View Full Version : Rosa Sarah Ann Thompson Gray
Rosa Sarah Ann Thompson Gray born 1873. Parents William Gray and Sarah Ann Gray nee Thompson.
Last sighting with her widowed mother and maternal grandfather Benjamin Thompson at Great Ryburgh, Norfolk.
Haven't been able to find a marriage and/or death.
Just reviewing her I looked at an Ancestry hint which gives this probate record:
18 Mar 1959 • London
HARLE, Rose Sarah Ann otherwise Rose Sarah Ann Thompson otherwise Rose of Hazelwood, Upper Park, Loughton, Essex widow died 16 Feb 1959. Probate granted to Olivia Eugenia Mann widow. Effects £446 9s 5d.
Is this my Rosa? Why is she otherwise known as Thompson?
Why can't I find her marriage record?
Her death reg suggests she was b abt 1873 so would seem likely. Have you looked at the 1939 register?
Otherwise known as, because she was divorced or living with someone?
Last sighting with her widowed mother and maternal grandfather Benjamin Thompson at Great Ryburgh, Norfolk.
When was that?
This looks like her in 1939:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/61596/images/TNA_R39_1115_1115D_005?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=WEQ9932&_phstart=successSource&pId=12607531
top line.
Merry
Thanks for looking. I meant why was she using the name Thompson as her maiden name was Gray?
Something is up with my Ancestry as when I tried your link I just got a blank screen, but I'll try again later.
Goodness knows.
1911:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2352/images/rg14_09396_0241_03?backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&queryId=3aa4acbde287277cd707bf946eee7682&pId=52343622
Mr Harle refuses to reveal himself!
1901:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7814/images/ESSRG13_1611_1612-0139?backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&queryId=980412acbd11841699e8bbedfa313b5c&pId=24878828
Got it now!
The birthdate in 1939 is 29 Dec 1872. My Rosa's birth was registered 1st quarter of 1873 so that fits.
Now to find her in 1891, 1901, 1911 and her elusive marriage.
No Mr Harle's dying in Essex around 1901.
I have to go out now. Hope you sort her out. I think it should be possible once you get Ancestry playing!
Marriage June Q 1896 islington.... must dash
Wow, thanks Merry!
Off to find the elusive Mr Harle. 1911 has clues in the births of the children.
Why couldn't I find this?
kiterunner
06-10-20, 14:44
I don't think the "otherwise Rose Sarah Ann Thompson" necessarily means that she was using Thompson as a surname, just that it was one of her middle names but that she didn't always use it. Possibly she didn't include it in her name when writing her will.
Found the marriage record now. Poor woman was widowed with two small children. Worked as a char, so interesting that by 1939 she was a retired nurse. Wonder if she managed to get a better job or if she was bigging herself up.
Not surprised I didn't find her. I didn't know her married name and I was searching for Rosa Sarah AT Gray, not Rose Gray!
The marriage cert incorrectly says her father is George Gray, a coal merchant, not William Gray fisherman deceased. But I think it's correct as one of the witnesses is Laura Gray and Sarah's youngest sister was Laura Gray.
How sad. Arthur junior died in Sep 1918 in France. I'm wondering if his mother became a nurse for the war.
kiterunner
06-10-20, 15:19
Not surprised I didn't find her. I didn't know her married name and I was searching for Rosa Sarah AT Gray, not Rose Gray!
I would always search for Ros* because Rosa, Rose, Rosanna and Rosina often seem to be interchangeable.
Good tip, but I'm surprised she ditched all her other names. I had hoped it would make her easier to find!
kiterunner
06-10-20, 15:51
Like my Amy Elizabeth Marguerite who just called herself Amy on her marriage cert.
Have now found her husband's birth, baptism, death and burial. A satisfying afternoon.
Big thanks to Merry who got me started and to Kiterunner.
My ex's great grandmother was born plain Rose but chose to elaborate it to Rosella.
Glad you got her sorted.
My mother-in-law was Eileen Lucy Amy but never used her middle names, even though Lucy was her beloved granny's first name.
I'm afraid Arthur took his own life. There's a newspaper report here:
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0002279%2f19010308%2f095&stringtohighlight=arthur%20henry%20harle
If you don't have FMP I can type it out, but I'm a bit slow...
A longer report about the inquest:
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0000951%2f19010309%2f139&stringtohighlight=rose%20harle
How sad. Arthur junior died in Sep 1918 in France. I'm wondering if his mother became a nurse for the war.
Rose outlived her other son too:
HARLE, ALFRED VICTOR 35
GRO Reference: 1935 D Quarter in MITFORD Volume 04B Page 289
The third child, mentioned as dec'd on the 1911 census, was Daisy Clare, b and d in 1899.
Alfred Victor doesn't appear to have been married. Administration was granted to his mother (using her full name):
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1904/images/31874_222945-00089?backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&queryId=8959c51fd4010e8fea47a0e3cf101f81&pId=5994193
Merry
Thank you for those links. I cancelled my FMP sub as I wasn't using it - typical. Thanks for the info about the other children. I couldn't find Daisy though I had a feeling it was a girl and must have been born 1899. Sometimes this hobby is so sad!
