Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

Cooke Paper Manufacturers of Durham & Yorkshire England..

James Cooke [1719-1807] Will dated 30 May 1804 (he died later in 1808 at Hett Mill)
In it he mentions

Owned, Water Corn Mill and Hett Paper Mill, Lands, and "Backfield"

Extracts From...

The Last Will and Testament of James Cook
of Hett Mill in the County of Durham,

Paper Maker- Made this 30th day of May...1805

Executors: Thomas Mills of Sunderland Bridge (County Woodmonger)and John Pearson of Cornforth Mill (County Paper Maker)

All my Mefsuages Buildings Mills Lands Tenements and Herediaments situate in the Township of Hett aforesaid held by Lease for Years with the Appurtenances for and during all my Estate Term and Interest therein Upon the Trusts following, In trust from time to time and at the usual times to renew the lease for the time being of the said premises and out of the Rents and profits or by Mortgage thereof to pay fees and expenses of such renewals and subjects thereto the said Premises shall be upon the Trusts hereinafter declared, As to my Mesfsuage in the Occupation of Jonathan Best and my Water corn Mill and Garth behind the same in the Occupation of my Son JOHN COOK and a field called or known by the name of the Backfield now in my own Occupation.....In Trust by and out of the Rents and profits thereof to raise and pay to my

... Son HENRY COOK of Marsham, York, Whitesmith, then to his wife Mary Cook (should he predecease her) and... .... Son JOHN Cook, then to his wife Elizabeth Cook, (should he predease her)...

... Son ROBERT Cook then to his wife Barbara Cook, (should he predease her)...


Should they all die, then my Estate be sold and ..the money distributed.. amogst the children, having reached the age of 21.

Gifts to:

Robert Norman of Hutton Rudby in the County of York, Paper Manufacturer.. my Clock

To my daughter Jane, the wife of Thomas Seymour of Egglestone Abbey, the sum of £170

To John Cook, Catherine Cook, Elizabeth Cook, Henry Cook, Francis Cook, Leanord Cook, and Mary Cook - children of my late son James Cook £31.00 each.. on attaining 21 years.

To Robert Norman £150

http://www.baph.org.uk/archive/quarterly39.html

In response to the short feature on St. Martins mill in Quarterly 38: there were at least five water mills on the River Swale at Richmond in Yorkshire. Highest up the river was Whitclif, followed by Green Mill, Castle Mill and finally St. Martins. The latter belonged to St. Martins Priory, a small cell of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Mary in York. Prior to the 1770s, before he moved to Egglestone Abbey Mill about 20 miles away, the mill was worked by the papermaker James Cooke and his father (also James). After the death of his parents Henry Cooke continued to make paper at Egglestone until 1823 when he took the lease of Whitclif Mill which continued as a paper mill until 1930. Nothing is left of either Whitclif or St. Martins, apparently the latter was demolished during the building of the railways in the mid-nineteenth century.

The Cook(e) Family came from Papermakers of Durham, Hett Mill, Egglestone Abbey and Richmond Yorkshire..  For More information the following info provided by my cousin Amanda Symonds.....

Special Offer on
"The Lost Mills"

The Lost Mills

A History of Papermaking in County Durham

by Jean V Stirk
ISBN 1873757 85 9 Price £10.00 Size: 210mm x 148mm Pages 256

http://www.durhamweb.org.uk/dclhs/

For at least a century and a half papermaking formed a significant part of the economy of County Durham, yet its existence has been largely ignored by industrial historians. The Lost Mills - A History of Papermaking in County Durham is the definitive study of all the known mills in the county from the first recorded example in the 1670s to the closure of the largest mill in the north of England in 1980.


With painstaking research using frequently fragmentary records, Jean V Stirk has pieced together the individual histories of 45 paper mills and set them in the context of both the changes in the regional economy and the wider history of the development of the papermaking industry in England. This is a pioneering study destined to put a long neglected industry back on the historical map of the county.


