Questions concerning a birth entry

[Pauline]

Google brings up several 19th century references to a Milton Street, Euston Square, and I have also found on a modern map a Melton Street, close to Euston Square tube station.

So you can take your pick!

 

[SueMay]

Mmm, that sounds good. Ok, will go back to census records and see if it brings up Milton Street.

Thank you

 

[Pauline]

An 1860s map shows Melton Street where it is now but I couldn’t see a Milton Street. However Euston Station was there by then, and I couldn’t find a street with either name in that area on an earlier map. So there may have been a Milton Street that was demolished when the station was built or maybe it was the same as Melton Street.

 

[Heather]

Using the Census Street Search for 1851 and 1861 on FMP there is a Melton Street in St Pancras (where the birth certificate was issued) but no Milton Street. This new tool on FMP is very useful.

 

[Pauline]

Using the Census Street Search for 1851 and 1861 on FMP there is a Melton Street in St Pancras (where the birth certificate was issued) but no Milton Street.

It does seem that the references Google finds to a Milton Street, Euston Square quite likely refer to Melton Street, Euston Square.

 

[SueMay]

Using the Census Street Search for 1851 and 1861 on FMP there is a Melton Street in St Pancras (where the birth certificate was issued) but no Milton Street. This new tool on FMP is very useful.

Thanks Heather, that is what I have been using. Still no success. May give it a break and then look again after a few days with fresh eyes.

It does seem that the references Google finds to a Milton Street, Euston Square quite likely refer to Melton Street, Euston Square.

Yes, I've found other references which seem to refer to both as being the same place.

On another note, while looking through census records I came across 2 ladies with occupations listed as "Unfortunate woman", one being 40 and the other 19. My husband suggest that it might be because they were spinsters

 

[At home in NZ]

Yes, I've found other references which seem to refer to both as being the same place.

I have found both.
Milton Street is in Cripplegate, City of London and Melton Street is Kings Cross/St Pancras. All I did was use Google to look them up.
Although this was compiled for the 1891 census I have found this street guide invaluable. I used it to confirm what Google told me.
Some London street names have been changed since 1857, see here.
Each guide is part of a website and worth taking a look at.

 

[Pauline]

Milton Street is in Cripplegate, City of London

It's in the wrong area, though. The birth entry shows the full address as Euston Square, and it was registered in the St Pancras district, so any Milton Streets outside of that area won't be relevant.

 

[At home in NZ]

so any Milton Streets outside of that area won't be relevant.

I didn't imply that they were, I was simply pointing out that both spellings were not the same place, in response to #26.

 

[Pauline]

I didn't imply that they were, I was simply pointing out that both spellings were not the same place, in response to #26.

Yes, you are quite right - there are several Milton Streets, including the one in Cripplegate, which are not the same place as the Melton Street in the birth entry.

However, #26 was about 19th century references to a Milton Street, Euston Square which does seem likely to be the same place as Melton Street, Euston Square.

 

[Pauline]

I've was looking a bit further into the Michael Compigne who died in 1861 and appears to have been born about 1818, son of George. The National Probate Calendar indicates that this Michael died 18 Jul 1861 at 61 Upper Stamford Street, Waterloo Road (Lambeth district), and the London Gazette tells us that he was formerly of 9 Clements Inn, which is in St Clement Danes. Westminster Rate books show a Michael Compigne paying rates for the latter address from at least 1850.

I found 9 Clements Inn (not to be confused with Clements Inn Passage) in both the 1851 and 1861 censuses, and Michael is not there in either census; in 1851 the property is unoccupied. I also looked for Upper Stamford Street in 1861 and discovered that the section containing No 61 is missing.

So Michael is still being elusive in 1851 but may be missing in 1861.

 

[Helen7]

I also looked for Upper Stamford Street in 1861 and discovered that the section containing No 61 is missing.

I found the same and mentioned this in post #6 of this thread.

 

[Pauline]

I found the same and mentioned this in post #6 of this thread.

Oops, so you did. Sorry Helen! How did I manage to miss that?! Still great minds think alike ....

The information at TNA does confirm that the relevant section in 1861 is actually missing.