fact he is a Banker late in life).

The whole street seems full of well to do families in 1881 and seems well out of the price range for a carpenter.

Smith is the name put down on the census but maybe was a Hill before that?

i.e. His mother remarried.

Hi Mark

Yeah, we noticed him. And "Mary Quinn" who's a servant in the house. I could live with the fact that his surname might be different, but if it is him and Mary Jane Robinson is putting down a false profession for him on the birth certificate, I don't see why she would put his true name down anyway. I think there are several possibilities:

1. These are their true names and they are living together as a family, but they aren't (and never did get) married
2. Her name is correct but his is fictitious (to give the child legitimacy?)
3. Both names are fictitious

It's certain that this child is the same person who gets married in 1909 because so many details match. So what happened to him between 1882 and 1909? The 1891 Census records only show two possible matches - the Pankhurst one, and another CH Hill living with father Charles H Hill and Jane Hill. This one looks promising for a second, but then you look at the actual form and Dad's middle initial is definitely an H not a W. Besides you can locate that family in the 1881 Census and Dad's middle name is Henry.

That leaves the CH Hill "adopted" by the Pankhursts. When I mentioned this to my father back in January, the name Pankhurst was familar to him but he couldn't think why. Unfortunately he died in February, soon after his uncle Cecil (who was the last of Charles Herbert's three sons to go). Cecil left no will, so the house is still in the family while everything goes through probate, and apparently some letters have been found between Cecil and some Pankhursts in Canada. If Charles Herbert was brought up by the Pankhurst family (who had three sons slightly older than him), it's fairly certain he would have kept in touch with his adopted family through the years. Hell, they were probably at his wedding, on the groom's side! It's quite feasible that his sons would have grown up knowing them as uncles and aunts, and this is why his son Cecil was in touch with them. All so tantalising, but just not enough facts to string it all together! And why was Charles adopted? Since he kept his name, I'm more inclined to think of it as fostering that became permanent. Did his parents die sometime between '82 and '91?

I don't know if this means anything, you mention children's home,

Name: Mary J. Hill.
Age: 30.
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1851.
Relation: Officer.
Where born: Douglas, Isle of Man, Isle of Man.
Civil parish: Bethnal Green.
County/Island: London.
Country: England.

Street Address: "Childrens Home" Bonner Road.
Condition as to marriage: Married.
Occupation: Matron.
Registration district: Bethnal Green.
Sub-registration district: Bethnal Green.
ED, institution, or vessel: 4a.
Neighbors: View others on page.
Piece: 416.
Folio: 23.
Page Number: 41.
Household Members:
Name Age.
Mary J. Hill 30.

MarkCDodd wrote:The whole street seems full of well to do families in 1881 and seems well out of the price range for a carpenter.

From the look of the kind of people in that street, they're lower-middle class with aspirations. They rent the property and they can afford one servant, but only if they sublet a couple of rooms. The Jackson family at no. 73 in 1881 seem a typical example of this. They have an 18-year old live-in maid, but an elderly widow and her daughter board with them. The indications are that the Jacksons rent the property (Mr Jackson is only a wine-merchant's clerk, so he wouldn't be able to buy such a house outright), because if you'd forked out all that money for the house you'd certainly still be there in 10 years time, and the Jacksons aren't - they're living in Poole in Dorset in 1891, and James is selling butter.

Looking at the social mores of the time, there's no way the Jacksons would allow a single mother to board in their house, not only because of the scandal, but because she would have no income. So for Mary to have been there (if she wasn't lying about the address as well!) for almost 2 months means she must have been a legitimate boarder, probably as part of an ostensibly married couple. Regardless of what the birth certificate actually says, I think this is strong proof that she was living with a man, whether or not he was the child's father.

I wondered if the two boarders in 1881 might have left after the Census, to be replaced as boarders by Charles William and Mary Jane, perhaps because the older woman died, but the Thornton women are both still alive in 1891 because they're living in Paddington. However I don't know how big these houses were inside (I've seen the house on Google Earth and it's got 3 floors), but it's feasible that the house could accomodate two more adults and a child, providing they only have one room and share facilities with the other boarders. The Jackson family consisted of 2 adults and a servant, and 3 children who could conceivably have only occupied one room.

Jimmy wrote:I don't know if this means anything, you mention children's home,

Name: Mary J. Hill.
Age: 30.
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1851.
Relation: Officer.
Where born: Douglas, Isle of Man, Isle of Man.
Civil parish: Bethnal Green.
County/Island: London.
Country: England.

Street Address: "Childrens Home" Bonner Road.
Condition as to marriage: Married.
Occupation: Matron.
Registration district: Bethnal Green.
Sub-registration district: Bethnal Green.
ED, institution, or vessel: 4a.
Neighbors: View others on page.
Piece: 416.
Folio: 23.
Page Number: 41.
Household Members:
Name Age.
Mary J. Hill 30.

