SPICER /LANGDON 1862 SURREY

[janbooth]

My inclination is that they are the same family. As Henry was an Ag Lab in the 1891 census, he could well have been a Labourer in a Saw Mill in the 1901 census. I have found the death registration for Ethel, so she would be missing from the 1901 census and I think William Charles has probably become Charles - they are the same age (I also can't find a William SPICER born c1888 at Martock in the 1901 census) and the other children on the 1901 were born after the 1891 census. According to the 1911 census, two of their children died so that is Ethel and one other. Alice Maud SPICER was working as a Domestic Servant in Yeovil in the 1901 census and married Reginald John NORTH in the March qtr 1906 at Yeovil reg district and they had a daughter Doris born 1907 in Yeovil according to the 1911 census. William Charles SPICER married Florence Emma HYDE in 1909 at Yeovil reg district and they are in Bedwelty, Monmouthshire in the 1911 census with a 2 year old son Roy born in Wincanton, William being a Colliery Hauler. Rose SPICER looks as if her full name was Ada Rosina SPICER but at the moment I can't find her post 1901.

I think the 1901 census entry for Henry's occupation is certainly Saw something. Comparing the S of Saw to the S of SPICER, they look pretty much the same to me. Surbiton is in Kingston upon Thames reg district so that could perhaps explain the difference in birth place between the 2 census records. Will look further for Henry pre 1891.

Janet

[janbooth]

Looking at Henry's occupation again in the 1901, I think I have changed my mind. Could it read Labourer in Sail Cloth?? I have been trying to discover what industry there was in Martock in the late 19th/early 20th century and it appears that there was a Sail Cloth factory. As Thomasin has said, Martock was famous for Glove making but this industry appears to have mostly employed women. So far, I haven't come across any mention of a Saw Mill and the enumerator's Ms are very distinctive and nothing like any of the letters in Henry's occupation.

Am having no luck tracing Henry prior to the 1891 census. Will sleep on it and see if I can come up with something different tomorrow.

Janet

[colashbury]

The prob I have is the areas born are different. In 1891 he is a year older, in 1901 she is a year older. Her name and Charles name changes. Too many differences to me.....

[Thomasin]

I think the 1901 census entry for Henry's occupation is certainly Saw something. Comparing the S of Saw to the S of SPICER, they look pretty much the same to me.

I compared the L of Labourer to the ?L of this troublesome word!

As Janet says, Colin, Surbiton comes under Kingston on Thames, so don't worry about that. Also, a year or two's difference in census ages is nothing to worry about either, and people often began using their middle names or pet names.

[Rob Faulkner]

Thank you, but no, Spicer is correct and they were based in this generation in Somerset.

[Rob Faulkner]

Thank you - will keep in mind, but - Census records 1901 and 1911 have her birth in Stoke and 1891Chiselborough (GRO Registration in Yeovil so this could be it). The Census show the family to be
1891 Henry & Mary Emma; Alice Maud 5, William Charles 3 and Ethel May 6 months.
1901 Henry & Emma; Charles 13, Rose 9, Ellen 3 and Blanche 9 months
1911 Henry & Emma; Ellen, Blanche 10 and Ewart 6.
The mother's surname on birth certificates is consistently Langdon.
Still cannot locate a marriage certificate.
I appreciate your input.

[Rob Faulkner]

Thank you! I am positively thrilled to bits with your replies. Yes the 1891, 1901 and 1911 Census records are all the one family. I looked at maps and think the change of birth place is acceptable as they are fairly close and differ in size. Finding the 1871 Census is a real bonus! For some reason I discounted when I first looked at it. Thank you! 1861 and 1881. has not brought up a match to date. Thank you for the death of Ethel at age 2.
Cheers Rob

[janbooth]

Rob,

I think the 1861 census entry I found in Stoke sub Hamdon is very likely your Mary Emma and her parents. Ages and occupation are correct and the 1911census shows Mary Emma as born in Stoke under Ham (I have magnified the 1911 census image and looked again) which is almost certainly Stoke sub Hamdon. Henry and Mary Emma are shown as having been married 27 years which would make their marriage c1883/4 but I still can't find a marriage for them on the GRO. Could it be that Mary Emma or Henry were married previously and thus not free to marry each other - who knows. I am having no luck at all tracing Henry in earlier census records but will keep trying.

Janet

[Rob Faulkner]

Yes, I agree Mary Emma is on both the 1871 and 61 Census as advised by Janbooth. Thanks Jan for the detail about Cloth and Lisle Glove Maker. I was no where near that description. Thank you for the information. I have taken Mary Emma's line back a couple of generations and am happy to leave her as 'of Chiselborough, Somerset'.
So, on to Henry.
Cheers
Robin

[Rob Faulkner]

Thank you Carol
Robin