James Joseph Kyte and Alice Mustin

[patk]

I’m having the deuce of a problem with James Joseph Kyte (born Lambeth c. 1872 – died Battersea Dec. 1932) and his wife, Alice Louise Mustin – or at least a woman named Alice Mustin. They seem to have been married in 1902 since in 1911 census the marriage is stated to be 9 years old. The union produced 9 children, born between 1904 and 1922, 5 of them, starting with Reginald Patrick Kyte (b. Wandsworth, Dec. 1913), with the mother’s maiden name given as ‘Mustin’.

Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to locate a marriage anywhere between a Kyte and a Mustin, or variations of those names.

The water is muddied somewhat by a marriage between an Alice Mustin and a Thomas Edward Smith in Wandsworth in September 1898. Thinking that Smith might have died or done a runner, I also checked for an appropriate marriage between an Alice Smith and a James Kyte, but found none.

To further confuse things, James Joseph Kyte is himself a mystery. Despite appearances in the censuses of 1881, 1901 & 1911 – he is absent like the rest of the Kyte family from 1891 – I can find no record of his birth, and I’ve tried all manner of variations on the name: Kite, Kight, Keyte, &c.

Any help would be much appreciated.

[Peter Goodey]

The water is muddied somewhat by a marriage between an Alice Mustin and a Thomas Edward Smith in Wandsworth in September 1898

I wouldn't say that is muddying the waters. In the 1901 census Alice Smith is now living with her parents and has a 1 year old daughter, Alice. She is shown as married but there is no sign of a husband.(The National Archives; RG 9/409 f 46)

In 1911 little Alice and her grandmother are in the home of an Uncle and Aunt (TNA RG 14/1982)

Alice Smith, the mother, has all the signs of an abandoned woman. There's a good chance she simply made a home with James Kyte without going through a form of marriage (which might have been bigamous had it occurred)

[garstonite]

Hiya - James Joseph Kyte - NO registered birth on www.freebmd.org.uk in the Lambeth area
there is a James Joseph Kite - he was born in Charlton ,Dover
James Joseph Kite born 3rd June 1873 in Charlton, - parents John Henry Kite /Ellen Eliza
christened 22nd July 1873 in Dover ,Kent
IF this is your James Joseph ??
John Henry Kite married Ellen Eliza Smith march qtr 1867 - Dover,
so do you know what James Joseph Kyte fathers name was ?

[garstonite]

IF that is your James Joseph Kyte birth in Dover - you may find amongst his 9 children a John /Henry /Ellen /Eliza amongst their names ??

[patk]

I wouldn't say that is muddying the waters. In the 1901 census Alice Smith is now living with her parents and has a 1 year old daughter, Alice. She is shown as married but there is no sign of a husband.(The National Archives; RG 9/409 f 46)

In 1911 little Alice and her grandmother are in the home of an Uncle and Aunt (TNA RG 14/1982)

Alice Smith, the mother, has all the signs of an abandoned woman. There's a good chance she simply made a home with James Kyte without going through a form of marriage (which might have been bigamous had it occurred)

Nice one, Peter! I missed that. It looks very much as though Mr. Smith did do a runner -- or perhaps Alice did if her first husband turned out to be a wrong 'un. She may, though, have faced a similar problem to my mother who was widowed in WWII with a ten-month-old [= me] but with no absolute confirmation of my father's death. Her second marriage was undertaken with some nervousness -- even though it didn't take place until 1947! Alice's first husband, Thomas Smith, may have been 'missing in action' in South Africa.

At this late date it's all speculation, but I do thank you for spotting the young Alice.

[patk]

Hiya - James Joseph Kyte - NO registered birth on www.freebmd.org.uk in the Lambeth area
there is a James Joseph Kite - he was born in Charlton ,Dover
James Joseph Kite born 3rd June 1873 in Charlton, - parents John Henry Kite /Ellen Eliza
christened 22nd July 1873 in Dover ,Kent
IF this is your James Joseph ??
John Henry Kite married Ellen Eliza Smith march qtr 1867 - Dover,
so do you know what James Joseph Kyte fathers name was ?

