Where is this church & it's registers?

[fpegrum]

I have a marriage certificate for George Augustus KINNAIRD and Louisa REYNOLDS dated May 10 1863. The marriage took place at St Luke's church in the Parish of Saint Pancras.

Where is this church? The only one that I can find reference to is St Luke, Oseney Crescent, Kentish Town. Is this the one? Were there other St Luke's in the Saint Pancras parish? And if this is the church, where can I find the records?

Any answers/suggestions gratefully received.

Thanks

Fiona

[Mythology]

I am scratching my head here and hoping that 1863 is a typo, because if not then we appear to have a problem - can you confirm the date, please?

[fpegrum]

The certificate reads:

1863 Marriage soleminized at S.Luke's Church in the Parish of Saint Pancras in the County of Middlesex. The date is given as May 10 and the signatory is C.K. Andrews. The entry number is 156.

Does any of that help?

Thanks.

Fiona

[Mythology]

I'm hoping that it will - I'm not sure that we'll find the answer, but you've saved me typing a few more questions, thank you! :)

"The only one that I can find reference to is St Luke, Oseney Crescent, Kentish Town. Is this the one?"
I would have said "Yes" except for one thing - St Luke, Oseney Crescent, does not seem to have been there in 1863. The registers are at the London Metropolitan Archives, with baptisms starting in December 1869 and marriages in 1870.
This ties in with South Camden Deanery web page which states St Luke, Oseney Crescent, was "Designed by Basil Champneys and built in 1867-9 of red Suffolk brick with stone dressings in a c13 style. It is now used as an artists studio."

However, if there is another St Luke which existed in St Pancras in 1863, then I have never come across it and, like you, I am unable to find any reference to it.

Unless anyone else knows the definite answer, I will have to do some prodding around at the LMA and see if I can track it down from the parish notes rather than just the catalogue.

Speculation, but it is, for example, possible that a smaller building existed in 1863, and did not have its own register. An entry number of 156 does not sound unreasonable for the St John the Baptist, Kentish Town Road, marriage register starting in January 1859, so the earlier marriages at our mysterious St Luke *may* be in that.

Unfortunately, it is also possible that a smaller building existed in 1863 which had its own register, but that register has been lost.

[fpegrum]

Thankyou for your response - would it make any difference if the bride and groom were noted as being in residence at King's Cross at the time of marriage?

[Pam Downes]

I've just checked in my London 1856 Post Office Directory (http://www.parishchest.com/shop/index.php?cmd=listlinkeditems&cat=D686&supplier=&breadcrumb=Directories%3ALondon:Archive+CD+Books+L td) which I obtained from a marvellous little company :D

and it lists the following St Luke churches, none of whom unfortunately have a C. K. Andrews listed as clergy.
1. Between 95 and 100 Berwick Street Soho
2. Clapham Old town
3. Nutford Place
4. Between 97 and 98 Old Street
5. Robert Street Chelsea.
and one listed as St Luke Chelsea Old church in Church Street Chelsea.
Though another St Lukes church could have been built between the publication of that directory and 1863.

There is a Nutford Place in existence today, just off Edgware Road. And of course, after just typing out that lot, I've remembered that there is a list of Victorian churches at
http://www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/coe.html#HOME

What may or not be of further help, is that on the 1861 census, Charles (looks more like an H, though the enumerator could have written this incorrectly) Andrews at
RG9/104 folio 117 page 40 has his occupation listed as 'Incumbent of St Lukes Kings Cross'. I think his address is 25 Hunter Street, and the parish is St Pancras.

The next directory I have is the London Post Office 1902 and is not really any more help in precisely locating St Lukes. The ones in Berwick Street and Old Street are still there; as are the Chelsea ones in Sydney Street and Redcliffe Gardens. Others in Deptford, Mile End Road, Bermondsey, Homerton, and Millwall. Nutford Place has Bryanston Square added to the address, and then there's Oseney Crescent Kentish Town, and two other Lukes in Westbourne Park and West Holloway.

Should have looked at Charles Andrews' 1871 census entry before typing all that 1902 rubbish. Occupation 'Vicar of St Lukes Kentish Town'. (RG10/250 folio 40 page 37).

