Genealogy Chat

Can some kind soul make out the occupation of the fellow below, many thanks.

1851 England Census Record about Charles Lee Name: Charles Lee Age: 32 Estimated birth year: abt 1819 Relation: Head Household: View other family members Gender: Male Where born: Bermonds, Surrey, England Civil parish: Bermondsey Ecclesiastical parish: St James County/Island: Surrey Country: England Street address:Occupation:Condition as to marriage:Disability: View image Source information: HO107/1560 Registration district: Bermondsey Sub-registration district: St James ED, institution, or vessel: 18 Folio: 548 Page: 38 (click to see others on page) Household schedule number: 168 GSU Number: 174793 ViewOriginalRecord View original image

I think its leather cutter but it might be Leather Currier Tanned leather by incorporating oil or grease [from http://www.rmhh.co.uk/occup/l.html]

Looks like Leather Cutter to me...

I think it's Leather Dresser Merry

Sorry, changed my mind after a second look - Merry's right - it's Leather Dresser...check out rows above and below it...

hi Girls, thanks for taking the time to look. I have his daughters marriage cert on that it looks as if his occupation is Leather Dress, keep envisaging this tranvestite victorian, wondering round in tight leather dress etc! Could I also pick your brains? their daughter Jane lee was born in 1835 or thats what it says on the census, if that is the case this fellow Charles lee would only have been arounf 17 when she was born and his wife 22. Thing is there arnt any other charles Lees in that area who are Leather whatevers!!!

Well its quite possible for a bloke to father a child at the age of 17. But ages on censuses aren't necessarily accurate. Have you got a baptism for Jane?

hi Nell, I suppose he got involved with the 'older' woman'!! doesn't help that I cant find the daughter at home with them, she is off visiting else where, bloody nuisance!! the fact that the wife is called Jane though makes me think that these are the right parents coupled with the Leather Dresser, still makes me giggle, what the hell was one of those?!!

I haven't got a baptism for Jane, oh how I wish she had been born a couple of years later, so many of my lot missed 1837 by a year or two, soooo inconsiderate of them

Hmmmm That's a bit worrying....because when you look for Charles Lee in 1841 the only obvious match (but there may be other less obvious ones!!)....is this: Margaret Childs abt 1796 St George the Martyr Surrey Ann Lee abt 1816 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey Charles Lee abt 1821 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey Elizabeth Lee abt 1796 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey Emma Lee abt 1835 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey John Lee abt 1837 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey Mary Lee abt 1816 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey William Lee abt 1826 Surrey, England St George the Martyr Surrey There are no relationships in 1841, but he is a leather dresser again and there is no Jane in the house. If I was looking at this census sheet with no other knowledge, I would guess Charles was single and living with his widowed mum, Elizabeth. Merry

Do you know wife Jane's maiden surname? Merry

Hi Merry, I too saw that census info, and did ponder on it, the year Charles born though 1821 makes it un feasible as well for him to be Jane (1835) father. The main reason I thought it the other couple is that the wife is called Jane, and they did have a habit of calling their children after themselves. Dont know Jane Lee (1813) maiden name I am afraid. thanks for taking the trouble to help I really appreciate it, I am bit stuck on these peeps

Yes, but Charles born 1821 could be up to 4 years older, with the 1841 rounding down system. I wondered if Jane had already produced her daughter out of wedlock (or in a prev marriage!) and Charles Lee is only the step-father? Merry

Yes merry you are right re the 1841 census, didn't think of that, and I think you may have hit the nail on the head about him being Janes stepfather, that would make more sense, cos of the difference in their ages, strange isn't it how we can readily accept a big difference if the man is older!! I will go back to the drawing board. Just a thought Charles Lee is down as the father on Jane Lees marriage cert, would it not give her real fathers name, or if she was illegimate would she have just put charles down?!! why oh why do these rellies give us these headaches? Have you any idea what a Leather Dresser is?

It was the fact that she gave Charles Lee as her father on the marriage cert that led me to feeling she was more likely to be illegitimate than to have been born during a prev marriage for Jane. If that had been the case she would prob have put her natural father as dad. I looked for marriages of Charles Lee to Jane X 1841-1851 in Surrey and only found one: Marriages Jun 1850 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ballard Mary Ann Newington 4 446 Leary Mary Ann Newington 4 446 >>>>Lee Charles Henry Newington 4 446 Lee William Newington 4 446 Saunders William Daniel Newington 4 446 Shearman Mary Ann Newington 4 446 >>>>YATES Jane Newington 4 446 But I couldn't see any Janes Yates in Surrey in 1841 .......I assumed Jane b 1833ish was born in Surrey??? Anyway....I'm not really convinced that's the right marriage....... Merry

Another thing.....did they have any more children?? None on the 1851??? Merry

Have you found what a leather dresser is yet??!!! Merry

Hi Merry, Thank so much for going to all that trouble for me. I dont know if they had more children I haven't been able to find any!! Think you right about Charles being her natural father. I have just posted a thread, but will give you the address of the site in case you dont spot it www.census1891.com/occupations.htm It is fantastic, lists every victorian occupation under the sun, and some are really obscure!! apparently a Leather Dresser is someone who dresses leather, so he isn't a cross dressing tranny then?!!! Thanks again for all the help, please let me know if you have a light bulb moment as far as these peeps are concerned. I know you are highly reveered by the members on this site and I would really appreciate any help you can give me. many thanks again Karen aka fuzzy x x P.s. cyber bottle of wine on way!!

Oooh, yummy!! Thank you! Ummmmm....... I meant to say I think Charles was her STEP-ather, NOT her natural father! (but not remotely proved....just my idea!) Maybe they hadn't been together long in 1851, which might be why there were no more children at that point? merry