• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

In Search of Stanley

If they had been officially registered I would expect to find a pair of entries under the mother's and father's surnames
Yes, if both parents are shown in the register entry then there will be two entries in the original quarterly indexes, one under each surname. But this isn't what you'll find in the new GRO online index - these were compiled on a different basis (as I've demonstrated in the newsletter using examples, including one from my own tree).
 
Denzil was reportedly adopted. This was in response to Peter's comment about DNA that has now disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Denzil was reportedly adopted. This was in response to Peter's comment about DNA that has now disappeared.
I deleted my post having realised it was the wrong Henry Morton Stanley whose tree I was looking at.

But there is an Ancestry tree which shows Henry Morton Stanley as having two sons, both with the first name Denzil, one of whom was adopted and one whowasn't. But I suspect that there was really only one child, and presumably he was adopted. So no chance of DNA unless we exhume Henry Morton Stanley or locate a lock of his hair (the latter more likely than the former).
 
Yes, if both parents are shown in the register entry then there will be two entries in the original quarterly indexes, one under each surname. But this isn't what you'll find in the new GRO online index - these were compiled on a different basis (as I've demonstrated in the newsletter using examples, including one from my own tree).

I always find it easiest to search for the entry on FREEBMD and then look up the entry on the GRO site to find the mother's maiden name. The limited search options on the GRO site are very frustrating.
 
I always find it easiest to search for the entry on FREEBMD and then look up the entry on the GRO site to find the mother's maiden name. The limited search options on the GRO site are very frustrating.
But when you're researching in Wales the surnames are often so common that without seeing the mother's maiden name it's difficult to know which are worth following up.

Findmypast is a good compromise as they have added maiden surnames in many cases.
 
I have found a possible marriage of Elizabeth Parry and Robert Jones in St Asaph, the 3rd quarter of 1860. This time I can find a civil registration of marriage, but no corresponding parish record.
I agree there is a good chance this is the marriage, and it seems to have been 'til death us do part' thereafter. Elizabeth's death certificate (also attached to Steamerpoint's tree) shows she died 23 March 1886, and the informant is Robert Jones, widower of deceased, present at the death. Hopefully she had a happy marriage in the end. I imagine Henry Morton Stanley was quite famous in Elizabeth's later years, but I don't suppose she knew he was her son!
 
Supposedly he visited his family in the early 1870s.
On further investigation, it seems his mother did know who he was, and met him on more than one occasion. This 1872 newspaper article gives lots of interesting details. It doesn't say who his father was, though (other than his 'real' name was John Rowlands), or where he and his mother were when he was a baby!
 
Last edited:
On further investigation, it seems his mother did know who he was, and met him on more than one occasion. This 1872 newspaper article gives lots of interesting details. It doesn't say who his father was, though (other than his 'real' name was John Rowlands), or where he and his mother were when he was a baby!
Interestingly the age given for Stanley is wrong - if he was born in 1841 he was still 31 not 32. But it is probably just an innocent mistake.
 
Interestingly the age given for Stanley is wrong - if he was born in 1841 he was still 31 not 32. But it is probably just an innocent mistake.
Yes - I have trouble remembering exactly how old my thirty-something sons are too!
 
I have "caught up" with this thread with GREAT fascination and enjoyment. THANKS to all the contributors!!
 