Are you able to stop stratching now, Myth? :D :D

Pam Downes

[Pam Downes]

Rats. Just noticed that we've cross-posted. I'm obviously an even slower typist than Myth!
Pam

[Mythology]

"would it make any difference if the bride and groom were noted as being in residence at King's Cross"

Well done - that's given me the answer without leaving home! :)

I hadn't realised that the short-lived church which Brian Fisk lists as simply "Kings Cross - 1849-1868" was dedicated to St Luke. From memory, I think this one disappeared when they extended St Pancras railway station. Like a lot of things, it doesn't show up in its own right in the London Metropolitan Archives pathetic "London Generations" database if we do as instructed and put in "1863" and "SAINT LUKE" .....

.... but if we put in "CHRIST CHURCH, SOMERS TOWN" and, as that wasn't there until 1868, don't use 1863, try a range of years like 1868-1870, what do we find?

1869 Jan - 1870 Feb X081/006 (That's the microfilm number)
CHRIST CHURCH, SOMERS TOWN, CHALTON STREET, CAMDEN ("Camden" because they go by the modern London Borough")
and the description footnote says:
Register of marriages, including St Luke, King's Cross 1861-1868, and at Christ Church 1868-1868

It's the same with the baptisms - they are in with Christ Church Somers Town on film X081/004.

Mystery solved - and I've learned something in the process. :)

[Mythology]

"1861 census, Charles (looks more like an H, though the enumerator could have written this incorrectly) Andrews at
RG9/104 folio 117 page 40 has his occupation listed as 'Incumbent of St Lukes Kings Cross'. I think his address is 25 Hunter Street, and the parish is St Pancras"

Thanks, Pam - you and I were obviously thinking on the same lines, if nothing in the parish notes, try and track it down by Mr Andrews, and if I'd seen your message instead of dashing off and rummaging as soon as I saw the words "Kings Cross" in Fiona's message, that would have given it to me! :)

[Pam Downes]

..... if I'd seen your message instead of dashing off and rummaging as soon as I saw the words "Kings Cross" in Fiona's message, that would have given it to me! :)
Sorry I was such a slow typist Myth. But I think you were a genius to track it down like you did. |bowdown|
Pam Downes

[Mythology]

Don't apologise, Pam - twice is better than not at all. :)

No genius here, either - Chalton Street won't mean anything to you, but I used have lunch in a cafe by the market there about twice a week, so I know *exactly* where it is. Consequently, when nothing showed up under "Kings Cross", which suggested that the "Kings Cross" register was in with something else, it was the obvious one to try! :D

Oh - and an amendment to my memory. I said:
"I think this one disappeared when they extended St Pancras railway station."
For "extended", please read "built".
St Luke is on the 1862 Stanford's map, on the north side of Euston Road, dead opposite Tonbridge Street, and St Pancras station wasn't there at all then - I'd forgotten how late it was compared to Euston and Kings Cross!

[Pam Downes]

Oh - and an amendment to my memory. I said:
"I think this one disappeared when they extended St Pancras railway station."
For "extended", please read "built".
St Luke is on the 1862 Stanford's map, on the north side of Euston Road, dead opposite Tonbridge Street, and St Pancras station wasn't there at all then - I'd forgotten how late it was compared to Euston and Kings Cross!
I'm just intrigued as to how they managed to knock down a church in order to build one of them new-fangled railway stations, though from what you say the church hadn't been there that long so perhaps the residents were pleased to get rid of what they may have viewed as 'that ugly modern monstrosity'. :)
Pam Downes

[fpegrum]

Thankyou to both of you - absolute geniuses!

Fiona

[Mythology]

Fiona, you're more than welcome - when it comes to London churches, I love questions that result in me finding out things that I didn't know, much more interesting than just typing "The registers are at ....[wherever]". :)

Pam - the railways were King in those days, a bit like shoving motorways and bypasses through places about thirty years ago with no consideration for either the residents or the environment, just get your Act through Parliament and get a compulsory purchase order on anything that's in the way.

