Genealogy Chat

My ancestor Mary Bluett was living just off Drury Lane, London, when her husband died and she was left with no means of support. I've found nothing on her in BMD records or censuses so I wonder if she simply descended into poverty and ended her days in the workhouse. In which case, does anybody know which workhouse I might find her in, between 1846 and 1851?

Paul try this site http://www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/

Drury Lane was probably in the Strand Union, so I guess Strand Union workhouse, info here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/Strand/Strand.shtml

But even if she died in the workhouse, her death should still be in the GRO death index. If she was still alive at the time of the 1851 census she should be listed. Can you tell us when and where she was born and when she was widowed? nell

You can also try this website. Can't remember which are on there now, but it may help. www.workhouses.org.uk Good luck.

Thanks Helen. I'm confident we have scoured the records conclusively and it seems Mary and her family managed to avoid every census. There weren't many Bluetts around London at the time and I've identified several as relatives or eliminated them from our enquiries. Fortunately, from a historical perspective, she and her husband managed to get in the papers several times as she was a witness in a notorious murder trial and then her husband Thomas was shot dead in Drury lane by a boy playing with a loaded gun on his way to a shooting gallery. Both cases got plenty of coverage in the papers. After that, though, I lose all trace of her. She was born around 1815 and was out of the country until 1845. Her daughter's 1858 wedding certificate gives an address near Drury Lane which suggests Mary stayed in the vicinity with her daughter.If you're wondering, that address in the 1861 census does not have anybody matching Mary's description.

Paul What a fascinating ancestress! There's a book in there for you to write, I'm sure. Perhaps she changed her name after all the notoriety?

As a matter of fact Helen I've only given you the relevant bits. Thomas was a lithographer who took his family to New Zealand to start a new life. They were only a poor family but Thomas actually has a place in history as the very first lithographer in New Zealand and his work is now held in galleries and museums througout Australasia. A prominent Australian cultural historian tells me he is the most important of the pre-goldrush lithographers in the region. In May, an Australian Magazine is publishing an article I have written about him. It has created a certain amount of excitement in Australian academic circles because for the first time I have pieced together the story of a man who was only known by his works. I hasten to add that two years ago I had no idea of his existence. This is what family history can achieve! Thomas and his family would have been bemused. They were desperately poor and he would certainly have regarded himself as businessman, not an artist.