Mary Spaul

[malcolm99]

K – Do you know the names of any of Mary’s siblings & have you any idea of the parents of Joseph Spaul in the 1881 & 1891 Censuses?

Censuses:
1841: HO107 Piece 767 fol. 6 p.24 [no book number!]
1851: HO107/1999 fol. 628 p. 7
1861: RG9/1909 fol. 44 p.11
1871: RG10/2852 fol. 70 p.40
1881: RG11/45 fol. 22 p. 35
1891: RG12/32 fol. 134 p. 8

Coromandel - that looks really interesting. I'll have a good look at that. Just quickly, before reading it properly, I think in 1841 Mary is with Edward Dunn (a gardener) who lives at Easton just to the west of Costessey.

[malcolm99]

Unfortunately the edge of the image (or perhaps the edge of the page?) seems to be cut off. At the moment I am getting an error message when I try to view the next image, no. 118.

Enfin!

https://familysearch.
org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-88155-94?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-WQR:2109891139

There are Goldsmiths in Cossey as well - I think I know most of the population by now!

[malcolm99]

What is lacking is any record of Charles Spaul’s marriage although it’s possible that he makes an appearance here as a witness at Richard Spaull’s marriage in 1821>

https://familysearch.
org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11663-146845-86?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-3XW:n189713337

So comparing this entry with the 1820 St Gregory Parish Register (#12), this is definitely the same Charles and Hannah. Can we assume Richard was Charles's brother?

[Coromandel]

So comparing this entry with the 1820 St Gregory Parish Register (#12), this is definitely the same Charles and Hannah. Can we assume Richard was Charles's brother?

It seems very likely. Well done for finding the original St Gregory's register with the actual signatures of Charles & Hannah, by the way. They're pretty distinctive which is a great help. Strange that Charles and Richard both seem to minimise the 's' at the beginning of their name, so it comes out more like sPaul.

[malcolm99]

Strange that Charles and Richard both seem to minimise the 's' at the beginning of their name, so it comes out more like sPaul.

What nearly got me into trouble once or twice was that there is a PAUL family in Cossey as well. They only did these things knowing they'd confuse us a couple of centuries on....

[malcolm99]

On gardenpest29's thread about this family on Genes Reunited, there's an interesting 1841 census with a Charles & Hannah Spaul in Costessey. It doesn't look like there's a Mary with them, but there is an Ambrose Spaul (aged 10) who apparently turns up with Mary later in London. Both Charles & Hannah are shown as 40 on the 1841 census

Which reads:

Charles Spaul, 40 , Woodman , born in Norfolk
Hannah Spaul, 40 , born in Norfolk
Ambrose Spaul, 10 , born in Norfolk
Gregory Spaul, 7 , born in Norfolk
Stephen Spaul, 1 , born in Norfolk


....which means we're building up quite a nice little family to work on.

[malcolm99]

Well fortunately for gardenpest, but unfortunately for we who were enjoying the hunt, I think I’ve come across where the answer is - which is the Norfolk Record Office (which if we hadn’t been enjoying the chase so much, we’d have gone to quite some time ago - Coromandel actually got there in #4!)). I think there are a lot of other answers there as well.

Go to: nrocat.norfolk.gov.uk/DServe/public/searches/nroquick.htm (just put https:// in front – not www)
and just search for St Walstan. On the 2nd page of results are some interesting records including the parish registers 1785 – 1896 and also ‘Registers and Status Animarum Books’ (records 18 & 21).

It looks as though the ‘Status Animarum’ books could be particularly valuable for information about the family –see
https://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_family_book

Summing up what I think we’ve found so far:

Mary’s father Charles married Hannah Poole in St Gregory’s, Norwich 25 December 1820 (see # 12 above).

Richard Spaul was probably Charles’s brother – they appear to have been together at a confirmation service on 29th July 1813 [Registers of Costessey - bottom of p.302]. Charles and Hannah were definitely witnesses at Richard’s marriage to Louisa Turner at Cossey Parish Church on 26th November 1821 (see #9 above). Richard is on the 1851 Census: HO107 Piece 1817 fol. 21 p. 35.

Charles and Hannah & some of their children/grandchildren are on the 1841 Census in Cossey Park: HO107 Piece 767 fol. 28 p. 10 and in 1851: HO107 Piece 1817 fol. 27 p. 3. They don’t appear to be on the 1861 Census and if they died they were not buried at Costessey Parish Church (at least up until September 1869). Hannah is not the Ann Spaul on the 1871 Census: RG10 Piece 116 fol.35 p.27.

Mary appears to be on the 1841 Census: HO107 Piece 767 fol. 6 p. 24 & subsequent censuses (see #11 above).

[e & oe!]

[Coromandel]

Morning Malcolm

The death of a 67 year old Charles Spaul was registered in the Forehoe district in the last quarter of 1867. Is this 'our' Charles? If so he ought to be on the 1861 census somewhere.

The death of a 73 year old Hannah Spaul was registered in the Kensington district in the second quarter of 1871. There's a good chance she was still alive for the 1871 census, taken on 2 April. I can see a 73 year old Hanah Spaul (born Norfolk) in the Brompton subdistrict, Kensington district, in the FamilySearch index to the 1871 census. She is with her son who is transcribed as Andrews Spall (41, born Norfolk) and his wife Ann (46, born Devon). If 'Andrews' is Ambrose in disguise then this could be the family from Cossey.

In support of this hypothesis, I cannot see an Andrews or Andrew Spaul (or variants) in FreeBMD. whereas I can see an Ambrose Spaul marrying Anne Southcott in the Marylebone district in the last quarter of 1863. There's what looks like another marriage of the same couple in the same district in the next quarter (Anne this time indexed as Southcote).

[malcolm99]

The death of a 73 year old Hannah Spaul was registered in the Kensington district in the second quarter of 1871. T

The reason I'd ruled her out was that in the 1851 Census Hannah is apparently only 43 -HO107/1817 fol. 27 p.3

- but I'll get onto Andrew/Ambrose right now......

[malcolm99]

Part 1 -

1871 Census:
Address: Bute Street (there’s another bit to this address but I’ll have to identify it later – it seems to be part of a pub).
RG10/51 fol. 56 p. 54

Andrews Spaul, Head, married, 41, Job Master[?], born Norfolk
Ann Spaul, Wife, married, 46, Ditto [!], born Devonshire
Hannah Spaul, Mauther[?], widow, 73, Ditto [!], born Norfolk

Sorry I'm so slow this morning - I'm out of practice!