We welcome any query on Who When Where. If you have previously posted it on another forum (including the old WDYTYA forum), please state this in your opening post - this will save people redoing the research which has been done before: they can look at it and possibly go further with it.

Another Murray

Share your brick walls here, or help others demolish theirs.
VALLMO9
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Another Murray

Post by VALLMO9 »

With jonwarnn's workhouse find above, does this mean we have two different Murray families? The Murry family in Shoreditch/Spitafields, and the one in Islington in 1841? The ages of the Islington family in 1841 are different to the Shoreditch family. And wife Jane Susannah had left that family years before.

1841 Islington family has Thos (50), Jane (40), William (10) and James (5).
1839 Shoreditch family has Thomas (50) and children Harriet (25), William (24), George (21), Sarah (17) and Edward (13).

Marriage for Thomas Murry and Harriot Todd: 24 Dec 1810 in Plumstead.
Middlesex baptisms: Ann Susannah Murray (1812), George Richard Murray (1819), Joshua Murrey (1820 - Non-Conformist baptism).
Southwark baptisms: Eliza Murrey (1817), Sarah Murrey (1823)
Burials: Ann Susannah Murrey (1814) and Joshua Murray (1822)
jonwarrn
Posts: 313
Joined: 03 Jul 2020, 19:49

Re: Another Murray

Post by jonwarrn »

jonwarrn wrote: 22 Nov 2023, 20:33Mother still alive and living Phillips Street, Kingsland Road.
Might be her in Phillip Street in the 1841 census, Ann Murrey, age 70. With her is a younger Ann, age 20
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQVQ-N67

Of course, now we have that exam, and as Mo suggested, they may be nothing to do with the Thomas Murray who was living in Islington in 1841.
We await Norfolk Nan's latest thoughts.
jonwarrn
Posts: 313
Joined: 03 Jul 2020, 19:49

Re: Another Murray

Post by jonwarrn »

Norfolk Nan wrote: 20 Nov 2023, 19:26 I would really appreciate fresh eyes on this one

I have an 1843 death certificate for a Thomas Murray, aged 60,a brickmaker of 13 Elder Walk, Islington reported by Sarah Hannah Murray of 6 Elder Walk, present at the death.
MURRAY, THOMAS
Age at Death (in years): 60
GRO Reference: 1843 J Quarter in THE ISLINGTON DISTRICT Volume 03 Page 155

Burial at Bunhill Fields, 9 April 1843
Thomas Murray
63y
Paradise place Lower Road

Several others with the same GRO ref were buried at Bunhill Fields on or around that date
Norfolk Nan
Posts: 499
Joined: 16 Jun 2020, 11:54
Location: A Londoner lost in Norfolk

Re: Another Murray

Post by Norfolk Nan »

Sincere apologies for the delay in replying - away on other business! And thank you for this information is very much appreciated, as always. I trawl and trawl but you guys always manage to find a few more useful and informative bits of information.

In answer to Mo's question - I have no idea! James Murray, who began all this confusion, doesn't have a birth certificate or a baptism. DoB is c1833 in Islington according to all documentation I have for him. His marriage certificate shows a labourer called Thomas as his father. The 1841 census for Cliffords Buildings, St Mary's, Islington (which is off Elder Walk) provided Thomas, Jane, William and James and I've built on this information. In trying to find the right set of parents I came across the bits of information I gave at the beginning of this thread and hoped someone with more experience and sharper eyes might help me decide if I was dealing with one Thomas or two. I'm going round in circles. Any thoughts will be much appreciated, in the meantime I'm chew over what you've both kindly provided :D Thank you.
VALLMO9
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Another Murray

Post by VALLMO9 »

Norfolk Nan wrote: 27 Nov 2023, 15:18 James Murray, who began all this confusion, doesn't have a birth certificate or a baptism. DoB is c1833 in Islington according to all documentation I have for him.
His baptism record may not be online. Aren't Islington parish records with the LMA?
Norfolk Nan
Posts: 499
Joined: 16 Jun 2020, 11:54
Location: A Londoner lost in Norfolk

Re: Another Murray

Post by Norfolk Nan »

I believe they are all on Ancestry but of course I'm assuming he's right when he says birthplace is Islington...
VALLMO9
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Another Murray

Post by VALLMO9 »

Below is the Ancestry UK list for London parish records which may be useful to you, particularly the Earliest Date column. Not all Islington records on Ancestry are from the pre-1837 era. Example: the earliest date for SAINT MARY, HORNSEY RISE: ASHLEY ROAD, ISLINGTON records is from 1861.

https://www.ancestrycdn.com/legacy/offe ... orough.pdf
Norfolk Nan
Posts: 499
Joined: 16 Jun 2020, 11:54
Location: A Londoner lost in Norfolk

Re: Another Murray

Post by Norfolk Nan »

Thanks Mo. I think the Elder Walk parish is St Mary's Upper Street, Islington but I'll have to check.
VALLMO9
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Another Murray

Post by VALLMO9 »

Where is James Murray in the 1851 census? Has his surname been transcribed incorrectly?
Another thing to bear in mind is that James' parents might not have been married when he was born/baptised c1833. As such, James may have been baptised under his mother's name (whatever surname that might be).

Also, the Murray family might not be originally from Islington. They may have settled there from somewhere else by 1841. As jonwarrn pointed out earlier with that 1839 Settlement record(s) on Ancestry (for the other Murray family - from Shoreditch), they can reveal lots of vital clues.
Norfolk Nan
Posts: 499
Joined: 16 Jun 2020, 11:54
Location: A Londoner lost in Norfolk

Re: Another Murray

Post by Norfolk Nan »

Thanks Mo for mentioning all that. You've hit the problem entirely - I've no proven records to glean facts from! I'll keep picking away and appreciate the additional bits of information you've both given me to consider. Experience has shown me how easy it is to accept something that later proves to be misleading so I'm being extra-cautious. There's nothing worse than having to cut off a branch that you've become quite fond of because you've discovered they aren't family! :lol:
Post Reply