The author Jean V Stirk wrote her doctoral thesis on industrial relations in a craft trade based on previously lost records of the Original Society of Papermakers 1800-1948 that she located in private hands. Now a freelance lecturer in aspects of local, industrial and family history, she is also Editor of the British Association of Paper Historians News and a member of Durham County Local History Society.


This publication is available from the Publications' Secretary.
Professor G. Batho
History of Education Project
The Miners' Hall
Red Hills
Durham City
DH1 4BB

Telephone: 0191 3709941

=

Old cottage believed to be the old converted mill available for rent. Amidst open countryside, with views over the ruins of Egglestone
Abbey, this 17th-century Grade II listed cottage is an extremely
comfortable retreat, full of character and charm. Standing peacefully
in its own garden, it is just 2 miles from the delightful market town
of Barnard Castle, home to The Bowes Museum, one of the most
impressive and interesting museums in the country. Golf, riding,
tennis and fishing (on the River Tees) are available locally.
Excellent choice of pubs/restaurants in Barnard Castle and surrounding
villages. Historic Richmond 14 miles. Pub and restaurant 2 miles.

Spacious beamed sitting/dining-room with wood-burning stove in
inglenook and rugs on stone-flagged floor. Steps down to well-fitted
kitchen. Utility room. Step up to twin-bedded room, bathroom/W.C. with
over-bath shower. Winding staircase to first floor: Large double
bedroom with 5ft bed and en-suite shower room/W.C.

For further information, prices and online booking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B ooking and more info 0870 191 7998 or
+44(0)1282 845052
Property Ref: KOQ

=

Sir Walter Scott has selected Egglestone abbey for the closing scene
of "Rokeby,' and thus beautifully describes the ruin -

        "The reverend pile lay wild and waste,
         Profaned, dishonour'd, and defaced,
         Through storied lattices no more
         In softened light the sunbeams pour,
         Gilding the Gothic sculpture rich
         Of shrine and monument, and niche.
         The civil fury of the time
         Made sport of sacrilegious crime;
         For dark Fanaticism rent
         Altar, and screen, and ornament,
         And peasant hands the tombs o'erthrew
         Of Bowes, of Rokeby, and Fitz-Hugh."

Poem and description of Starforth and Rokeby, including schools,
census and John Merritt owner.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/NRY/Startforth/Startforth90.html

=

HENRY COOKE was born 10 Mar 1818 in Egglestone Abbey,Yorkshire, England and baptised in Startforth Church on 27 March. His mother Hannah Cooke nee Wilkinson died after giving birth to Henry.

Henry and his [half] brothers John and Francis emmigrated to Victoria, Australia sometime after 1841.

Henry and his brother John were original members of the congregation of Independent Church, Collins St. Melbourne. Henry was a fervent Methodist and founder of many Christian institutions in Melbourne. He and John were pastoral landowners of Brenanah, Richmond Plains and Spring Hill and in the Wedderburn district near Bendigo, Victoria between July 1845 and September 1849.

They were merchants and founders of “The Age” newspaper in Melbourne, in 1854, under the name Francis Cooke and Co. They relinquished ownership after a few months. Henry was at a public meeting held at Mechanics Institute to discuss the future of "The Age" newspaper on 19 December 1854 in Melbourne. [2006] The newspaper recently celebrated it's 150th anniversary.

Henry was a merchant in Sydney circa 1851 and built wooden houses in A!bert St. Victoria Parade and Grey St, Melbourne, imported from New Zealand. Henry named several of his properties "Egglestone" and one of them was called "Howe Villa"

Henry married AMELIA ANNIE JOB HAM 05 Aug 1851 in Baptist Chapel, Bathurst St, Sydney, New South Wales, daughter of REV HAM [he was the Church Pastor] and ANN TONKIN. She was born Abt. 1831.

John went back to England sometime around 1871 and returned to Howe Villa Mill Lane, Richmond, Yorkshire, ENGLAND, [later died in 1896 Richmond, Yorkshire, England], but his brothers, James & [half] brother Henry settled and had families in Australia and New Zealand

Henry died on 18 March 1889 at "Egglestone" Dandenong Rd, Oakleigh,, Melbourne, at age 71, and was buried on 20 March 1889 at Melbourne General Cemetery.

