Dead end

[lesleyl]

Hi

I wonder if anyone can help. Just when the search gets interesting there is a brick wall.

I have just discovered a great aunt from a marriage I didn't know existed but am having no luck in finding out any more about her and her life.

I am searching for any information on ALICE ELIZABETH BURCHNELL. Date of birth is Q2 1863 in Peterborough. Her mother was EMMA MARIA HYDE who was married to my g-grandfather, WILLIAM BURCHNELL.

EMMA MARIA died in 1864 and the only record I have of ALICE is the 1871 census (age 7)when she is with Emma's parents, GEORGE AND ALICE HYDE, her grandparents in Peterborough. Obviously Alice did not go with or live with my g-grandfather as in 1869 he married my g-grandmother, Sarah Allen and there are no records in the subsequent census of her being with him.

There is a Alice E Burchnell in 1891 age 25 as a servant (cook) then the trial goes dead.

Can anyone help please.

[birdlip]

Hi there,

Could she have gone to London to work? There is this on freebmd marriages;

Sep 1900 BURCHELL Alice Elizabeth Holborn 1b 1479...(OK I know the spellings incorrect, but it would be an easy mistake)
spouse: Frederick Thomas Cleal or Frederick Edward Day

I don't have access to the 1901 census, but perhaps someone can look for Alice Cleal or Day, married to Frederick, and see if she is b 1863/4 Peterborough?

regards birdlip

[SBSFamilyhistory]

Hi there,

Could she have gone to London to work? There is this on freebmd marriages;

Sep 1900 BURCHELL Alice Elizabeth Holborn 1b 1479...(OK I know the spellings incorrect, but it would be an easy mistake)
spouse: Frederick Thomas Cleal or Frederick Edward Day

I don't have access to the 1901 census, but perhaps someone can look for Alice Cleal or Day, married to Frederick, and see if she is b 1863/4 Peterborough?

regards birdlip

sorry the only Alice's married to Fred* I can find on the 1901 Census are with the family name Earle and Kingston none with the Day or Cleal

tried looking at Alice day and Alice Cleal but no luck there either sorry.


Sue

[birdlip]

Ah well, it was worth a try, thanks Sue.

[Geoffers]

I am searching for any information on ALICE ELIZABETH BURCHNELL. Date of birth is Q2 1863 in Peterborough. Her mother was EMMA MARIA HYDE who was married to my g-grandfather, WILLIAM BURCHNELL. EMMA MARIA died in 1864 and the only record I have of ALICE is the 1871 census (age 7)when she is with Emma's parents, GEORGE AND ALICE HYDE, her grandparents in Peterborough.

Did either William BURCHNELL or her grandparents leave a will in which they mention her?

[Alan Welsford]

Hi
There is a Alice E Burchnell in 1891 age 25 as a servant (cook) then the trial goes dead.


I guess that you may be aware that the 1901 census shows an Alice E Burchnell as a 'Ladyhelp Domestic' at a household in Hastings All Saints in Sussex ? She is single, and stated as born 'Northamps, Peterborough', but fails to match to your lady, due to showing as only aged 26.

However, I can't immediately find the same person aged about 16 in 1891, or 6 in 1881, nor can I find any obvious GRO birth registration of an Alice E Burchnell in Peterborough in about 1875.

I'm therefore wondering if this could be your person, but with the date wrongly recorded by around 10 years. (The original, unfortunately really DOES say aged 26). That would be something I've seen several times before, where I'm quite confident I have the correct person.

Just a thought, anyway,

Best wishes,

Alan

[lesleyl]

This really get's to you. I went to bed last night thinking about Alice Burchnell and since I got up this morning I have been searching for anything or anyone to do with Alice and her grandparents George and Alice Hyde.

But still no luck. I can seem to find her an uncle or two but no semi-concrete connection. Geoffers are you suggesting that you have spotted someone on the probate side. I have checked that as well but nothing. Certainly her father, William Burchnell, wouldn't have left a will as he died in 1916 and was buried in a public grave. I guess you didn't do that if you had any money to leave?

HELP I'M GOING MAD!!!!!

[lesleyl]

Yes Alan, I did come across that record but like you I pretty much dismissed it because of the age.

If someone had a lady's maid back 1901 were they fairly wealthy and could one try to trace back any employment records. I'm talking out loud I guess and not making much sense but I really am clutching at straws.

Thanks to everyone is trying to help.

[Jan1954]

Yes Alan, I did come across that record but like you I pretty much dismissed it because of the age.



Don't necessarly do this. I have an ancestor who, in 30 years, managed to drop 20 years in the census! However, it is her - I know, as the name is fairly uncommon and the place of birth matches and there is no other candidate.

Remember, enumerators went house to house and made a note of the people in the dwelling and it was from these notes that they completed the forms. They may have used their best :confused: handwriting on the census forms, but writing in a notebook, using information that was given to them verbally, well - mistakes are bound to creep in.

[Alan Welsford]

I doubt anything would survive about people in service in most private households. Both my grandmothers, plus several sisters were in service, and we really do have no idea where, (other than two of them who can be found at addresses in 1901).

