James Turner -- a second opinion, please

[James18]

Hi all,

I wondered if, as a fairly experienced group, I could ask you for a second opinion on something. I am wont to make the odd amateur mistake, as I am sure several of you are by now well aware. :D

I am trying to trace a chap named James Turner after the 1891 census, and whilst I am quietly confident (!) that I have discovered what happened to him, I am by no means certain and would appreciate an unbiased view of the matter.

I'll list his census records here: 1851 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8860/KENHO107_1593_1593-0531?pid=1990371&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d8860%26h%3d1990 371%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d305109061 95%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1861 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8767/KENRG9_420_423-0800?pid=6738084&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d8767%26h%3d6738 084%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d305109061 95%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1871 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7619/SRYRG10_804_806-0130?pid=6010480&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d7619%26h%3d6010 480%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d305109061 95%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1881 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7572/SRYRG11_765_769-0720?pid=21322588&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d7572%26h%3d2132 2588%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d30510906 195%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1891 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/SRYRG12_552_554-0458?pid=18128157&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d6598%26h%3d1812 8157%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d30510906 195%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true) 1901 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/SRYRG13_592_594-0105?pid=4531189&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d7814%26h%3d4531 189%26ssrc%3dpt%26tid%3d84918040%26pid%3d305109061 95%26usePUB%3dtrue&ssrc=pt&treeid=84918040&personid=30510906195&hintid=&usePUB=true)*

The asterisk is because I have not confirmed that to be our James, but I'll explain why I think it is. James and Ellen no longer appear together after the 1891 census; in 1901 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/SRYRG13_588_591-0487/4520647?backurl=http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/84918040/person/30534424539/facts/citation/163519611849/edit/record) she is staying with one of their children and her husband, with Ellen being listed as mother-in-law and married but without James being present. This in itself is perhaps not that surprising, and of course he could simply have been absent on census day, but I suspect there is more to it and I doubt that both parents would have been living with their daughter.

Now, in 1910 Ellen married a man named James Greener (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/4779/40815_1831109333_1779-00063?pid=2521268&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3dtry%26db%3dSurreyMarriages %26h%3d2521268&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true) - both are listed as widowed; it is certainly the same woman as her father's name is given, and it is not a common surname. Thus, by this time we can safely assume that James Turner has died, and so his widow is free to legally re-marry. The pair then appear together on the 1911 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/2352/rg14_03001_0087_03?pid=41508151&backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2f%2fcg i-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3dtry%26db%3d1911England%26h %3d41508151&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true) census.

In the above 1901 census, there is a James Turner living as a pauper in the Chertsey Union Workhouse. I admit that the age is a bit out, but I am often told not to worry too much about ages on census records as they can vary wildly and can often be rounded up or down by third parties. Also, in the case of a workhouse or prison it is possible that the census taker wouldn't have known the ages of the inmates. Anyway, this would certainly explain why Ellen and James are both listed as married in 1901 but are not together.

So, on the assumption that James Turner died between 1901 and 1910, I decided to search FreeBMD for death registrations in Surrey for a man of that name during that period, and although some looked better than others, one in particular caught my eye as there was a corresponding burial entry (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/4786/40815_1831101883_1261-00049/2232000?backurl=http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/84918040/person/30510906195/facts/citation/163519615704/edit/record) for it on Ancestry.

Again, the age is slightly off and so I had doubts initially, but is it just coincidence that a man with the same name died during the same time period in a Surrey workhouse? Guildford is only down the road from Chertsey, and so presumably it is not out of the question that he was transferred at some point between 1901 and 1909. Had it not been for the workhouse remark I probably wouldn't have given it a second glance, but to me it just looked like a good match, and the fact that Ellen re-married the following year is also interesting, as clearly they will have been separated for some years by this time... but bigamy is bigamy whilst the husband is still alive.

What do you think? Just wishful thinking, or does this sound like a plausible scenario?

[Merry]

I think it sounds plausible.

Re the 1901 census where you have James in the WH - The main thing here is to see if you can makes that James a separate person on the earlier censuses if you are going to eliminate him or prove to yourself there's a possibility it's not the same James as you have in your tree. I note there are no other birth regs in Chertsey district until 1860, but it still might be worth trying to trace the 1860 births forward to try and eliminate them. Plus also consider this was a time when birth registration was the responsibility of the registrar not the parents, so plenty were not registered!

Re James's death/burial - Have you considered looking for marriages for James's children to see if any of them says dec'd for their father and the dates of these marriages? Obviously (even if any of them are at the right time to be helpful) again this is not conclusive evidence, but might help with weighing up the probability of you having the right records.

[Merry]

I wondered when James Greener's wife, Esther, died. Was in 1901. She is alone on the 1901 census and I've not found him yet. Have to dash out now...........

[Merry]

I've forgotten whether you have a fmp sub at the moment, but there's an army service record for James Greener (def the right man, born Chertsey, right year. wife Esther). He joined up in 1900, I think for just one year.

Oh, there's another service record for him for 1876-86 too.

[Mary from Italy]

It's plausible, but bigamy was common in those days, so you can't really assume that Ellen was definitely a widow when she remarried.

[Merry]

It's plausible, but bigamy was common in those days, so you can't really assume that Ellen was definitely a widow when she remarried.