===

JOHN DOWSON

Thomas Dowson abt 1895 Darlington

Thomas Dowson, Military papers
Mother: Mrs Charlotte Dowson of 60 Cleveland Street, Albert Hill Darlington
Thomas signed up for duty,, but was unfit (served 35 days) 8 sep 1914 - 7 oct 1914
Service no 99482 Army Rank Gunner
Corps: Royal Field Artillery
Battalion: 3rd Battery 1 Reserve Brigade
Date of discharge 7 Oct 1914
Place of Discharge Newcastle on Tyne
Age 19 years
Height 5 ft 8 inches
complexion fresh, eyes grey, hair light brown,
Trade Iron Dresser
of 60 Cleveland Street, Albert Hill, Darlington
The Above named man is discharged in consequence of being found physically unfit for war service
..he writes,
"I have not yet been finally settled with as regards Pay"... T Dowson

==

James was christened 24 Oct 1826. His parents were Robert Coulthard and Mary Clark.

 According to  According to Alfred Coulthard's Book, James Coulthard had a son ANTHONY SLEE COULTHARD b.c 1870 (Anthony in turn has a son "Ernest" no other info..

However, during my research of the COULTHARD Tree and with the extreme efforts that Alfred went to in researching the history of COULTHARD.. I discover, that there are some possible errors,..  And James, herein, is one of those Errors!..

 James Coulthard was christened 24 Oct 1826 to Robwert Coulthard and Mary Clark... He was one of  6 siblings.. Of those, his sister Jane COULTHARD wed FRANCIS CAPSTICK.. Francis was born  19 Mar 1810 Crosby Garrett, Kirkby Stephen, Westmorland.

 Francis and Jane wed 01 Jul 1839 Crosby Garrett, Kirkby Stephen, Westmorland.

By 1851 : Francis and Jane had migrated to London,, to Islington..

 Living  9 Pleasant Place, Islington, St Stephens Borough of Finsbury
Registration district: Islington 
Sub-registration district: Islington East 

Jane nee Coulthard - her bro JAMES(*) had joined them:

Francis CAPSTICK Head Mar 40 Policeman bn westmorland
Jane Capstick [nee coulthard] age 39 bn Snowdale Westmorland
Edward son 11 bn westmorland crosby garrett
Robert son age 9 bn  ditto
Robert COULTHARD ( incorrect spelling of Coulshant) Lodger unm 31 General Post man bn Morland Westmorland [1820]
John Shepherd lodger unm age 25 genl post man bn Westmorland Draybeck
**James COULTHARD lodger unm age 25 upholster bn Morland Wetmorland [1826] 

--

By 1861 James, was established in Islingon, Holy Trinity, Mixdx

1861 Census: 19 John Str, West, St Mary, Islington: Class:  He was a furniture Dealer....
!! JAMES COULTHARD: occ furniture dealer "unm"!!
  William Forster 45 "head" bn Weston Under Lizzard, Staffordshire,
Elizabeth Forster 49 "wife" bn Whitchurch, Shrops
Mary Forster 11 
Thomas James Forster 14 
William Knight 21 
William Perry 28 
Isaac Wilson 27
**James Coulthart 34 "Boarder" occ: furniture dealer [ but is down as bn Penrith Cumberland

By 1871;

1871 Census: LIVING 369 Liverpool Rd, Islington, Civil parish: Islington Trinity  Ecclesiastical parish: Trinity  London, England 
Margeret Rain "Head" "Wid" 60, Moreland, Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland
Mary Rain 30  bn Town Head Gisthan, Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland
**JAmes Coulthart "boarder" 44, bn Moreland, Westmorland,  occ "upholsterer"

 ---

Could James have had a son named ANTHONY SLEE COULTHARD b.c 1870 ( who in turn had a son "Ernest")!

