View Full Version : Thomas LUCAS and Louisa COOPER

23-07-2005, 6:11 PM
I am desparately seeking a marriage between Thomas LUCAS, born Llangurig (1816 - 1825) and Louisa COOPER, born Isle of Wight 1839/41. They ended up in Islington by 1860s, but who knows where they met/married? Anyone?

Diane Grant-Salmon
23-07-2005, 6:15 PM
No offence meant ...... but I think it would have been better to post your message on the Genealogy Beginners forum, rather than all of the County Forums ....... I thought my eyes were playing tricks when I clicked on New Posts!

Ken Boyce
23-07-2005, 7:22 PM
I am desparately seeking a marriage between Thomas LUCAS, born Llangurig (1816 - 1825) and Louisa COOPER, born Isle of Wight 1839/41. They ended up in Islington by 1860s, but who knows where they met/married? Anyone?

I for one would appreciate it if you would go into the edite mode and remove the majority of these multiple postings

23-07-2005, 11:39 PM
Ken, This was an unkind response. I am not messing about. I am seriously trying to check every county as I have tried everything else I can think of (see my long reply to Geoffers on the Norfolk forum. He had the courtesy to take me seriously). Normally, I would not stray outside the forums that I know to be relevant to my family and I know that many other seekers only check the forums for their 'own' counties. This means that most seekers will only see my request if it appears where they habitually look. With Thomas and Louisa, I do NOT know which counties to exclude. How will I find out that someone in e.g. Leicestershire has a record of their marriage if that someone does not know I am looking for it? I only know that this couple were allegedly born in Wales and Hampshire but were in Islington (Middlesex) after 1860 - possibly as early as 1858, but there is a question mark over the place of birth of the son born in 1858-ish. Could have been Carmarthen.
I have researched conscientiously and as thoroughly as I can on my own in local offices and on the net. I spent last week in London at the LMA, FRC and Islington Library. This is my real brick wall and I was hoping for a little miracle, perhaps, but not for a sniper! I have done searches for other seekers when I have visited record offices and offered information whenever I felt I could help, whether through these forums or other sites. I have never deliberately made a trivial request. Nor would I dream of criticising other seekers, however naive or daft I think they might be. You wound me.

Ken Boyce
24-07-2005, 4:27 AM
Sorry If I appeared heavy handed but I was taught that swamping of a forum or of mailing lists in this manner is a no-no and is a turn-off for many.

In my case I had taken an interest in your original pleasent request but discarded it in response to what I considered to be some form of a joke

24-07-2005, 8:55 PM
No offence meant ...... but I think it would have been better to post your message on the Genealogy Beginners forum, rather than all of the County Forums ....... I thought my eyes were playing tricks when I clicked on New Posts!But Diane (and Ken), I am not a beginner. I have searched every record/site/source I can find. And it is clear from the responses from other forums that most folk have simply read the ONE posting I put on 'their' forum. I cannot afford to go around the country visiting the local archives of every county in case my errant forebears paused there in their progress from Wales/IoW to Islington. One very short post on every forum seemed not unreasonable to me.

Diane Grant-Salmon
25-07-2005, 9:28 AM
As I said in my original message Robina ..... no offence meant. The multiple postings would just be a shock for anybody who clicked on New Posts, after a few days absence from the Forums.

I am not a beginner either, but I have asked for help on the Genealogy Beginners Forum, as have other experienced people ...... there's no shame in this!

25-07-2005, 10:09 AM
Almost every other forum that I use has rules about multiple postings, and your threads would have locked or deleted by the admins. On some forums you get banned for doing that - straight away, no messing about.

Multiple posting is, in terms of forum etiquette, considered to be extremely bad manners. Apart from the point that Diane makes, you get the problem of multiple replies in threads which all have the same title so people find it difficult to keep track of what's where.

Furthermore, something that can be extremely irritating is when somebody using the "New Posts" lists, catching up from when they last visited so starting at the oldest of them, replies to your post then, going through the others in order, finds that someone else has already given exactly the same information in another of your threads, so they have wasted their time.

Robina, if I did not recognise your name and know you to be a helpful and genuine person from past messages, I would have completely ignored the whole lot. This is what most people would do, so multiple posting usually has the opposite effect of what you want - people who don't recognise you will most likely assume that you are some kind of nutter, pass you by, and you will get *less* replies.

If, in the future, you have reason to post in every county forum, I would suggest that you do two or three at a time, wait a few days, and if there's no response, *then* try another two or three, etc., etc., not the whole lot at once.

