Discussion:
Eliza Maria, Family Tree
(too old to reply)
A Lefevre
2018-08-18 20:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Previously sent on 12th, but has not appeared on my screen. Wouldn't
like my literary genious to be lost, so will re-send, apologies if
other have received

I wonder if we might have a bit of genealogy for a change?

A year or so ago Ancestry family trees had about a dozen which
included Eliza Maria Lefever. They are down to three now, but are
still wrong.
Earlier this year, working with another searcher I traced Eliza Maria
back another two generations, so perhaps this is a good time to put
things right.

Eliza Maria Lefever was born 15 Sep 1854, Princes St Bethnal Green.
Baptised 8 Oct St Matthias. Her parents were William and Elizabeth.
This is the first time I saw Elizabeth shown as Betsy. This wasn't the
Elizabeth Hunsdon that everyone showed, she married the William who
was born in Yorkshire, they lived in Bethnal Green, no children and
both died in 1863.

William and Elizabeth Kendrick were married 30 Oct 1845, All Saints
Stepney.
Elizabeth was born in Liverpool, the father of each was William. This
is eight years after their first child was born.

William Francis born 27 Jan 1837 bapt 11 June St Leonard Shoreditch.
Isaac was the next, born 22 Mar 1839, birth registered, but no
baptism.
I assumed this is because their house at 4 Angel Alley was demolished
at that time with a wide area, to clear the way for the railway to
come down from Shoreditch to Liverpool St.
Next, David, born Dec 1841, Registered, but not baptised.
Next was Elizabeth Louisa, born 27 Nov 1843, not registered, but bapt
10 Dec and died 23 Dec 1843. I assume this was "baptised in mortal
danger."
James was next, registered Jun 1846 but no baptism
Then Charles Samuel born 25 Aug 1851, registered and baptised 14 Sep
1851 ,St Matthias and died Sep 1852. Was this another "baptised in
mortal danger?"
No indication at this point who was William, the father.

In the general area there two other groups that I felt were connected
but couldn't see how. There was a William, married Ann Crudgington
1810.
They had one daughter the previous year and a second, Mary Ann in
1812.
Both girls were baptised 1812 in St Leonard. That first daughter was
Louisa Deborah. That, to me, seemed to resonate with Elizabeth Louisa.

There was Ann Lefevre a widow, married David Baron 10 Apr 1823
They had 3 children, Hannah b. 1826, Thomas 1829 and Francis David,
21 Apr 1834 They were all baptised 13 July 1834
In her examinations in 1860 and 1861 she is Amelia Ann Barron, widow,

and states her first Husband was William Lefevre and that his father
was David Lefevre, a Master Tailor, who was passed from this parish
(Bethnal Green) with three children to St Sepulchre, Newgate.

A David Lefevre married Lucy Harman 1773 in Cambridge
3 Children: Thomas 5 Apr 1775 Cambridge
Henry 28 Apr 1783 St Sepulchre
Ann 24 Aug 1785 St Sepulchre
A William Lefevre died 1819, aged 27 and is buried in Gibralter
Gardens, a non-conformist burial ground. So born c.1792. No further
sign of Lucy so my guess is that she died, and David just didn't
arrange a baptism

A William Lefevre b.1815 and an Isaac b.1817are brothers, appeared at
the Old Bailey
Isaac was sent to Australia and William went to prison for six months

They fit in as the sons of William and Ann Crudgington.
It leaves a problem, if a man wasn't baptised was burial in church
grounds not allowed?
If a man was not baptised, could his sons not be baptised, but his
daughters could?

I've not found burials for any of William's sons.
Isaac, the informant of death was the doctor in the infirmary, not
unusual, but this was 1 week after death, when there would normally
have been a burial, as the family lived nearby why not one of them?
There doesn't seem anything unusual about the death, bronchitis, he
had been in the infirmary previously for the same.

Regards, Alec Lefevre
--
A Lefevre
cecilia
2018-08-20 17:54:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:44:01 +0100, A Lefevre <***@freeuk.com>
wrote:

[...]
Post by A Lefevre
If a man was not baptised, could his sons not be baptised, but his
daughters could?
[....]
That sounds more like a family decision that the girls would follow
the mother and the boys the father, which was happening occasionally
in RC/CoE marriages in the 19C but I heard decribed as old fashioned
in the mid-1950s.

Loading...