===================

By 1881;

1881 Census
  RG11; Piece: 228; Folio: 83; Page: 16; Line:  ; GSU roll: 1341050.

Civil Parish: Islington   London 
Street address: 299 Liverpool Road

Registration district: Islington 
Sub-registration district: Islington West 
** James Coulthart Age: 56  bn abt 1825   Boarder  bn: Penrith, Cumberland, England Occupation: Retired Upholsterer
  Lizzie Holdworth 23 
Sally H. MacPhail 76 
Alfred J. Scacray 50 
Caroline Wyatt 50 

--

James Coulthard 1826  Westmorland-1883 Islington

According to Alfred Coulthard's Book, James dies 24 Aug 1883:<<
This is what I found:
James Coulthart bn abt: abt 1827
Year of Registration: 1883
Quarter of Registration: Jul-Aug-Sep Age at Death: 56
District: Islington  County: Greater London, London, Middlesex
Volume: 1b Page: 148

JOHN DOWSON [1788-1843] of the Cross Keys in New Shildon. According to the 1832 Directory of Durham John Dowson (1788 to 1843)was the publican at The Bay Horse, New Shildon at that time, presumably before he went to the Cross Keys. He died of typhus in 1843.


jjOHN DOWSON

Reginald Garnett, 6 June 1884 North Ormesby, Middlesborough to 1 Aug 1943 Redcar

English football player who made 602 appearances as a goalkeeper for Middlesbrough, scoring two goals, as well as 7 appearances for England.

Reginald Garnet "Tim" Williamson (6 June 1884 in North Ormesby, Middlesbrough – 1 August 1943 in Redcar)
REGINALD GARNET "TIM" WILLIAMSON ~ GOALIE FOR MIDDLESBORO FOOTBALL CLUB
The above named known as RG "Tim" Williamson was born 06 Jun 1884 North Ormesby, Middlesbro', Yorks. [Died 01 Aug 1943, Redcar Cleveland]
He was son of John Dowson Williamson and Louisa Gertrude Freeman. Reginald ("Tim") had 3 siblings, 2 sisters and one brother. Reginald's father was a blast furnace manager,, and his grandfather "Timothy" an, engineer. Whilst, on his mother's side,, his grandfather William Freeman,, worked his life as a Builder and Contractor.. I imagine Reginald was torn between the two great passions of his life: football and his desire to become a draughtsman..
He was Goal keeper for Middlesborough (1902-1923) & made 602 appearances for the Club & 7 appearances for England... 
While he was young, Williamson played centre-forward for Coatham Grammar School. He also played at amateur level for Redcar Juniors and Redcar Crusaders before he kept goal for Middlesbrough in a friendly game versus Cliftonville as a 17 year old.
Middlesbrough were very interested in signing him as a professional, but he only agreed under the condition that they allowed him to continue his interest in becoming a qualified draughtsman. Williamson's first competitive appearance for the club was in a game versus Crook Town in the Northern Football Alliance on 1 January 1902, with his league debut coming in a home game against Bristol City on 19 April of the same year. Initially an understudy for Scottish international Rab Macfarlane, he gained a regular place in 1903–04 and never looked back.
Tim's Middlesbrough service saw him make 602 appearances in all competitions, of which 130 were consecutive. His appearance total is still a Middlesbrough record. He was nicknamed "Tiny", due to him being barely 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m) tall. He played in the last game at Linthorpe Road and the first league game at Ayresome Park. He scored two goals, both from the penalty spot, though after he missed one against West Ham United he never took another, after feeling the risk of racing back to his own goal was both too risky and tiring.
He was Middlesbrough's first capped goalkeeper, gaining seven full England caps. His first came against Ireland in February 1905 in the first international to be played at Ayresome Park, in which he scored an own goal. His next appearance did not come for six more years, with the brilliance of Sam Hardy keeping him out of the team.
Williamson's reserved occupation meant that he was exempt from a call-up for World War I. The Football League refused to sanction his benefit later on, on the grounds that those years during the war did not count towards his Middlesbrough service. He did eventually receive a game however, versus Chelsea.
His final game came on 24 March 1923, a 1–0 defeat to Cardiff City. At 38 years and 9 months old, he would be the oldest player to represent Boro until Bryan Robson broke that record 74 years later.
On retirement, he was paid a sum of £1000, as well as a silver tea and coffee service from Middlesbrough chairman Philip Bach. Tim continued to keep goal for a works team, however. Not interested in watching football, he spent his free time playing golf and taking his sporting gun to Teesmouth. ~ He died on 1 Aug 1943 at North Ormesby Hospital following an operation, and is buried at Coatham Churchyard