This one is a bit of a comedy though - this morning I used the "Phone a friend" option (I guess that's another heart attack on a plate I owe Moira when we next meet) and a condensed version of the story goes like this:

First they build one of those ghastly iron churches at Kings Cross. Along comes the Great Northern Railway. They want the site for their London terminus, so this iron church gets moved west along the road a bit.
The iron church isn't ideal anyway, so they think about building a proper one, but have a job finding a site, and don't have much in the way of funds. However, they have a stroke of luck - the Skinners Company donate a chunk of land, so in 1856 they start building their proper church.

1858 - this is the bit that made me laugh. In theory, I imagine that the church building fund would have been separate, but in 1858 the Vestry Clerk of St Pancras did a runner with some funds. In the same year, the St Pancras Director of the Poor also did a runner with some funds. And in 1858, building work on the new church stopped due to lack of funds.
Coincidence? :D

(continues)

[Mythology]

Then followed another fund raising effort, work started up again, and the new church finally opened in 1861 - but, having at last got their nice new building, what happens? Along comes the Midland Railway - they are fed up with using other companies' stations, they want their own London terminus, and decide on St Pancras. They get their Act through Parliament, and the new church has to go.

If I'd known this next bit, the location of our mysterious St Luke would have been obvious from the start. The church were, of course, compensated by the Midland Railway for their loss, and the result was the building of St Luke, Oseney Crescent, in Kentish Town! So, although Christ Church in Chalton Street became the nearest replacement in geographical terms, the old St Luke in Kings Cross and the new St Luke in Kentish Town are in fact linked - which explains why Charles Andrews is the Vicar at both.

Apparently, the original deal was for the land *and* the building, but the Midland wanted the church out earlier than agreed, so, to persuade them to go early, they let them flog the actual building to the Congregational Church in Wanstead.

All this reminds me a bit of home. I'm just on the Neasden side of the River Brent, and part of Neasden was originally in Kingsbury parish. The original Kingsbury parish church, which is *very* old, is actually still there in the graveyard. Its modern replacement is the church that used to be in Wells Street, Marylebone - like the old St Luke moving to Wanstead, a sort of "brick by brick" reconstruction. We also had one of those iron churches here - more of a large tin hut really - built to serve the Metropolitan Railway estate. This was originally just across the main road from my turning and, appropriately, the site later became a recycling depot. However, just like the iron church at Kings Cross, they decided to move this one. They did it on rollers, it wasn't supported properly, and the middle came unstuck, so it sat there clogging up the main road until they'd sorted it out - on the day of the first Wembley Cup Final, there's *really* clever planning for you!
:rolleyes:

[Pam Downes]

Thanks for all the extra info Myth (and Moira :) ). I suppose that in a way LMA's weird filing system did "us" (so to speak!) a favour because we've found out why the original St Luke's had such a short life.
And re your earlier quote of
St Luke is on the 1862 Stanford's map, on the north side of Euston Road, dead opposite Tonbridge Street, and St Pancras station wasn't there at all then - I'd forgotten how late it was compared to Euston and Kings Cross!
if you asked me how long Kings Cross station has been in existence I would probably say since about 1900. (These Lincolnshire yokels have just got no idea about the world outside of their farmyard :D )
Pam Downes

[Mythology]

And finally .....

I was puzzled by very last bit of the catalogue entry.
In the main bit, we have marriages at Christ Church 1869 onwards, and the footnote tells us that we also have the 1861-1868 St Luke marriages, but it then says "and at Christ Church 1868-1868". Why does it have this separately instead of the main entry for Christ Church simply starting in 1868 not 1869?

This bugged me, so I decided to have a look.

I mentioned that the Midland wanted the church out earlier than originally agreed, didn't I? Well, I guess the new church in Chalton Street wasn't 100% ready, OK for baptisms where you don't get hordes of people, but not up to scratch for marriages. In between the last of the "St Luke" marriages in August 1868 and the first of the marriages at the new church in Chalton Street in January 1869, there are two marriages, one on 27 October 1868 and one on 15 November 1868, which are in the new Christ Church *parish* - but not in the church!

The heading for these two says:
"Marriage solemnized at the Licensed Room in the parish of Christ Church in the County of Middlesex"

Of course, if you got one of those as a GRO cert, you would know where it was, wouldn't you? ;) :D