Ooo that's interesting. Is that from the 1881 Census?

Yes sorry.

Jimmy wrote:I don't know if this means anything, you mention children's home,

Name: Mary J. Hill.
Age: 30.
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1851.
Relation: Officer.
Where born: Douglas, Isle of Man, Isle of Man.
Civil parish: Bethnal Green.
County/Island: London.
Country: England.

Street Address: "Childrens Home" Bonner Road.
Condition as to marriage: Married.
Occupation: Matron.
Registration district: Bethnal Green.
Sub-registration district: Bethnal Green.

This is very interesting indeed. She's married, but Mr Hill isn't there. Is this because:
1. They both live there and he's away on Census Night.
2. They both live elsewhere and she's working the night-shift on Census Night.
3. Some other reason.

So looking around for Charles Hills who aren't living with a spouse I find this chap, who's a carpenter:

Name: Charles Hill
Age: 31
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1850
Relation: Lodger
Gender: Male
Where born: Devon, England

Civil parish: Lambeth
Street Address: 92 Cornwall Rd
Employment status: View image
Occupation: Carpenter

Registration district: Lambeth
Sub-registration district: Waterloo Road First
ED, institution, or vessel: 4
Folio: 79
Page Number: 19

But so far I haven't found a possible marriage between these two.

You mentioned Charles herbert was in the Navy. Have you checked the records at the National Archive?

MarkCDodd wrote:You mentioned Charles herbert was in the Navy. Have you checked the records at the National Archive?

Yup. Only one entry:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... Id=7009111

Not much on the PDF. The DOB is a year out, but we suspect that's because his service started 13th February 1899, and he lied about his age in order to get in! There's precious little else on the record sheet, other than he was a cook and he was born in Shepherd's Bush, London.

That last bit is interesting. It indicates that where he thinks he was born ties in with what's on his birth certificate. So either he's seen it, or been openly told about the circumstances of his birth. He certainly didn't show it to the Navy though!

Have you tried to find the address given on his birth cert in the 1881 census. 13 St Stephens Avenue, Shepherds Bush, to see who is living there.

Poss,
Deaths Sep 1885.
HILL Mary Jane . 36. Hackney. 1b. 348.

Jimmy wrote:Have you tried to find the address given on his birth cert in the 1881 census. 13 St Stephens Avenue, Shepherds Bush, to see who is living there.

It's not 13, it's 73. That's a 7, not a 1. The top of the 7 is slightly broken away from the stalk.

But yes we have looked at that. In fact Marc earlier up the thread mentioned the address. Although there is a Charles William there, he's not an upholsterer and he's not a Hill, so making part of his name fictional on the certificate but not all of it would seem a strange and pointless thing to do. Plus even if he was the naughty boy that got his girlfriend pregnant, there's no way his father would allow her to remain in the house with an illegitimate child, regardless of what she put on the certificate. Of course CW Hill and MJ Hill could be boarders a year later, but since it's after the Census there's no way of proving that either way, and since the Smiths don't have boarders in 1881 (both the men are working so they most likely don't need the money) I don't see why they'd have them in 1882.

Name: Charles Smith
Age: 62
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1819
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Maria Smith
Gender: Male
Where born: Devon, England

Civil parish: Harmmersmith
County/Island: London
Country: England

Street Address: 13 St Stephens Ave
Condition as to marriage: Married

Registration district: Fulham
Sub-registration district: St Paul Hammersmith

Piece: 60
Folio: 114
Page Number: 50

Household Members: Name Age
Charles Smith 62
Maria Smith 54
Mary Ann Smith 27
Charles W. Smith 25
Anna H. Smith 23
Ellen J. Smith 22
Mary Quin 34

Jimmy wrote:Poss,
Deaths Sep 1885.
HILL Mary Jane . 36. Hackney. 1b. 348.

We noticed that one some time ago, but we didn't do anything about it because we thought we'd find more verification. But ah heck, what's £9? I've ordered it. Thanks for reminding me.

Estimated time of arrival 5th Sept. Grrr!!

They have lodgers at no 73,

1881. 73 St Stephens Ave. London, Middlesex.

James Frederick JACKSON Head M Male 39 Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, England Wine Merchants Clerk
Ada Maria JACKSON Wife M Female 27 London, Middlesex, England
Ada Ruth JACKSON Daur U Female 2 Clapham, Surrey, England
James Frederick JACKSON Son U Male 1 Hammersmith, Middlesex, England
Vincent JACKSON Son U Male 1 m Hammersmith, Middlesex, England
Ruth WILKINS Serv U Female 18 Iver, Middlesex, England General Servant
Emma Ann THORNTON Lodger W Female 53 Brompton, Kent, England Dressmaker
Emma Jane THORNTON Lodger U Female 24 Poplar, Middlesex, England Dressmaker