Hewitson_Robert1885_soRobert&Isabella_gs_John&Margar- tneeDowsonbn 1825

Grandson of John Hewitson and Margaret nee Dowson bn 1825

Mallett_William_Henry_Richard 1853-1900

Mallett_Elizabeth_nee Heseltons_1856-1936

Williamson_Edith_neeMallett

Researching Montague in the 1891 Census

The Reason for creating this is because I have created another tree called: "Dowson Family Tree" [all info below can be found at "Dowson Family Tree",, as I hope to connect it to "Orange Family A - Z" Tree on Ancestry!

Montague Vaughan M McKechnie forms part of the tree of...  ["Orange Family A - Z" ~ on Ancestry ] bn Mar 1866 Witton Park, Durham to his parents Mary A Vaughan bn abt 1834 Manchester, Lancashire and Daniel McKechnie bn abt 1827 Scotland ~ a Physician..

Background to Mary Ann nee Vaughan 1834 Manchester:

She first wed Thomas Williamson bn 1818 Hutton Rudby, Yorks the son of James Williamson and Jane in June qtr 1855 Auckland. Co Durham.

Thomas Williamson  bn1818 had previously wed to Eleanor DOWSON bn abt 1825 Howdon, Bishop Auckland, Durham, the dau of John DOWSON abt 1790  occ: Victualler, Pub Landlord,, and Ann Williamson

Montague Vaughan McKechnie, is a doctor in the 1901 census living in Wales

Montague Vaughan McKechnie a medical undergraduate in 1891 Census::

 Age: 24    is down as " Stepbrother" bn   Witton Park, Durham, England ,Living Carwood Cottage, Escomb, Whitton Park,  Durham

relationship is to a :

Thomas Dowson     44 Head occ Coke Inspector bn abt 1847 Durham, Etherley
Elizabeth M Dowson Wife 42 abt 1849 Gateshead Durham 


1891 England Census
Name:     Montague V MacKechnie Age: 24     abt 1867
Relation:     Stepbrother
Where born:     Witton Park, Durham, England

Living Carwood Cottage, Civil parish:     Escomb
Ecclesiastical parish:     Whitton Park
Town:     Whitton ParkCounty/Island:     Durham

Registration district:     Auckland
Sub-registration district:     Bishop Auckland

Thomas Dowson     44 Head occ Coke Inspector bn abt 1847 Durham, Etherley
Elizabeth M Dowson Wife 42 abt 1849 Gateshead Durham    
Elizabeth J Dowson Daughter 21 abt 1870 Escomb Durham occ school mistress   
Joseph D Dowson     Son 19 abt 1872 Escomb Durham     occ solicitors clerk
Sarah J     Hall     Servant     15 abt 1876 Boobeck Yorkshire    
Hannah     Patterson Visitor     (mar)46 abt 1845 Allendale northamptonshire
Amye M     Bradford    Wife     (mar)32 abt 1859 Willesborough     Kent    
George M      Son     3 abt 1888 Etherley Durham
James B         Son     1 abt 1890 Etherley Durham     England
Jane     Ward     Servant     32     bt 1859     Etherley     Durham    
Elizabeth Bulmer     Servant     18 abt 1873 EtherleyDurham
Annie     Medd     Servant     18 abt 1873 Hamsterley     Durham    
Richardson ,Edward,A Visitor 22 abt 1869 Darlington Durham occ mechanical engineer   
***Montague V MacKechnie     Stepbrother 24     bt 1867     Witton Park Durham  occ Medical undergraduate   
Arthur     Sanderson Visitor     28 abt 1863 Durham    
Elizabeth McCackerd Servant 27 abt 1864 Westerton Durham    
Jane Nelon Servant 16 abt 1875 Cornforth Durham

Source Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 4068; Folio 125; Page 17; GSU roll: 6099178.