Very true, but James Turner doesn't seem to appear on the 1911 census which was about four months after Ellen remarried.

[James18]

Honestly, given that James Turner and Ellen had a number of children together and that she married a local man in their local area, I very much doubt it was a bigamous marriage. It's always possible that James Greener and Ellen had already been living together for some time, but had to wait until James Turner died until they were able to marry.

I'll try to follow up some other leads, but I just keep hoping that the workhouse connection isn't a red herring. It just feels right, somehow.

[Merry]

Guildford is only down the road from Chertsey, and so presumably it is not out of the question that he was transferred at some point between 1901 and 1909.

He may not have been a permanent resident of the workhouse. You would need to find the admittance and discharge records to determine how much time he spent in the WH.

[Merry]

Oh dear, I've just eliminated the 1909 burial for James Turner :(

The burial record says he died in the WH but was of Pitch Place Worplesdon. I came across several records for a James Turner of Pitch Place on the Surrey erolls from 1887 to 1909. I've just found a James b abt 1847/8 in Worplesdon living at Pitch Place Worplesdon in 1901 and 1891 with his wife, Charlotte and several children. Of course your James was with his wife in 1891, so definitely different people! This new James is on the census in Worplesdon back to 1851.

Sorry about that!

Oh here are the census records I looked at:

1891 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/6598/SRYRG12_556_558-0099/18122714?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.u k%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1891%26so%3d2%26pcat%3dROO T_CATEGORY%26gss%3dangs-g%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3djames%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dturner%26gsln_x %3d1%26mswpn__ftp_x%3d1%26gskw%3dWorplesdon%26gskw _x%3d1%26_83004002_x%3d1%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d11%26ca tbucket%3drstp%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3d672&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults)

1901 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/7814/SRYRG13_598_601-0026/4558595?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1901%26so%3d2%26pcat%3dROO T_CATEGORY%26gss%3dangs-g%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26 gsfn%3djames%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dturner%26gsln_x %3d1%26mswpn__ftp_x%3d1%26gskw%3dWorplesdon%26gskw _x%3d1%26_83004002_x%3d1%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d11%26ca tbucket%3drstp%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3d672&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults)

I still feel the 1901 census record you found is likely to be your James though. The ref to Byfleet for his birth place could have come from the fact he was living in Byfleet in 1891 and possibly came to the WH from there.

[Phoenix]

He may not have been a permanent resident of the workhouse. You would need to find the admittance and discharge records to determine how much time he spent in the WH.

These may not survive. But look at the Surrey History website. They've put up some minutes, free to search the transcriptions, and I found local ancestors there.

[Phoenix]

Ooh, they have the admission and discharge records:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/36509/Chertsey-Poor-Law-Union-admission-and-discharge-books-K-Z.pdf

[Merry]

I wonder if this is him? (from Phoenix's link)

Turner James 25 Apr 1901 Chertsey Discharged Taken to Asylum BG1/36/3

[Merry]

I went to use Jeff Knagg's site to see what asylums were close by only to find the site doesn't seem to exist any more.

Anyway I should be at Tesco now................

[Phoenix]

I went to use Jeff Knagg's site to see what asylums were close by only to find the site doesn't seem to exist any more.

Anyway I should be at Tesco now................

Probably Brookwood... which has excellent registers.

[James18]

If he died in an asylum in Surrey f.e. Brockwood/Woking then his admission and death records should be available to view on Ancestry. I've got a mother and daughter in another family tree who both died in Woking Asylum and their records are available.

That doesn't include workhouses, though.

[Merry]

Here he is then - just over half way down:

James Turner Lunacy Patients Admission Registers, 1846-1912 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/9051/42477_1831101456_11589-00827/670814?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk% 2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dUKLunPatAdmReg%26gss%3dsfs28_ ms_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d 1%26gsln%3dturner%26gsln_x%3d1%26msdpn__ftp_x%3d1% 26msydy%3d1901%26msydy_x%3d1%26msypn__ftp_x%3d1%26 _82004260-n__ftp_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26uidh%3d672&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults)

It says he died 10 Jul 1902, so


Deaths Sep 1902
Turner James 59 Guildford 2a 40

So, if that's him the age is a bit off. What do you think?

[James18]

That's about ten years out, so I'm slightly suspect. Hmm.

Mind you, the Chertsey > Asylum connection is promising.

[Phoenix]

If you really want to find out, it would be worth a trip to Woking. The case notes are fascinating, if morbid, and detail home circumstances etc. I had a rellie (by marriage) who was convinced that her husband was trying to murder her.

[Merry]

The admission date is the same date the WH discharged him isn't it (from memory)? So, the same person who was 45 in 1901 is 59 the following year so I don't really see an issue with one or both records having the wrong age!

[James18]

Ah, you're right, I missed the admission date being the same.

Thanks for your help, all of you. As always it is greatly appreciated. See, had it not been for you, I'd have likely stuck with the original 1909 death.

[Tom Tom]

The death certificate might give occupation, but with him dying in an asylum it is equally likely that it won't give an occupation.

[James18]

Indeed, although unfortunately when I have money to spare on buying certificates there are much greater priorities before James Turner, as knowing exactly when he died won't affect the rest of that particular tree. He's definitely on my list, though.