I agree there is a good chance this is the marriage, and it seems to have been 'til death us do part' thereafter. Elizabeth's death certificate (also attached to Steamerpoint's tree) shows she died 23 March 1886, and the informant is Robert Jones, widower of deceased, present at the death. Hopefully she had a happy marriage in the end. I imagine Henry Morton Stanley was quite famous in Elizabeth's later years, but I don't suppose she knew he was her son!
Apparently Robert Jones presented Elizabeth's tea-tray to H.M. Stanley's bride as a wedding present in 1890, at his lavishly reported wedding in Westminster Abbey. The details come at the end of a vast list of wedding presents, and might be worth a glance (Manchester Courier, 14 July 1890: "Mr. Robert Jones, of the Cross Foxes Inn, St. Asaph, who married Mr. H.M. Stanley's mother, has sent to Miss Tennant, Stanley's bride, a curious and yet valuable tea-tray belonging to Stanley's late mother, the card of presentation being thus inscribed: 'Hir oes a thangnefedd i'r ddauddyn. The favourite tea-tray of Mrs. Jones, of Glascoed, St. Asaph, North Wales, mother of Henry M. Stanley, Esq., presented to Miss Dorothy Tennant, by Robert Jones, the bereaved widower, on the occasion of her marriage with his illustrious stepson. - Cross Foxes, Glascoed, July 9th, 1890.'"
 
Apparently Robert Jones presented Elizabeth's tea-tray to H.M. Stanley's bride as a wedding present in 1890, at his lavishly reported wedding in Westminster Abbey.
Certainly a lavish wedding, judging by the newspaper reports. I wonder what the groom put as his father's name on the marriage register? Not that it would tell us who his real father was, but I'm just curious.

I know Stanley publicly denied being Welsh for many years (again if newspaper reports are to be believed), but he had clearly reversed that denial well before his wedding. One report I read (Grantham Journal, 19 July 1890) quoted his bride as saying (in a letter to her agent), in response to a present from people on her family's estate in South Wales: "I wished I could rush off to Wales and grasp every friend's hand which has tendered to me this loyal present. But you will convey to them, will you not, my heartfelt thanks. Tell them how proud I am to have this grand Welsh present to show my grand Welsh husband. When he comes to Wales, let us all meet together at Neath, so that he may thank you eloquently, as I cannot do."

Clearly, he needed to admit his Welshness to regain his British nationality, and thus qualify for his knighthood (now aren't I being the cynical one...)
 
As John was baptised in early 1841 his birth could have been registered in late 1840. There is a birth record for a John Parry registered in Q4 1840, St Asaph, volume 27, page 202. In the GRO index there is no mothers name given however in find my past it gives the mother's maiden as Parry. Could this be the correct record. Though I had assumed FMP were getting the mother's maiden names from the GRO records so how they got this one i do not know.
 
As John was baptised in early 1841 his birth could have been registered in late 1840. There is a birth record for a John Parry registered in Q4 1840, St Asaph, volume 27, page 202. In the GRO index there is no mothers name given however in find my past it gives the mother's maiden as Parry. Could this be the correct record. Though I had assumed FMP were getting the mother's maiden names from the GRO records so how they got this one i do not know.
The baptism entry gives his date of birth as 'Jany 28'.

BTW, every time I look at that entry I get the feeling that the word 'bastard' and Elizabeth's surname 'Parry' were added later. What do others think?
 
BTW, every time I look at that entry I get the feeling that the word 'bastard' and Elizabeth's surname 'Parry' were added later. What do others think?
It does look like 'Bastard' was inserted in afterwards, but I'm not sure about Parry. The father's occupation is written near the top of the relevant box, level with his name, whereas in most of the entries above, the occupation is written nearer the middle of the box. This suggests both surnames might already have been entered before the occupation was written in.
 
Fair point. I had forgotten that.
I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the birth date was shown incorrectly in the baptism register - that's why I highlighted the possibility that he entry had been amended at a later date. It would interesting to find out whether a Bishop's Transcript of this entry has survived, and - if so - what it shows.

Something else to bear in mind is that the baptism register probably wouldn't have been written up at the time of the baptism.

I think we should be considering whether there are any reasons for showing a later birth date. The most obvious (which surely doesn't apply in this case????) is that the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth, but were married prior to January 28th.
 
BTW, every time I look at that entry
I'm still following this discussion with interest to see what arises. I have yet to actually see the entry, a screen shot would be good, please.
 
I've ordered the PDF for the Dec 1840 entry - it's a bit like buying a lottery ticket, but should it turn out to be the right entry it'll make a great story (and not just for my newsletter)!
 
Back
Top