Birth of Emily Beevis, possibly 1873

[antonyf]

First post in this forum, and straight in asking for help! I thank you in advance for any help. I keep researching I think the same patches over and over and I'm driving myself mad!

My great grandmother is a brickwall where I cannot go back any further. Any help on any birth details would be great appreciated.

What I know:

1893. Married 25 Sept 1893 in Islington, listed as Emily Clarence Beevis, to Alfred Williams. Age 19. Father William Clarence Beevis - deceased provisions dealer. Address 19 Jackson Road. I've got the full marriage cert but I don't think I can attach it.

1896. Son Alfred Brooks born. Birth certificate lists surname as formerly Beevis.

1897. Son George Bevis born. Assuming taking her maiden name and birth cert says Emily Clarence formerly Bevis.

Appears on subsequence censuses: 1901 aged 27 listed as born in Clerkenwell. 1911 37 born in Clerkenwell.

1939 register I believe I found her as a widow in Woolwich (with two of her sons, and her husband was dead by this point) with a listed birth date as 13/12/1863.

Yep 1863! Could be a typo... and December 1873 would fit with all the other census data. But here we have 1863.

What I've tried:

Every form of Beevis and Bevis and Beavis I can think of. Looked at all Emilys born in Islington in those periods. Searched for Emilys born to Williams. Searched for William Beevis and variations and found no luck. Searched for William Clarences and Emily Clarences, but can find nothing but the marraige record. I searched for 1873 region and 1863 region for Emily. I have got nowhere.

I can't find anything - birth records, or the 1891 census or 1881.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts.

[Jomot1]

Who were the witnesses to the marriage, and where exactly did it take place please?

[antonyf]

Who were the witnesses to the marriage, and where exactly did it take place please?

Hi there. Thanks for responding. Here's a link to the cert: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqc243qdre..._1893.jpg?dl=1

The witness seems to be A Cox and H E Higbid. Not 100% sure of that middle initial, on the latter but I did find a Herbert E Hegbed on the 1871 census in Islington born in 1870 later listed as Herbert E Higbid on the 1891 census in Hornsey (which isn't a million miles away from Islington).

It took place at the Registry Office in Islington.

Thanks.

[antonyf]

Odd, I got a notitification of a reply but can't see it: almach wrote: "Just popping in to say I found 19 Jackson Road last night (1891 census) and a Robert J Fox age 40 born St Lukes and wife Eliza were living there. 19 Jackson Road is the address on the marriage certificate and Fox the surname of a witness to the marriage, the Fox's need investigating further."

Thanks. I had looked at the 1891 census for that address, and moved on when I hadn't seen Emily. She wasn't there in 1891 it seems, so must have gone there in 1891-1893. Perhaps as a lodger or servant.

I'm not convinced it's Fox on the witness. The first letter if it were a C seems to match the C on Clarence. If you look at the F on Frederick it's quite different. Additionally the Foxes, neither has the first initial A.

[Jomot1]

I got the same notification too... odd!

I keep coming back to the same person but I can't make any connection to 'your' Emily. I'll note it anyway just in case anyone else can, or can at least rule her out:

BEVIS, EMILY mmn DEAR GRO Reference: 1873 M Quarter in WANDSWORTH Volume 01D Page 626

She’s on the 1881 census at Austin Road, Battersea as G/Daur to John Dear aged 66, Painter

The only other Bevis/Dear births I can find are the children of George Robert Bevis & Jane Dear, who married in 2 August 1874 – ie more than a year after Emily’s birth.

John Dear is still at Austin Road in 1891, but Emily is not with him.

George & Jane Bevis & family can be found in the census in Battersea in 1881 and in 1891, but Emily is not with them either.

I can’t find a death for her, and I can’t find her anywhere else in 1891.

[almach]

Hi antony and Jomot, you're not going mad, as I'd got confused with Fox and Cox I deleted the post with the intention of re-posting an explanation, before I got the chance you had both responded. I'm a bit slow to react today as looking after two under five year olds. Sorry for the confusion.