I noticed that Find A Grave had an ‘extra’ child linked on the page of my great grandparents, George Wright Wreford Palmer and Margaret Palmer (nee Glaister). The ‘memorial’ was for an infant, William Tracey Palmer, born and died in 1911, which included the note: ‘Accidentally killed after his sleeping mother rolled over on him in bed.’ A tragic event, but I was a bit befuddled.

The problem was, George and Margaret were married in 1913, and although I’m no stranger to discovering ‘early’ children, I had never come across this one before. So of course, I needed to either prove or disprove the connection.

The gravesite is pretty dilapidated and only the faint outline of the name ‘Palmer’ can be seen on a marker – so no help there.

I could find no birth or death record for an infant named William Tracey Palmer. There was a death record but this was for a 77-year-old man. The name Wreford Henry Palmer jumped out at me, due to my family connections with the name Wreford, but this was the child of Thomas Henry Palmer (George’s brother) and his wife Kate Palmer (nee Gilchrist).

I turned to the Dunedin City Council site which has a very helpful grave location search but there was no William Tracey Palmer buried at Anderson’s Bay cemetery between the years 1910 and 1919. So where the heck was this grave info coming from?

Considering possible spelling variants may have been at play, I searched only for the surname ‘Palmer’ in that time period and got three results – none being William Tracey Palmer. The first I knew to be my great great grandfather (George’s father), the other two being children of the above mentioned couple Thomas and Kate. The only 1911 burial was for ‘W Henry Palmer’ but aged 16 years. I thought it was another dead end but lo and behold, the record page gave me the information I needed.

Block 3, Plot 105; died 22 Nov 1911 – the same burial plot and death date given on the Find A Grave site. This was the burial record of the aforementioned Wreford Henry Palmer. Despite giving an age of ’16 years’, the notes section stated the ‘occupation’ of INFANT, so likely meant ’16 days’ – the burial register entry showed this to be the case.

So poor little Wreford Henry must have been linked accidentally as a child of his uncle when added to Find A Grave (his parents are also on the site) but I have no idea where the name ‘William Tracey’ came from. Unfortunately, at least 5 other people have since added ‘William Tracey’ as a child of my great grandparents (on Ancestry), so let this tale serve as a reminder to always CHECK YOUR SOURCES.

The post A Grave Mistake appeared first on Geneageek.

I found this unfinished post just ‘laying around’ which reminded me just how much I miss the old IGI search on the Family Search website.  Not quite sure about their reasoning but in their attempt to improve, they basically made it worse.  I’m not going to moan about something that is provided for free but I just… miss it.  

Here is the old post (with a couple additions) which seemed to be a HOW TO FIND ANCESTORS BORN BEFORE 1837 or a recount of how I came to a conclusion but I’m not sure what I was trying to prove. It may be of some use to someone:

Thomas PALMER is listed on his son’s marriage certificate 1848 as a ‘Bookseller’:

The post RIP Easy IGI Searches Online appeared first on Geneageek.

(See original post here.)

Another message from my husband’s aunt seems to indicate the belief that Eliza Tharm is the ancestor in question:

“this Eliza Tharm isn’t a direct ancestor but down the line from either a brother or sister of one of our direct ancestors.”

I had come across Eliza in my initial research as she was famously the maid living at Dr. Palmer’s house who became Palmer’s mistress after his wife’s death.
Staffspasttrack.org.uk says that Eliza gave birth to an illegitimate son in the Palmer House and this child was sent to be cared for by a ‘nurse’. It was claimed that Palmer sent for the young child saying that he wished to see that the child was well.

Sounds very much like the story originally given to me (see here) but that seems far too easy.  If Palmer really was the rogue he was rumoured to be, there was sure to be other mistresses and possibly more illegitimate children.  Google Books have available a copy of Illustrated Life and Career of William Palmer of Rugeley.  I have yet to read it but a skim through revealed this snippet on page 55:

Some time after his marriage, William Palmer had an illegitimate child by a Rugeley woman, of the name of Jane Mumford, and he had, in consequence, to pay for its keep. It is related that this child, a little girl, was brought to him that he might satisfy himself that it was still alive; he saw the child, and sent her home again. Shortly afterwards she died.

Sounds tragically familiar…

The post Murder in the Family II appeared first on Geneageek.

I was telling Dad about the mistress of Dr Palmer the poisoner being one of our rellies. The one that had a child by him and sent him to stay with Dr Palmer and the unfortunate child was killed by him. Do you have any information on that?

I certainly do not but I’m keen to know more!

Dr. William Palmer was born in Rugeley, Staffordshire in 1824.  He was hanged for the murder of John Parsons Cook, but is also believed to have poisoned his mother-in-law, wife and four of their five children as well as many others.  He became known as “The Rugeley Poisoner” and “The Prince of Poisoners” but there is still some doubt as to whether he was guilty of any of these crimes.

