Louisa Matilda Hall -- can't find her husband

[patk]

I'm trying to find the name of Louisa Matilda Hall's husband. A Louisa Hall is shown as being married in the St Luke district of London in the December quarter of 1860 where (in FreeBMD) she appears in the company of another woman (Jane Elizabeth Gurney) and a solitary man (John Cooper). The date is about right as her first child, Arthur Spillane Lazenby, was born in 1862 although oddly, in the PRO birth record, no mother's maiden name is given.

I've checked on FreeBMD all the marriages in the Dec. quarter of 1860 at St. Luke and found no Lazenby, or anything like it. Short of buying a copy of the certificate, is there any way of matching Louisa to her husband's name? I'm interested in the name William Judd who was married there too in the same quarter. Like Louisa there are only three names, two men (Judd and Richard Gustavus Albert) and a solitary woman (Mary Ann Markham). Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Megan Roberts]

Generally speaking if there is no maiden name indicated on the GRO birth index that suggests that the child was illegitmate.

A Louisa Matilda Hall married in 1865 in Pancras, London, but the only way to be sure which of the two men identified in the index is her husband would be to buy the marriage certificate. Of course you try tracking her under either of those men's names in later censuses, and then through a process of elimination hope to arrive at the right one, but that does not guarantee success or accuracy.

[christanel]

Louisa M is in the 1881 census with dau Louisa, son Henry 3 and Walter age 1. Also present is husband William Lazenby age47 born Ipswich, Suffolk, a bookseller.
Henry's birth reg on the GRO index give the mother's maiden name as Hall.
So are you thinking that William Lazenby in 1881 may actually be William Judd in the marraige reg? Of course William Lazenby and Louisa Matilda may never have married.
Its funny but on ancestry William is only showing for the 1881 census yet there is a baptism record for a William Henry Lazenby 1835 and no census hints showing for him prior to 1881 although there is a marriage in 1856. Is this him and he couldn't marry Louisa because his wife was still alive.
There is also a marriage of a William Lazenby 1852. I'll look around some more.
Christina

[christanel]

Your William being a bookseller could be this man here
Christina

[almach]

There's a tree on Ancestry which has Jane Elizabeth Gurney married to Thomas Hook. Thomas Hook is indexed on FreeBMD Dec qrt, 1860, St Luke 1b 355. 355 is not a St Luke page number for that quarter as all start with 8, looking at the original page it is almost impossible to read as very faint but could be 855.

[christanel]

Generally speaking if there is no maiden name indicated on the GRO birth index that suggests that the child was illegitmate.

A Louisa Matilda Hall married in 1865 in Pancras, London, but the only way to be sure which of the two men identified in the index is her husband would be to buy the marriage certificate. Of course you try tracking her under either of those men's names in later censuses, and then through a process of elimination hope to arrive at the right one, but that does not guarantee success or accuracy.

1871 Piece 390 Folio 65 Page 48
Silas Kent 29
Louisa Kent 29
Nellie Kent 3
Anne L Kent 1 birth reg mmn Hall
Christina

[patk]

Louisa M is in the 1881 census with dau Louisa, son Henry 3 and Walter age 1. Also present is husband William Lazenby age47 born Ipswich, Suffolk, a bookseller.
Henry's birth reg on the GRO index give the mother's maiden name as Hall.
So are you thinking that William Lazenby in 1881 may actually be William Judd in the marraige reg? Of course William Lazenby and Louisa Matilda may never have married.
Its funny but on ancestry William is only showing for the 1881 census yet there is a baptism record for a William Henry Lazenby 1835 and no census hints showing for him prior to 1881 although there is a marriage in 1856. Is this him and he couldn't marry Louisa because his wife was still alive.
There is also a marriage of a William Lazenby 1852. I'll look around some more.
Christina

According to William Lazenby's 1881 census entry he was born c. 1834 at Ipswich. I suspect the place at least is correct since, by an odd coincidence, one of his daughters died there. So any other suspect would have to have been born in Suffolk. The Lazenby arrested for selling obscene books is indeed 'my' man, and seems to have been active in that profession since c. 1871 which is the earliest date I've found legal problems for him. In that he is called 'Henry Ashby alias William Lazenby.' Judd is another name associated with him, but it's uncertain whether Judd is another alias or a different person entirely. Other aliases include 'D. Cameron' [patently absurd] and Henry Mason.

The 1865 marriage of Louisa Matilda Hall is tempting I have to admit, but neither of the two potential husbands can be traced to Suffolk so far as I can tell. Whereas the 1860 marriage seems more promising because of the Judd name attached to it. But I can't trace him to Suffolk either. The lack of a maiden name for their first child, Arthur Spillane Lazenby, is strange. It does indeed suggest the parents weren't married at the time of the birth. The second child, Louisa Emma Lazenby, was born in 1866 and the GRO entry for that birth clearly gives Hall as the mother's maiden name. Perversely this brings us back to the 1865 marriage! Aaagh! It is suggested in some circles that William Lazenby is a false name, but it's strange, if true, that Lazenby gave his name to all his children, including the one he fathered prior to his becoming a pornographer.

[patk]

Your William being a bookseller could be this man here
Christina

That's the reprobate!

[patk]

Louisa M is in the 1881 census with dau Louisa, son Henry 3 and Walter age 1. Also present is husband William Lazenby age47 born Ipswich, Suffolk, a bookseller.
Henry's birth reg on the GRO index give the mother's maiden name as Hall.
So are you thinking that William Lazenby in 1881 may actually be William Judd in the marraige reg? Of course William Lazenby and Louisa Matilda may never have married.
Its funny but on ancestry William is only showing for the 1881 census yet there is a baptism record for a William Henry Lazenby 1835 and no census hints showing for him prior to 1881 although there is a marriage in 1856. Is this him and he couldn't marry Louisa because his wife was still alive.
There is also a marriage of a William Lazenby 1852. I'll look around some more.
Christina

I neglected to mention that Louisa Matilda Hall is in the 1891 census where she is 'living on her own means' at 12, Doddington Grove, Newington, with four of her five children, plus a servant named Alice. Louisa indicates that she is a widow. Since her youngest child, Lilian Florence Lazenby, was born in the December quarter of 1890 at St. Saviour Surrey, her husband must have died in 1890 or late 1889. But there's no sign of a William Lazenby dying in a geographically appropriate place during that period.

[almach]

Since her youngest child, Lilian Florence Lazenby, was born in the December quarter of 1890 at St. Saviour Surrey, her husband must have died in 1890 or late 1889.

The birth registration for Lilian Florence Lazenby states MMN is Lazenby.

From the GRO site

LAZENBY, LILIAN FLORENCE, Mother's maiden name LAZENBY
GRO Reference: 1890 D Quarter in ST SAVIOUR LONDON Volume 01D Page 148

Little seems to be straight forward with this search, does it? However, the answers must be out there somewhere, the question is where? I'll keep plugging away, it's got me hooked

Do you know if Arthur's middle name SPILLANE features in his Mother's ancestry? It surely must be a family name down the ancestral line.