Trying to decipher LBG entry

[LPennington]

Hi Folks,

I have an entry for my ancestor Heneage Pennington for Lambeth, for the 'Parish or Poor Law Union', Settlement Papers for Rough Settlement Examinations, 1837.

I had obtained his death certificate which told me he died in the Lambeth Workhouse in 1844. Of course I wanted to find out when he entered the workhouse and the attached image is all I have found so far - Now, the problem is I am having trouble figuring out just what the entry says. Here's what I can figure out - "Heneage Pennington his 2 children by his late wife Ruth to whom he was ?????"
The bit in the bracket to the left is a real mystery

https://i.postimg.cc/G2wgd5DP/PENNINGTON-Heneage.jpg

Any help would be appreciated.

Many thanks, Lana

[deanC]

hi Lana
some of this type of hand writing can be a nightmare , but its still better than mine today ! , thank god for keyboards .. my suggestions are ...
I agree with the first part @ Heneage Pennington his 2 children by his late wife Ruth to whom ,
(he is) father of her 2 children } she was ..... in the house .

hopefully that has not confused the issue , it may be worthwhile compiling a alphabet chart ABC , with the letters in the handwriting alongside , like a code break system , I find this can help , possible using other entries from the ledger by the same hand .. Good luck dean

[arthurk]

I think the main entry reads:

his 2 Chn are by his late Wife Ruth to whom
he was Marrd

(Abbreviated words are Children and Married)

And the bit in the margin, if it's similar to the entry below:

Heneage Pennington
to Settt of his 2 Ch
in the Houses ('Heneage' struck through)

(Abbreviated: Settlement, Children)

PS - Welcome!

[LPennington]

Thank you, Dean - I was feeling like a code-breaker! Your help was very much appreciated. And compiling an ABC is a great idea, especially as I am about to embark on deciphering a will of Heneage Pennington's grandmother from 1700s.

[LPennington]

Thank you, Arthur. I think you've cracked it. I'm guessing that the writer mentions Ruth was married to Heneage to show the legitimacy of the children? I had been wondering about this because Ruth is Heneage's third wife! Because I had not been able to find a marriage between them, I had thought maybe they were just co-habiting. Their three children (one had died only after 7 months) had all been baptised and I had found entries for them.

As for the entry from the LBG, is it saying that after the death of Ruth he was seeking help from the workhouse for the children who were 2 years and 7 years? At this time Heneage was 68 years old.

Many thanks,
Lana

[arthurk]

Yes, he might have wanted to emphasise that they were legitimate, possibly to show that they were entitled to settlement in the same place as he was. I don't know whether anyone would have checked if he was telling the truth, but the penalty for not doing so could have been quite severe, I suspect.

It does seem to me that he was seeking help for the children. If I'm right about "in the Houses" they might have actually been admitted to the workhouse at that point, or else in view of his age he might have been making sure they would be eligible to be taken in when he died.

[LPennington]

Interestingly enough, through the help of another person on Brit-Gen, it appears Heneage did lie to the Lambeth Board of Guardians. Though he had a deed of separation from his second wife, there appears to be no evidence of an actual divorce. His second wife Sarah died in 1861 (he died in 1844), and she is noted as his widow. Maybe he thought because she was in Leicestershire, it would be too far for anyone to check. Or maybe he was just an old bigamist!

[arthurk]

I didn't read the other post until after I'd replied here, and my first thought was that yes, he seems to have been either lying or a bigamist. However, given what you said there about his separation from his previous wife, I wondered if he might have been able to marry Ruth legally, and I've posted about this in the other thread.

To save confusion and duplicated effort it would be best to keep all comments about this aspect in one place, probably the other thread. This is at:

https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...1836-37-London

[LPennington]

I do apologise, in the other thread I had wanted to find out about Ruth but it has crossed ovr into this thread. Many thanks.

[arthurk]

I do apologise, in the other thread I had wanted to find out about Ruth but it has crossed ovr into this thread. Many thanks.

Not to worry - it can be tricky when different aspects of the same question belong in different places, but a bit of cross-referencing usually sorts it out. (Moderators can also merge threads if they think it would help.)