If you would like to know more about Dr Palmer, please visit the Staffordshire Past-Track website (also the source of the above image) and WilliamPalmer.co.uk.

(image on the right of Dr Palmer’s prison cell from the National Library of Medicine site).

The post Murder in the Family appeared first on Geneageek.

It took some time (and a bit of money) for me to find the right George PALMER’s death certificate. I am now quite sure this is the correct one as the age, occupation and location fit.

After an eventful life, George died in Westminster Union Workhouse. How did he end up there?

Note that George died of ‘Senile Decay’. Does this mean I have another lunatic on my hands?

Ancestry UK now has London Poor Law records available to view online. I searched the Westminster Union ‘Register of Lunatics’, which thankfully has a surname index and found there were no PALMER lunatics between the years of 1890 and 1898.

Unfortunately the ‘Admission and Discharge Book’ does NOT have a surname index. Using George’s date of death, I found his ‘discharge’ (death).

George died on Thursday, October 29th 1896. His last meal was breakfast and his diet was described as ‘class 2’ (The Workhouse site explains the class of diet from 1900 onwards but I have yet to find a key to the Westminster Union classes in 1896).

The 1891 census for Westminster Union Workhouse contains a George Palmer of the same age, occupation and county of birth as mine:

Presuming the George on the 1891 census is mine (the town of birth is listed as Winchester, Hampshire whereas all the other information that I have, states that George was born in Portsea, Hampshire), I have a window of 10 years in which to search for his admission.

Considering there is no surname index, this is a bit of a tedious task as I have to trawl through each page in the book for his surname – wish me luck!

The post Workhouse Call appeared first on Geneageek.

After his second wife died, George seemed to move around, lodging at various places in London. His marriage to second wife Emily FELLA was so short that it didn’t feature in any of the censuses (they married in 1873 – she died in 1875). Luckily for me, Emily’s death certificate lists George as the informant and his residence as 54 Swinton St, London (Emily also died here).

A quick search of Rumsey’s site informs me that houses still exist at this site:

I am aware that house numbers changed at some time in the past and need to check that number 54 Swinton St today is the same number 54 Swinton Street of 1875. Even so, it’s another address for me to visit when I’m in London. I like being able to get a feel of how my ancestor’s lives may have lived.

I used Google’s street view for a quick peek at the area. (Click and drag the orange man on to the map and use the on screen tools to have a look around.)

Did the PALMERs live (and in Emily’s case, die) in these buildings:

Or these?

 

Read 3rd part here.

The post Future House Call (Using Google Street View) appeared first on Geneageek.

I don’t have many links to London in my tree. The only significant person in my tree to reside in London was George Wright PALMER and part of his family.

George was born in Portsea and his job in the Royal Navy caused him to move around a bit. For some reason, George was in London at the time of the 1871 census. He was living at 33 Marshall St with his first wife, Mary Ann and youngest son, Edward.

Here is a photograph I took of what I believe to be 33 Marshall St (I found it the hard way but using this map overlay it was so quick and simple):

Here is a picture I found of 33 – 36 Marshall St, taken in the 1960s (annoyingly from the opposite direction to my picture):

It’s hard to say how long George and his reduced family lived at this address. Mary Ann died the next year and he married his second wife, Emily Jane FELLA in 1873. Tragically, she died just two years later.

I’m not often able to find detailed information on the houses in which my ancestors lived, which makes the details I found at British History Online even more special:

Most of these buildings […] were erected in the 1820’s by or under the supervision of Thomas Finden after the closure of Carnaby Market […]. This redevelopment was uniformly planned, small in area and scale, but forming to-day an unusually pleasant oasis for pedestrians, and offering facilities for shopping away from the through streets. There is accommodation for shop-keepers over the shops, as well as for chamber trades such as tailoring. The least altered parts are the block bounded on the west by Newburgh Street and on the south by Ganton Street, and the two pedestrian courts west of Newburgh Street—Lowndes Court and Marlborough Court.
The prevailing form was the four-storey terrace house fronted in stock brick, two windows wide with plain window-openings, and a continuous plain parapet with stone coping. The windows, most of which have their original narrow glazing-bars, have stone sills. The ground floors were built as shops from the beginning, for this was the period of the planned shopping street…
The ground floors of Nos. 33–36 Marshall Street have thin pilaster-strips and a continuous entablature; space appears to have been provided for shop-windows but, except at No. 35, these spaces have only one domestic-size window each. The ground floors of Nos. 20–22 Peter Street are similar.

(From: ‘Marshall Street Area’, Survey of London: volumes 31 and 32: St James Westminster, Part 2 (1963), pp. 196-208. via British-History.ac.uk (Date accessed: 10 Jan 2010). 

[Bold font added for ease of reference]

Read 2nd part here.

The post House Call appeared first on Geneageek.

The post Marriage Entries vs Marriage Certificates II appeared first on Geneageek.