Ken Boyce
25-07-2005, 6:30 PM
I am desparately seeking a marriage between Thomas LUCAS, born Llangurig (1816 - 1825) and Louisa COOPER, born Isle of Wight 1839/41. They ended up in Islington by 1860s, but who knows where they met/married? Anyone?

Not much to go on but using the advance search feature of the 1881 I located Thomas and Louisa Lucas and family in Islington The elder child aged 11 born in Islington suggests that they were in Islington in 1870 and possibly married there or elsewhere in 1868/9. Based on Louisa's age the earliest they typically would have married is c1859 (assuming she was c18/19). I was unable to locate the couple, single or together, in the complete index for London for the 1861 Census either under Lucas or Cooper. I do not have access to the 1871 London index or indexes of any census for Hants (IoW) or Glamorgan except for the 1881. Checking into Thomas's Billiards connection there is nothing in the 1856 London Directory. The only readily available post 1856 London Directory on CD or online is for the 1882 on CD of which I don't have a copy.

It would seem to me that Louisa, dependent on her family circumstances may have travelled to London c1855-60 to work as a young domestic or similar and that Thomas may have travelled directly or indirectly to the big city aged c18-20 (c1840) to make his fortune with a Cue Stick

Pure speculation on my part but based on what facts were made available concentrating on London would seem more feasible than most of the counties that were posted with absolutely no supporting evidence of a connection


25-07-2005, 11:26 PM
I hope you're not going to be cross with me all over again Ken, for giving minimal info. I did so because I was trying to keep the original message short: I merely hoped that someone might have a record of the marriage. I have them together in Islington from 1861 census and onwards although the birth references for the oldest son are not consistent: Clerkenwell, Carmarthen, or ? I spent last week in London (thereby causing my husband great anxiety) at the LMA, FRC and Islington Local history centre trying so hard to track down the marriage and/or son Thomas's baptism. No success (though I did find a 13th child - I already had 12 out of the family tradition of 18). That is when/why I became 'desparate' ..... but I am beginning to think that this branch is dead on the tree, so to speak. I think you may be right about Louisa, but I cannot find even a suspicion of her in 1851 or 1841 censuses, even with much help from friends. Without a marriage I'll not get back to her/his parents. Ah well, back to the 5,6...and 9x ggps on other branches.Thanks for your ideas.

Ken Boyce
26-07-2005, 1:55 PM
Hi Robina
Would you post the 1861 and 1871 file refs so that I can take a look at the original records


26-07-2005, 11:30 PM
Here you go Ken:1861:RG9/132 p.26; 1871: RG10/267 f.32 p.57; 1881: RG11/0278/71 p.42; 1891: RG12/146 p.26
Death of Thomas: 19 Jun 1891 (I have DC). 1901 (Louisa & others, inc. my gran, Amy and her future husband James BALLS): RG13/164/43 p.48
Please do not feel that you need to spend much time on this.
Thanks for the interest.

Ken Boyce
27-07-2005, 5:54 PM
Hi Robina
I took a look at the facsimiles of the census records and came up with the following
(BTW it is better to quote the folio number of a page in a Piece as the Page Number sequence repeats for each Enumeration District)

RG9/132 Folio 76
Islington – All Saints
Thomas snr age 44 Traveller born Glamorganshire
Louisa age 22 born Portsmouth
Thomas jnr age 2 born Clerkenwell
Edward age 9 months born Clerkenwell

RG10/267 Folio 32
Islington – St Matthew
33 Charles St
Thomas snr 53 Comhercial Clerk born Wales
Louisa 30 born Isle of Wight
Thomas jnr 12 born Middlesex Islington
Edward 10 born Middlesex Islington
Emily 7 born Middlesex Islington
Florence 5 born Middlesex Islington
Ernest 4 born Middlesex Islington
Sydney 2 born Middlesex Islington

My 1861 image is quite clear and shows Thomas jnr and Edward both born in Clerkenwell

FreeBDM lists a birth registered Islington Sept Qtr 1860 for an Edward Lucas which matches the census entry except for the location

It is conceivable, ignoring the Civil Registration District boundaries, that there were geographical locations around what is today’s Finsbury area which could have been loosely referred to as either Clerkenwell or Islington likely tied to the ecclesiastical parishes. In which case I would consider the two quoted birth places to be referring to the same general location. Someone more knowledgably of the area may care to comment on this.