Looking at the probate record, I see Rose is using all her forenames. What a sad life, to lose her husband and all her children.
Merry
Thank you for those links. I cancelled my FMP sub as I wasn't using it - typical. Thanks for the info about the other children. I couldn't find Daisy though I had a feeling it was a girl and must have been born 1899. Sometimes this hobby is so sad!
Births Mar 1899
Harle Daisy Clare W. Ham 4a 219
Deaths Sep 1899
Harle Daisy Clare 0 W. Ham 4a 133
Thanks again. Found her burial too.
WHETSTONE
THE SUICIDE WITH SCISSORS.
A CASE OF INSANITY AND DRINK.
An inquest, held at the Orange Tree, Friern Barnet, on Saturday afternoon, elicited evidence which cleared up the mystery attending the death of Arthur Henry Harle, painter and paperhanger, whose body was found in a field close to the High-road, Whetstone, on the morning of Wednesday, February 27th. As mentioned in our last issue the body remained unidentified for a time, but a portion of an envelope, post marked, which was discovered in his pocket enabled the police to trace him to his home at 28, Trevelyan-road, Stratford. He was a fair haired man, with the neglected looking face of one who had not shaved for a fortnight. With the exception of his having on two pairs of grey tweed trousers his attire exhibited no unusual feature; it was of the kind, rough and homely, in which a workman may well go to his employment. Over his morning coat and vest he wore a brown overcoat, and a black billycock lay on the ground beside him. There was a three-inch wound in his throat, rather to the right side, such as he could have inflicted by wielding in his right hand the paperhanger's pair of scissors which were found under him. Dr. G. Danford Thomas, coroner, held the inquest, and the jury, having been sworn and appointed Mr Southwell as foreman, viewed the body.
Before proceeding with the examination of the witnesses the Coroner briefly stated that the circumstances preceeding Harle's death and the discovery of the body in a field near the High-road at Whetstone. A certificate had been received from a medical man at Stratford, showing that the widow, Mrs. Rose Harle, was suffering from hysteria, verging on mania, and in the opinion of the doctor she was quite unable to attend the inquest.
Albert Ernest Harle, brother of the deceased, said that he was a draper formerly living in Leytonstone, but now residing at Newcastle-on-Tyne. He identified the body as that of his brother, aged 28 years, a paperhanger and decorator. He was married, and had three children. Witness, before removing from Leytonstone, saw the deceased about a month ago, and had seen him frequently before. Apparently he was doing fairly well in his businss and had plenty of work. His character was that of a steady man, although he gave way at times to drink, spending his money freely on such occasions. This was a source of trouble to him at home - The Coroner: Did you ever think he was likely to do an injury to himself? - Witness: Never to my knowledge. - You told us something of his habits, Did his mind become affected? - I have heard so. He suffered from depression, but I never had any reason to think he had delirium tremens. - On hearing of this affair you came to London? - Yes; I received a telegram on Thursday, and when I came his wife told me he left home on Tuesday morning as if to go to work. He was never seen alive again by his friends. He had been "on the drink" just before. - Do you know what his the slightest. There was no business that I am purpose was in coming to this district? - Not in aware of. - A Juryman: I take it your brother came here to work? - Witness: Her worked on his own account, taking contracts, but I do not know that he had any contracts in this district. - William Prentice, a farm labourer, residing at Whetstone, was the next witness called. He said: I work on Wyatt's Farm, and on Wednesday morning I noticed a man lying just inside the Bull field, near the hedge. I was looking round and caught sight of his face, which was looking very white. On going to look at him I could see no sign of life or movement. - The Coroner: Did you see any mark of injury? - Witness: Not at the time. There was some blood on the ground. I sent word to the farm and the police soon afterwards came. I heard afterwards from the police that he had injuries in his throat. He was a stranger to me. - Had he his hat on? - It was close by. - P.C. Thomas Webb deposed that about 11.20 a.m. on Wednesday he received information that a person supposed to be dead was lying in the Bull Field, where he found the deceased. Witness noticed a pool of blood, and a pair of scissors were underneath the body. (The scissors, a formidable pair of the kind used by paperhangers, were produced.) The divisional surgeon was sent for. Meanwhile the body was taken to the Finchley Mortuary, where witness searched it, finding as the result of his search three pennies, six halfpennies, seven farthings, some keys and papers. From part of an envelope bearing the Stratford postmark he traced the deceased. - The Coroner: Has anyone seen him about? - Witness: Not that I know of. - He was a trespasser? - Yes: there is no footpath, and he evidently entered the field through a gap near where the body lay. - Dr. J. J. Swindall stated that about 1.30 p.m. on Thursday he was called to examine the body of the deceased and its cold state led him to think that death had taken place many hours before, some time in the early morning. At an early hour there had been rain, which washed away the blood from the body, with the exception of some about the neck. - The Coroner: Was it a severe cut? - Witness: Yes; very severe, severing the large arteries. he must have died very quickly, as the scissors cut through the large blood vessels. - Could it be done with that instrument? (lifting up the scissors.) - Yes - A Juryman: He died from internal hemorrhage? - Witness: No; external hemorrhage. - The brother of the deceased was