• Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Paul BANFIELD is driving me MAD!

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#1
OK, when I found myself searching on ancestry for about the sixteenth time for this particular ancestor, I figured it was about time I asked the experts for help!

I'm looking for Paul Banfield and his daughter Jane.

Jane Banfield (sp) married Robert Dewmore in Brompton (London) 24 Oct 1854. She was 23 (so born about 1830/1831). Her father is recorded as Paul Banfield, boatswain (but with a squiggle indicating he is deceased).

In all censuses, Jane records her birthplace as London, Middlesex. Some other family members have suggested a Somerset link, but I know of no grounds for it. There is also a suggestion that Jane's middle name is Elizabeth, but again I have no document showing that.

Note: There is another Paul Banfield with a daughter Jane in St Pancras, but he is a chimney sweep and I have found this other Jane's marriage record in St Pancras church, so that isn't her.

Any suggestions for how to find either of these two?
 

Robesur

Well-known member
Posts
270
Likes
0
Location
Perth, Scotland
#2
Paul Banfield is a very rare name, to find two, even in London, with a daughter Jane, both the same age, would seem an extreme coincidence. People did change their occupation.
You say he was deceased by 1854. If you look for deaths in London 1837-1854 there is no Paul Banfield registered, so if he died before 1837 then you will not find them together. There is a death for a Paul Bamfield, June 1841, East London, Vol.2, Page 141. This means that he died before 30 Jun 1841, as the census date was 6 june, there is also a good chance that he also died before the census. You could get a copy to see if he was possibly your person, age and occupation will be given.
To return to my first paragraph There was only one birth and one death, no marriages, of a Paul Banfield in the whole of England & Wales shown on Free BMD between 1837-1937. What are the chances of the one that you have found being wrong?
 
Last edited:
Posts
7,407
Likes
11
Location
Leeds, born Hull
#3
Hi
on IGI there is a Paul Banfield married to Deborah Daniels on 21Jan1817 at Christ Church Greyfriars Newgate, London

they have two children Jane Mary b 25Feb1830 c 6Feb1831
and Susannah b 18Oct1828 c 28Jun1829
both born Old Church, St Pancras
dave
 
Last edited:
Posts
7,407
Likes
11
Location
Leeds, born Hull
#4
Hi again
On 1841 census
Paul Banfield 45 Chimney Sweep
Elizabeth 45
Amelia 20
Peter 15
Susan 12
Jane 11
living Phoenix St, St Pancras

This would appear to be the same family as I found on IGI. Elizabeth is a different name, but Susan an Jane tie in, and the additional children fill the gap between Pauls marriage in 1817 and Susannah's birth in 1828.
Like Robesur I can't find a second family
dave
 

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#5
Hmm. Thanks - food for thought. The problem I have is that Jane Mary Banfield the chimney sweep's daughter married Philip O'Malley plasterer in St Mary Paddington Green in 1849.

On Peter (also a sweep), Amelia and Jane's marriages Paul is listed as chimney sweep. On baptisms, he is listed as bricklayer (1823 & 24), plaisterer (1823), and coal merchant (1829 & 1830). Boatswain just seems a bit of a stretch from those occupations!
Oh, Paul is in the 1841 census on Phoenix St with a wife Elizabeth, and children Amelia, Peter Susan and Jane.

Returning to Jane Mary, I guess she might have remarried under her maiden name if Philip died or abandoned her. I've looked for Jane and Philip O'Malley in the 1861 census to prove that the Janes are different people, but can't find them. I can't find Philip's death either though. Maybe they just moved away or emigrated.
Someone on ancestry has a tree with a Paul Banfield (b1790 Bridgewater Somerset), married another Deborah (would you believe it), with children Robert (b1823) and Amelia (b1824). No idea where they got that information from though. And with Banfield, Bamfield, Barfield variations and no national index for births when either Paul or Jane would have been born...argh!

I'll have to think about ordering Paul Bamfield's death cert. If it's the sweep it won't get me any further forward, but if not...
 

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#7
Hi,

Have you Janes marriage certificate, if so who are the marriage witneses they could be relatives.
ooh, good question. Jane the sweep's daughter had her sister Amelia and Amelia's husband Charles Locock as witnesses.

"My" Jane had a James Dixon and Elizabeth Dimbleby as witnesses. Those names don't appear in the family tree anywhere, so no idea who they are. Shame the "signatures" can't be compared....oooh! ooh! If I can find an image of the original holy trinity register though I can compare Jane's signature, as it does appear that Jane the sweep's daughter wrote her name herself (although Philip marked with an X). Thank you, you've given me hope...
 

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#9
Strange that both the Janes married in the Kensington district.
Yes, it is. Have made some enquiries at LMA, who hold the Brompton registers, and we shall see if they can provide a copy of the original entry. I sooooo hope Jane wrote her own name! It's such a shame both fathers were deceased (another coincidence?) as Paul Banfield the sweep had a rather beautiful and distinctive signature.
 

juliejtp

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
11,503
Likes
421
Location
Robin Hood County
#10
Hi Braisher,

A possibility that Philip O'Malley remarried in 1852. His occ, fathers name and fathers occupation mtch the one married to Jane.

1st marriage his occ plaster, father William occ confectioner

2nd marriage 1852 Philip Malley Wlliam occ confectioner
bride Jane Thornson, Saint John Of Jerusalem borough of Hackney. Do you think they are the same?
 
Last edited:

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#11
OMG :eek: That's completely floored me. That HAS to be the same Philip, he is recorded as a plasterer - can't be two people of the same name and occupation, with fathers of the same name and occupation.

So that's really put the cat among the pigeons! He's recorded as a bachelor, rather than a widower.

Do you know if there is any way to find out if the marriage between him and Jane Banfield was annulled?

Edited to add:
OH! I'm an idiot. It didn't need to be annulled - Jane was born 25 Feb 1830, according to baptism records. So she was only 19 when she married Philip. She must have lied when she said she was full age. Therefore the marriage wasn't legal. What a shocker - not sure how I break this to the other members of the family!

I also finally found Jane in 1851. She is living with (yes, you guessed) a Banfield, her sister Susan, and using the suname Maley, although both Jane and Susan are shown as unmarried.
 
Last edited:

BraisherT

Well-known member
Posts
189
Likes
0
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
#13
Thanks gibbo - he's a very distant cousin. Unfortunately the email doesn't seem to work anymore, though, so no way to ask him where the Elizabeth in the middle of Jane's name comes from. (It doesn't appear in any of the documents I have except the tree that came courtesy of him...). Still, I heard on this forum from another distant relation in Oz, so am hoping she may be able to shed some light.

Cheers,
Tamsin
 

Similar threads

Top