I found the Dover birth too, but it's a no-go. The parents of "my" James Joseph Kyte were Thomas Valentine Kyte (born about 1838 in Tipperary -- died Q3 1887) and Maria Kearney (born about 1840 in Ireland). The pair married April 10 1864 in Dublin and promptly moved to that part of London/Surrey that includes Lambeth and had 6 children:

Hannah Maria Kyte b. about 1866 Lambeth
Stephen Ambrose Kyte March 1868 St. George S.
Thomas Christopher Kyte b. about 1870 Battersea
James Joseph Kyte b. about 1872 Lambeth
Elizabeth A Kyte b. about 1875 Lambeth
Agnes C Kyte b. about 1878 Lambeth

Only Stephen has a birth for which I can find a registration. All these individuals appear in the various censuses, yet have no registered births. I've tried all the variations of the name Kyte that I can think of to no avail. As I wrote somewhere else, one can understand a mis-transcription or misspelling so bad as to completely hide one name, but five suggests something more than a coincidence. If the parents avoided registration deliberately, why break with tradition with Stephen? It's a mystery.

[patk]

I wouldn't say that is muddying the waters. In the 1901 census Alice Smith is now living with her parents and has a 1 year old daughter, Alice. She is shown as married but there is no sign of a husband.(The National Archives; RG 9/409 f 46)

In 1911 little Alice and her grandmother are in the home of an Uncle and Aunt (TNA RG 14/1982)

Alice Smith, the mother, has all the signs of an abandoned woman. There's a good chance she simply made a home with James Kyte without going through a form of marriage (which might have been bigamous had it occurred)

Peter, further to my earlier reply I found an interesting error in the transcription of the 1901 census. As the tabulated details of the Mustin family appear on Ancestry, the young Alice Smith's age is given as 7 and her birth year as 1894 which means her mother must have been 14 when the baby was born. I felt this to be unlikely, especially since Alice married Mr. Smith in 1898. A look at the actual census indicates, as you say, that the baby was actually 1. There's a small dot next to it which at a cursory glance might make it look like a 7.

However. there are a number of Alice Smiths born in the geographical area for c. 1900 so figuring out which one may be problematical.

[pwholt]

Just a thought - I expect you have been looking under K for any census or index entries, but what about R? If the writing was dubious, it might be misread as an R instead of a K, or as some other letter. My grandmother had an unusual first name but a very common surname (HUGHES) so I tried to find the family using her first name. No joy, because her name was transcribed as beginning with a R, instead of a P. There was a very long lead in to the next letter which was an E which is why it was not transcribed correctly. Might similar have happened to your KYTEs? pwholt

[patk]

Just a thought - I expect you have been looking under K for any census or index entries, but what about R? If the writing was dubious, it might be misread as an R instead of a K, or as some other letter. My grandmother had an unusual first name but a very common surname (HUGHES) so I tried to find the family using her first name. No joy, because her name was transcribed as beginning with a R, instead of a P. There was a very long lead in to the next letter which was an E which is why it was not transcribed correctly. Might similar have happened to your KYTEs? pwholt

Thanks for the suggestion. I did actually try this with one of the reprobates, substituting the first letter with another in alphabetical order no matter how ridiculous the name appeared. I also tried to imagine how the name 'Kyte' might sound to an English registration clerk when pronounced by a possibly illiterate Irish immigrant. (A depressing number of early to mid-Victorian ancestors of mine were obliged to sign their names with an 'X'.) No luck, though. It's a mystery and a half.

[lewisbeels]

Maria with James, Agnes, Elizabeth and Thomas can be found in 1891 under Ryle on one particular site.
Reference: RG12 p 402, f 113, p 23.
Gill