Find Ancestors

Anyone who has access to a 1851 name Index ... for ANY county ... please can you check it for: Henry T Pennell b 1824 so aged around 27 b Marylebone, London ... Labourer or Messenger or Printer...... / ... and 14 day old baby Laetitia Pennell ... COULD just be registered under the surname only Pennell OR poss Snelgrove see below full explanation and details:... ... * London, Herefordshire, Suffolk, Notts, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wilts and Bristol have been checked and eliminated, and I've looked on Devonshire partial census * THANK YOU to everyone who is being so kind x

March 16th 1851 Baby girl (Laetitia Elizabeth Pennell) born to parents: Henry Thomas Pennell b 1824 Marylebone Elizabeth Snelgrove 2 weeks later, March 31st 1851 census taken. Elizabeth Snelgrove is at home, unmarried (but census says married) 17, Harp Alley, City of London with her father Edward and sister ... NO BABY 14th April, birth is registered by Father, Henry T Pennell Baby was born at 17 Harp Alley Father is now living at 17 Harp Alley. Mother is down as Elizabeth Pennell formerly Snelgrove May 11th 1851 Marriage Henry T Pennell (batchelor) Elizabeth Snelgrove (spinster) BOTH give address as Peartree St, and get married in St John Waterloo, Why is baby Laetitia NOT at home with Mum on the census when she was 14 days old ? ... where is she ? Why is she NOT listed on the London 1851 census, and neither is her Dad ? (when it is supposed to be complete ?) ******** PLEASE can all you good folk who have access to Name Indexes for 1851 (OTHER Than London) (and now Herefordshire) search for: Henry T Pennell c27 b Marylebone Jan 1st 1824 Laetitia E Pennell, 14 days b St Brides, London City ******** Neither dad Henry or baby Laetitia are with known family members on the 1851 ..... HHHEEELLLPPPP please, its driving me insane ...! They COULD be in ANY county. I have them all on all other census's ... its just 1851 that I can't find Dad & baby. Thanks in anticipation Elaine :-)

Could the baby have been ill and in hospital somewhere? Maybe dad was a 'new man' and stayed with the baby Can't really come up with any sensible ideas. Kath. x

Hi Pat, Yep ... that would be right ! I'm just hoping that dad took new baby to visit friends out of London on census night ... and someone can find them in the most outragious place on earth ! Elaine :-) BACK TOMORROW FOLKS ...

Hi Kath, I did wonder if baby was in hospital ... but surely, if she was, she would still show up on census ? ............ unless .......... :-) she hadn't been given a name yet ...... and is down under surname only ... Hummm, not thought of that possibility. We've been searching for Laetitia ... rather than a baby Pennell. :-( Elaine :-)

Hi Elaine The baby was probably tucked up in her cot, all cosy, and simply did not get entered on the census return. That seems a strong possibility if, like you say, she may still have been nameless Sam

Could it be that they had not decided on a name for baby when the enumerator called and so she was not included?? I bet dad was out of the house trying to aviod all that crying!! lol Sorry! Really, I think it is reasonable to think dad might be hiding somewhere else, but most likely baby has been missed from the household. (not taking bets though!) Sarah

Hi Sammy & Sarah, Thanks for taking time out to help x You both have valid points ..... and I have sent out a plea for yet ANOTHER search of the 1851 name Index for London, ... looking for a baby Pennell on its own ! I owe a fortune to Isy for using her credits on 1851 for this one. Need to log off now ... back inthe morning. THANKS xx Elaine :-) xxx

You might be right about them not having thought of a name for her, as she is on the IGI and the christening wasn't till 12th Oct. 1851 - 7 months old, which in those days was quite late for a christening, especially for a first child. Christening at St. Dunstan, Stepney. Kath. x

Hi Elaine I take it that Dad wasn't at Peartree St either? What was his occupation? Was he likely to move about? If the baby was in hospital, then it might be identified simply by initials. There is always a possibility that the baby was in the house, but concealed from the enumerators. Not having a name should be no reason for leaving a child off the census. (Great aunt appears on 1891 census, aged one day and unnamed.) Great aunt's great grandfather registered HER great aunt's birth a fortnight before the 1841 census. By census night itself he was back on coastguard duty, a hundred miles away, leaving his wife to the tender care of the monthly nurse.

Maybe didn't want to draw attention to illegitimate child and didn't mention her! Perhaps Dad was showing her off to his parents and then nipped back to Harp Alley just before the enumerator called! nell

Hummm ! Well, as far as I know, baby isn't with any other family member ... but you never know what rellies are about to pop out the closet, so that is a poss I suppose. Have accounted for all known parents and siblings etc ... as I mention, these are the only two bodies I can't trace on the 1851. Have double checked Harp Alley ... all the street and several surrounding one's as well ! ... same for Peartree St, which turns out to be Pear Tree St ... I've checked Pear Tree Court and several other surrounding streets as well ... to no avail. Isy, I owe you a furtune. Thanks for the list of Pennell & Snelgrove infants ... she's obviously not on that list. The only thing now is that they are NOT in London, so I turn to the origional request of searches of all 1851 name indexes other than London..... JUST in case ... even if its a process of elimination ! Thanks to anyone willing to look. Thanks to everyone who has helped so far ... its all valuable. Elaine :-)

nudged...

Brenda, I know children were often on the census with no forename, but I was wondering if the head of household filled in the householder sheet rather than the enumerator doing it (could he read and right???) and so, faced with an unamed baby, he didn't include her! Had the enumerator filled in the form, he would probably have asked if there was anyone else......?? Sarah

Hi Sarah, In ansa to your query, Grandad, Edward Snelgrove could write - he signed his marriage cert ... so if he did complete the census form, then he would have no reason to leave baby off ! Helen, You do have a theory about them not wanting to broadcast an illegitimate baby though ! Worth considering .. as Elizabeth (babies Mum) was down as being married, so maybe the family were trying to hide the fact ? Elaine :-0

Hi Elaine, She's not on the Herefordshire name index, mind you that's a bit far away from London for a small baby to travel in those days. Having a couple of thoughts now: I was going to say that I think Helen has a point, maybe they hadn't decided the baby's future so they chose to leave her off the census. Then this popped into my head, BUT the baby did have to be fed, maybe if her mother couldn't feed her Dad took her to a monthly nurse (or whatever they were called) to be looked after, as she was unnamed at the time the nurse would have had to say not known, and Dad is somewhere else, maybe Surrey? a bit strange that he is missing too. Probably way too far out but with this hobby you never know! Best wishes Amanda Also checked Ongar District, Essex.

Amanda, THANK YOU SO MUCH. It really is helping. Appreciate the time to take a look. Much appreciated Elaine :-)

Would still appreciate a look on 1851 name indexes please ... Elaine :-)

THANK YOU Sue, MUCH APPRECIATED x Elaine :-)

Notts, Gloucestershire. Somerset, Wiltshire & Bristol have now very kindly been checked and eliminated. THANK YOU Elaine :-) xx