Find Ancestors

Good job, Sid!

You should make the correction at Ancestry. On the left side of Jane's 1861 record is the link for "Add Alternate Information".

I would put:

surname: Sussex
reason: Incorrect in image
explanation:
Name appears to have been transcribed onto the page incorrectly. See household of George and Jane Sussex in 1841 in Chelsea. See son George as George Douglas in 1871 in household of uncle George Sussex and in 1881 and 1891 as George Sussex.


Then of course you need to correct the 1891 "Susser" as well.

If you'd like me, for instance, to do that for you, you could send me an email address I can include in the explanation, so anyone reading it can contact you.


edit - Sid did, and I did. ;)

Hi! Viv,
Have received Jane Sussex Death Cert.
No Husband shown but Jane's sister Mary Sussex was with her at her death, she died aged 36. 02/05/1868 of Pneumonia. she never married.
She had only move to the next street from City Garden Row 1861 to Graham Street.1868.
George got Married in 1886 to a Caroline Evans at St Thomas Church, St James, Westminster,
they had three children. Henry George, Jane Caroline& George Douglas Junior.
George Douglas Senior died in 1921 Marylebone
Have today sent away for death cert.
So with you & your friends help we have solved the problem.
Enjoy your trip to Wexford hope the weather improves for you.
Regards Sid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well done sid and thanks for the update.
Happy hunting
viv

Hi! Viv,
I'm In Tipperary, Near Thurles and the Horse & Jockey.
Will wave back if I see you.
Regards Sid.

That would be lovely,will look out for it on here.
Im over in Co Wexford on 27th,I will wave to you from my friends house.
viv

Cheers folks,
Will send away for death cert of jane, it will take about ten days to get it over to me in ireland but will let you know the result.
Regards Sid.

That seems to be about the size of it Sid.
And it looks as though Henry was your Georges grandad,so he kept the names going there.

That death of Jane in 1868 could help seal it if it gives away a connection to George as his sister if he was the informant though.

Happy hunting.

Hi! Viv & Janey.
This my conclusion, Jane Sussex born 1832 had a affair with a John Douglas thus George Douglas came in 1861 Jane took the surname of the father.
Jane passed away 1868 leave George aged 7 with his uncle & aunt George Sussex & Jemima in 1886 he married Caroline Evans naming his uncle George as his father.
George & Caroline had three children.
Caroline, Henry, & George born 1899.
Does this make sense, it was you people that help to this concusion.
Regards Sid

Hey, you did the heavy lifting of just finding the records in the first place. ;)

(I'm still not allowed to lift anything over 10 pounds. Lucky I have no cats left ...)

We'll wait for Sid now, to say what he thinks.

Thank you for popping in Janey.
I really was struggling ,but I do think thats the way of it.

Mind you I expect I would have got there in the end,just maybe not til christmas.
x

I think the only thing that would solve it is DNA analysis - Sid is the son of a son of a son? Sid, George D Sussex 1861 is your grandfather?

It's an opportunity you might want to take, if you really really want to know who George's father was. It won't give you a name, but it could connect you to a surname.

He said earlier.
The address on birth Cert 11, City Garden Row, checks with the address on 1861 Census Both mothers named Jane one Douglas the other Aupin.
Birth Cert 1861 Father John occupation Porter
Marriage Cert 1886 Father George occupation Porter

Porter

Both on his birth cert with father John and marriage cert with father George,

I reckon Sid did really well to find him under Aupen,I dont think I would have,but maybe he did it by address search.

Do we know what occupation was stated for John Sussex on the birth certificate of George Douglas Sussex?

Sid? You with us?

So ... here's Jane Sussex, sister of uncle George and uncle John, in 1851:

Name: Jane Sussex
Age: 19
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1832
Relation: Visitor
Where born: Westminster

Civil parish: Clerkenwell

William Roe 29
Mary Roe 32
Mary Ann Roe 4
Jane Sussex 19


No help there ...

Ha, I was ahead of you, just behind in the posting.

Hope they dont stick No 1 too full of holes.

Where is Jane in 1851 then?

Oops, I was editing above with my theory about Douglas when the clinic called to get No.1 to go play patient for the med students next week ...

I know the census image says Aupen (not Aupin, I think) -- what I'm suggesting is that that, itself, is a contemporary mistranscription -- that Jane wrote Sussex on the household schedule and it got transferred to the book as Aupen. It was her "S" and "ss" and "x" that got misread (or as it was written by whoever filled out the household schedules).

I think that's fairly reasonable, as wild theories go. ;)

And made up the name Douglas as a maiden name and a ficticious father?

Those things have been done before,my Perkins/Watkins friends husbands grandmother did it 3 times on all her sons birth certs.
Just seemed to forget each time what first name she had used for the father!


So that death cert of Jane Sussex would be a good investment I think Sid!

Edit,,,ahh yes of course,,douglas is most likely the boys real fathers surname of course Janey.

This could be an answer.


The Sussex household in 1841 in Chelsea:

George Sussex 30
Jane Sussex 30
William Sussex 10
> Jane Sussex 8
Mary Ann Sussex 6
Louisa Sussex 3
George Sussex 1


DOB 1833ish fits pretty well with Jane in 1861 and the death in 1868.

Was Jane a Sussex by birth, sister of uncle George and uncle John, and not by marriage at all?

Was our George's father actually the Douglas?

It would fit a known pattern -- child of unmarried parents is given surname of *father* as middle name, and later adopts that as his surname.

FMP has it as Ankin!

ANKIN, Jane Head Married F 29 1832 Laundress
Middlesex VIEW
ANKIN, George Son Unmarried M 0 (3M) 1861
Middlesex

But on the image it is more like Aupin to me now on really studying it!.
If you check out the S, on Sophia on the same page they are very different and also the Annie at the bottom has the same way of the A as on the surname for jane and George.

Jane "Aupen" was 29 in 1861.


Deaths Jun 1868
Sussex Jane age:36 Islington 1b 204


Pretty good match.

Great minds, Viv. ;) I'd finally got round to looking at that image.

So whaddaythink - in the handwriting of the era, Sussex could have been misread as Aupin? (Or Aupen, as it looks more like on the image -- all "i"s on the page are heavily dotted, and that e/i isn't.)