Barnett's marriage as listed in the 1911 census

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for that, Mark

On reflection, I might also be partially responsible for the similar approach then taken on Casebook's "Hutch in the 1911 Census" thread, which turned into an inflammatory epic - and if I was, then I ought to have been shot at that point, really...


Mark

Me too after reading the old Barnett thread again after all this time!...But a 1911 signature comparison seemed such a sensible, straightforward sort of idea at the time.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
I have PM'ed you in response to your message - the only reason I do not respond as quickly as I may have done previously is that I currently spend far less time on JTR matters than previously.
I always have appreciated what you post and your friendship
Yours in admiration
Chris Scott

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
I have looked at Mark R's post about the 1911 census and there is one point I am not clear on.
If Mark accepts (as he appears to) that the Louisa Barnett in the workhouse is the wife of the separately listed Joseph Barnett of 60 Red Lion Street, how is this indicated? Does the workhouse record for Louisa explicitly state the name of her husband, if so in which data column?
I am raising this only as I cannot see an appropriate column on the 1911 form for indicating the name of a spouse when the "other half" is listed separately at another premises.
Is the linking of this Louisa Barnett with this Joseph explicitly stated or is it implied by date of birth etc.?
Chris S

To answer my own question(!) I have just posted this over on Casebook

With regard to Joe B's alleged wife in 1911, I some time back did a search for possible candidates.
The criteria I used were these:
1) She would be listed as Louisa Barnett
2) She would probably be of a broadly similar age to Joe (he is listed as 53)
3) She would probably come from somewhere in the environs of Whitechapel
4) Her marriage details as listed would have to match those for Joe exactly - i.e. 23 years completed marriage, no children alive or dead
5) There would have to be a logical reason why at the time of the census she could not be listed as living with him. For example she should be listed as a visitor, a patient or an inmate of some institution at the time of the census.

This is the first time I have posted this but I am pretty confident that I have found her. There is only one women who fits all those criteria and her details are:
1911 census
St George in the East
Name: Louisa Barnett
Relationship: Patient
Age: 55
Status: Married
Completed years of Marriage: 23
Children Alive: None
Children Died: None
Occupation: Nil
Place of Birth: Bethnal Green, London
Which institution was Louisa in?
The cover sheets gives its locations:
St George in the East Workhouse Infirmary, 3 Raine Street, St George Street

The next step would be to try and trace the admission and discharge record for Louisa as this should confirm her address as 60 Red Lion Street.

Below is the record for her for 1911:

[Chris Scott]

The admission of Louisa Barnett to the Infirmary in 1911

Parish of St George in the East
Workhouse Infirmary
Admitted
Day of the Month: March 20th 1911
Name: Barnet (sic), Louisa
When born: 1856
Class for Diet: Women - Sick
Page in Relief List: 14
Parish to which chargeable: St George in the East
By whose order admitted: Dr Jobson
Date of order of admission: 20/3/11
Cause of seeking relief: Sickness

[Chris Scott]

Discharge of Louisa Barnett from Infirmary in 1911
Date: April 19th 1911
Day of the week: Wednesday
Last meal before discharge: B (i.e. Breakfast)
Name: Barnet, Louisa
When born: 1856
Class for diet: Women - Sick
Page in relief list: 8
How disharged: O.B.

[Chris Scott]

Just to acknowledge that this info was found by Sally last year and you can see the details on this thread:-
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5320&page=2

[Chris Scott]

What piques my interest is this - there is no indication whatever that Joe and this Louisa, whoever she was, ever actually married. There was a marriage late in 1887 in Hackney between a Joseph Barnett and a Louise Rowe, but this is not them. For a start the wife's name is Louise and not Louisa but apart from that I got the certificate and the details simply do not match.
The one crucial missing piece of evidence is where is Joe in the 1891 and 1901 census returns. This might fill in the missing info as to when Joe and Louisa actually got together.
I wonder WHY Joe and Louisa decided that 1887/early 88 would be the date they settled on for their supposed marriage. This exactly coincides with the period Barnett knew Kelly. They met at easter 1887 and lived together almost immediately until Barnett left just before Kelly's death.
I will continue to try and find Joe and/or Louisa in 1891 and 1901 for I am now firmly convinced that the the Kent based Barnett I mentioned in "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?" has nothing whatever to do with the case.

[Chris Scott]

I have just found out that Barnett's "wife" was actually named Agnes Louisa Rowe
More details to follow

[Chris Scott]

Agnes Louisa Rowe
Biographical notes:
1856
Born 20 October in Bethnal Green
Baptised 5 November Whitechapel. Listed as daughter of Joseph, licensed victualler, and Mary Ann Alsey Rowe of Princes Street, Bethnal; Green
1881:
266 Commercial Road, St George in the East
Household of Mr and Mrs Thomas Lands, Beer Retailer
General servant: Louisa Beer aged 25 born Clerkenwell
1911:
Listed as patient in St Georges Workhouse Infirmary
Louisa Barnett aged 55, married 23 years
1926:
Death in Stepney - 1 Tench Street, St George in the East
Age at death 70 years

[Chris Scott]

Below is Agnes Rowe's baptism record