recalled, and in reply to the coroner stated that he went to a publichouse where the deceased had been employed and asked the barmaid whether she had noticed anything strange in his talk or dress. She told him that they had been unable to make any sense of the man's remarks at times, and Mrs. Harle also told him that Arthur had been strange. Yet in Witness' presence he had notseemed unusual. - The Coroner: Did he threaten his wife? - Witness: No, on the contrary his wife told me he had always been kind to her. He told her that he owed money to a man at the Traveller's Rest they said that was not the case. He had a horror of the police. - And that preyed on his mnd to some extent? - Yes. - I heard that your father was unfortunate in the same way? - I understand so. - The Coroner: That may show that mental feebleness was transmitted to one member of the family but not to another. Was he nervous and sensitive? - Yes. - The Coroner (to the jury): If he has been drinking and worrying his mind has given way. The act in itself is almost an insane act. He had a wife and children, a happy home, and was doing well in his business, yet he cut his throat. - The Coroner: He was a good workman? - Witness: Yes; he could have had plenty of work. - Inspector Leech explained that the farthings found in Harle's pockets were taken out of his child's money box. He left home as if to go to his work, and the next seen or heard of him was the finding of the body in the field. There was no sign of a struggle. There was no blood on the clothing, but the point of his collar was blood-stained. Seemingly he committed suicide whilst lying down. - P.C. Eyres, the coroner's officer, stated that when Harle left home he was supposed to be going to work, which happened to be only about two hundred yards distant. Although expected to have his dinner at home he took with him a quantity of bread and meat as much as would have sufficed for two days. he had not eaten any of it. - The Coroner, in his remarks to the jury, observed that it was sensitive, highly nervous men, often clever men, who broke down under a strain, and who thrugh this strain, and the effects of drink, became lost. The deceased seemed to be an instance in point. - The jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst in a state of unsound mind. - Acknowledgment was made of the service rendered by P. C. Eyres in discovering the identity of the deceased man.
No doubt there are some typos above, but also there are a couple of sentences that don't make sense, but you get the gist - I just typed what was there.
That's the longer of the two articles as it has more detail.
Wow, Merry, thank you soooo omuch!
It is bothersome to me that the wound was on the right side of his neck from a right handed person with an apparently large weapon. Wouldn't it be more likely the wound would at least begin on the left-hand-side?
A lot of hearsay from the witnesses too.....
I don't think it odd to be wearing two pairs of trousers in February. They don't mention whether he had any other tools etc with him. It would seem odd to have the scissors and nothing else. Made me wonder if anything had been stolen from the scene? I suppose having two days food with him is strange - though it does suggest things were not normal, they don't question that he perhaps was not contemplating suicide when he left home.
I realise now i didn't say the date and place of the article!:
Barnet Press 09 March 1901
I guess I have probably read/watched too many murder mysteries. :(
It is bothersome to me that the wound was on the right side of his neck from a right handed person with an apparently large weapon. Wouldn't it be more likely the wound would at least begin on the left-hand-side?
A lot of hearsay from the witnesses too.....
I don't think it odd to be wearing two pairs of trousers in February. They don't mention whether he had any other tools etc with him. It would seem odd to have the scissors and nothing else. Made me wonder if anything had been stolen from the scene? I suppose having two days food with him is strange - though it does suggest things were not normal, they don't question that he perhaps was not contemplating suicide when he left home.
I realise now i didn't say the date and place of the article!:
Barnet Press 09 March 1901
I guess I have probably read/watched too many murder mysteries. :(
Thanks for the date and place of article. I think that my experience of family history (and history in general) is that I'm inclined, like you, to question everything!
I can only conjecture that between leaving home with his food for a normal working day and ending up miles away in a field with his throat cut, something extraordinary happened. I have come across a few suicides (including my gt x 3 grandfather John Mealing) who cut their throats with razors, but never with scissors. Possible if you are deranged, I suppose.
Two days worth of food seems a lot for someone who was supposed to be returning home for their dinner (by which I presume they mean at midday, given the job was extremely local.)
They didn't find our whether he had been at work on the Tuesday morning at all. When he didn't come home Tuesday midday, you would think his wife would have walked up the road to see what he was up to. Perhaps she did and he wasn't there, but there was no way to dicover where he had gone. Persumably the food he had with him had come from his home? Or had he purchased it thinking he was 'running away'? Where were the rest of his tools? At home or where the job was supposed to be being done?
So many questions. :rolleyes:
I wondered about the significance of mentioning the farthings were from his child's money box.
As with most suicides, there are more questions than answers. Alternatively, if it was murder what was the motive?
I agree that it's unlikely to be a murder or manslaughter, just that I didn't think they asked the questions they perhaps should have asked.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.