Differences of 2 years in the various quoted ages is to be expected and is not of concern

What does appear to be inconsistent is Louisa’s Birthplace

To be Con't

Ken Boyce
27-07-2005, 6:24 PM
Part 2

Following along on the trail of Louisa's birthplace the following are the LDS transcript of th 1881 and my transcript of the 1891 for which my CD image is fairly clear

Dwelling: 30 Hanley Rd W
Census Place: Islington, London, Middlesex, England
Source: FHL Film 1341060 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0278 Folio 71 Page 42
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Thomas LUCAS M 62 M Montgomery, Wales
Rel: Head
Occ: Billiard Room Keeper
Louisa LUCAS M 40 F Isle of Wight, Hampshire, England
Rel: Wife
Ernest LUCAS 13 M St Marys Islington
Rel: Son
Sydney LUCAS 11 M St Marys Islington
Rel: Son
Minnie LUCAS 8 F St Marys Islington
Rel: Daur
Albert LUCAS 8 M St Marys Islington
Rel: Son
Winefred LUCAS 6 F St Marys Islington
Rel: Daur
Edith LUCAS 4 F St Marys Islington
Rel: Daur
Amy LUCAS 3 F St Marys Islington
Rel: Daur
Grace LUCAS 1 F St Marys Islington
Rel: Daur

RG12/146 Folio 62
Islington – St Mary
8 Cottinham Terrace
Thomas snr 64 Retired Grocer born Wales Llangurig
Louisa 50 born Hampshire Ryde
Florence Cheesewright 24 Daughter Wid born London Islington
Sydney H age 21 Apprentice Compositor born Middlesex Islington
Minnie18 Domestic Help born Middlesex Islington
Winifred 16 Tie Maker born Middlesex Islington
Albert 18 Baker born Middlesex Islington
Edith U Scholar 14 born Middlesex Islington

We see that Louisa birthplace is given as Portsmouth, I of W, I of W, and Ryde all of these places are in Hampshire and presumably all in the Hampshire Civil Registration County coverage. However, Portsmouth is the odd man out as it is geographically located on the Mainland and not on the I o W
I'm not familiar with the genealogy of this part of the UK to comment on the significance of this discrepancy.


27-07-2005, 11:53 PM
Ken, As you have seen, Louisa's place and date is consistently given as IoW or, more specifically Ryde and 1841 apart from 1861 census which puts her on the mainland opposite the island and has her born two years earlier. COOPER is an extremely common name on IoW, but there are no births of a Louisa anywhere around that time or place/county that could be her. Researchers on the Island have found no baptisim. I have found an unnamed female COOPER born in Ryde in 1839, but have no reason to 'adopt' her as Louisa unless I can discover whether the parents tally. Without a marriage this is not possible.
Place is easier for Thomas, but dates are too variable to make sense. I have two or three candidates which, without knowing the parents of the Thomas who married Louisa, I cannot differentiate between. Even if I find a Thomas LUCAS and a Louisa COOPER in 1841 and 1851 (and there are candidates lining up), without each other and without a marriage/knowledge of parents names, how will I know that they are the right Thomas/Louisa? No marriage, no progress. None found in IoW, Hampshire, Montgomeryshire or Islington (where I have scoured the parish records). Mind you, they seem to have been pretty haphazard about baptising or registering their offspring, so why should I think that they ever did actually marry?!
Cheers. Robina

09-08-2005, 11:50 PM
Thanks again to Ken and anyone who showed an interest in helping me trace the antecedents of Louisa and Thomas and here's the good news (for me, anyway) from which lessons might be usefully learnt: I tried a bit of lateral thinking and sent at great cost for the birth certificates of every child of theirs for whom I could find a reference. On just one of these did I find that Louisa had not only the second name Frances (appearing only one other time, on my Gran's BC) but a third: Annie. IGI reveals a Louisa Frances Ann COOPER christened on 01 May 1842 in Portsmouth. Parents: Michael and Ann. (They also had a son christened in 1827). Balance of probablities says that this is my girl. Where the Isle of Wight comes in.....search me! Off to the Hampshire forum to see if anyone can help with the parents, though I think that I have found their marriage myself.
I shall also post Montogmeryshire (only Montgom. ....don't panic!) to see if anyone can look at parish records with an emphasis on Thomas's second name.
If at first, second and third you don't succeed, check the fine detail of lateral family - even if it means SPENDING MONEY....it is worth every penny!
Cheers Robina