I understand what you are saying about the age, but people called Alice Burchnell seem rare, those with a middle initial 'E' even rarer, and people called 'Alice E Burchnell' born in Peterborough very rare indeed.

I haven't looked exhaustively, (too many possible issues around spelling variants Birchnall,Birchnell,Burchnall,Burchnell,etc. as well as more common variants without the 'n'), but I can on a quick look find no evidence elsewhere to support the birth of an Alice in Peterboro around 10 years after the one you are seeking. (In fact there were possibly no Burchnell births at all in that registration district between 1870 and 1892 ??).

My strong gut feel is that the 1901 census may be for your relative, despite the age discrepancy. I can't prove it, and of course the only way you can DISPROVE it, is by finding her elsewhere, (or finding a death or burial). At the moment, I cant locate anything else from online resources - sorry!

Alan

[lesleyl]

Hi Alan

I have looked exhaustively but I am beginning to think that perhaps you took her mother's maiden name HYDE. After her mother died in 1864 and the fact that my grandfather remarried in 1869 and also that on the 1871 census she is living with her maternal grandparents I am leaning that way. There is an Alice Hyde as a daughter to Edward (who could be the brother of Alice's mother Emma Maria) on the 1871 census but that contradicts the census she is on with her grandparents in the same year.

At what time do I draw a line under her and move on? There is something of a myth or mystery about my g-grandfather and Whittlesey(a) Cambs but no-one is alive to add any meat to the bones.

Thanks for your time.

[lesleyl]

Sorry Alan didn't mean you took Hyde but she took!!!!

[Jan1954]

Hi Alan

At what time do I draw a line under her and move on?

Make it a dotted line, put it to one side and concentrate on a different branch. Then, weeks or even months/years, you can revisit it with a fresh brain. There may then be that "eureka!" moment as everything slips into place.

Works for me! ;)

[Alan Welsford]

Hi Alan
There is an Alice Hyde as a daughter to Edward (who could be the brother of Alice's mother Emma Maria) on the 1871 census but that contradicts the census she is on with her grandparents in the same year.


Sorry no, I don't like that theory, I'm afraid.

For a start it's an Alice A, not an Alice E, but this is almost certainly the reference for the birth of the daughter of Edward.

Births Dec 1863
-----------------------------------
HYDE Alice Anne Peterbro 3b 240

We know there's a separate GRO for Alice E Burchnell, so I can't see they could be one and the same. I'll admit I have seen the same person enumerated in two different places in the same census though - several times, in fact!. (My wife is descended from a ship's carpenter who can be found in the same census both at home with his family, and also at sea on his ship....).

I'd be reasonably comfortable that the one in service in 1891 is yours, (particularly as the middle initial 'E' appears, as well as a match on place of birth). Personally if she retained Burchnell until she was 25, and out in the world on her own, I think it unlikely she would then have switched, (but it's not impossible).

It might help if she could be found in 1881, of course. You've got me going on this now, so I'll take one more look!

Update!

I've looked, and I really can't find her in 1881 either. (It might help if people didn't keep transcribing places like Petworth (in Sussex) as Peterborough though!)

A.

[janbooth]

Lesley,

It does not look as if George and Alice married in Northamptonshire as I have searched on both the Northants and the Soke of Peterborough Marriage Index with no luck although there are other HYDEs mentioned. However, I note in the 1861 census, Alice gives her place of birth as Exton, Rutland whereas all the other census records show her as born Peterborough, so it may be that they were married in Rutland.

I could not find them on the 1841 census at first but then that is no wonder as they look to be down as George and Alice IVES (HO107/817/3, folios 11/2, pages 50/1 living at Malting Row). All the children's names and ages seem to correspond, with the addition of a Mary aged 13 and a Samuel aged 7, comparing them against the 1851 census record.

There is a marriage on the Soke of Peterborough Marriage Index on 14 July 1851 at Peterborough St John of a Mary Ann HYDES, otp, spinster, of full age, father George, labourer to a Thomas ANNIS, otp, bachelor, full age, labourer, father Thomas, labourer who would appear to be the Mary aged 13 in the 1841 census above. There are also HYDE and variant marriages going back to the early 1700s in Peterborough.

I also have the Broadway Cemetery Index of Peterborough and there are the following HYDE entries:

George HYDE died 30 August 1898, aged 68 husband of Mary
Martha HYDE died December 1892, aged 62 wife of Samuel
Martha HYDE died March 1896, aged 78 wife of Robert
Mary HYDE died October1866, aged 34 wife of George
Robert HYDE died December 1897, aged 79 husband of Martha
Samuel HYDE died February 1914, aged 78, husband of Martha

HTH anyway

Janet.

[Geoffers]

Geoffers are you suggesting that you have spotted someone on the probate side. I have checked that as well but nothing.

No, but then I haven't looked; 'twas just an idea.



Certainly her father, William Burchnell, wouldn't have left a will as he died in 1916 and was buried in a public grave. I guess you didn't do that if you had any money to leave?

Possibly not, but you'll never know until you look. Also, if probate was not granted, perhaps Admon was?........and then the grandparents????

[lesleyl]

Also, if probate was not granted, perhaps Admon was?........and then the grandparents????

I look on Ancestry the wills and probate part and there was nothing from either side. What is Admon?