1881C: Montague is a "boarder  South Church Lane (Grammar School)

1871c: [part of the "Orange Family A - Z" tree at Ancestry.co.uk]

1871 England Census

8 Station Rd,Civil Parish: Escombe  Ecclesiastical parish: Witton Park St Paul 
Town: Witton Park  County/Island: Durham 


Registration district: Auckland
Sub registration district: Bishop Auckland
Daniel McKechnie 45  Head Gen Practisioner L+P,LG+LM bn scotland 1826
Mary A McKechnie 37  wife Manchester, lancashire 1834
Albert V Williamson 15  stepson bn 1856 Middlesborough, Yorks
Mary McKechnie 8  Witton, Durham,  1863
Montague V McKechnie 5  Witton, Durham, 1866
Adelade V McKechnie 2  Witton, Durham,  1869
Antonie Crean 29  abt 1842  Ireland Bo;As 
Mary Hall 17  abt 1854  York, Yorkshire, England Servant 
Hannah Hall 14 
Mary E Layton 16  

======================================

Interestingly in 1861 Census Daniel Mckechnie and Mary Ann Mckechnie nee Vaughan were living at Carwood Cottage Escome, Durham

in 1861 Census

1861: RG9; Piece: 3707; Folio: 19; Page: 32; GSU
Car Wood Cottage, Escombe  Durham 

Registration district: Auckland 
Sub-registration district: Bishop Auckland 

Daniel McKechnie 34  HEAD OCC lfptg gENERAL Practisioner bn Scotland [1827]
Mary A McKechnie 30 wife bn lancashire, manchester (1831)
!--Sarah M Williamson 15 STEP DAU bn abt 1846 SHILDON - PUPILS TEACHER NATIONAL SCHOOLS
!--ALBERT V WILLIAMSON STEPSON age 5 bn middlesbrough [1856]

Elizabeth Babst 23  Mar visitor bn Monmouthshire ...Farm
Charlotte Babst 2 visitor bn newcastle
Robert Babst 4 Mo  visitor newcastle
Mary Brown 22  visitor "nurse" bn newcastle
 Elizabeth Robinson 23   servant
Joseph Vaughan 23  lodger

=========================

Edith B Neal bn abt 1880 Nottinghill, Kensington, ~ her sister Alice Maud Neal bn 1879 weds Alfred C Galloway in 1902 Kensington, London. - Published on

Orange family A-Z      at ancestry.co.uk


in 1901census Edith B Neal is a Boarder at Janet Littlejohn Galloways house bn 1861 Pentonville, Janet down as a widow..... Ive traced Janet L Galloway's tree and her father was James John Galloway bn 1835 Marylebone occ baker - but as yet cannot find a connection to Alfred Cyril Galloway, his father Robert Galloway bn 1854 Bloomsbury, London & son of Catherine bn 1813 Ireland.. //.. James John Galloway,, father of Janet L Galloway (, he could fit as brother of Robert Galloway 1854 as Robert's mother was "catherine" & widow, in 1871c bn 1813 Ireland.. Janet Littlejohn Galloway,, her middle name may be that of her mother unknown at this time!

Info on Edith B Neal,, her Sister Alice who wed Alfred Cyril Galloway can be found on my ongoing tree.. Orange family A - Z

Abraham Orange bn 1607 & 5 Generation

see my tree Orange Family A ~ Z from

main page.

1. Abraham ORANGE (Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 11 Nov 1607 in Bolbec, France, was christened in LINTOT, France, and died Bef 1662 in LINTOT, France. He married Jeanne LE CARON 1 Feb 1632 in Lintot, France, daughter of Pierre LECARON and Marie LELIEVRE. She was born 1611 in Bolbec, France, was christened 29 May 1611 in LINTOT, France. 

 Children of Abraham ORANGE and Jeanne LE CARON are:+ 2   i. Abraham ORANGE was born Abt 1635 in Bolbec, France, was christened 25 Dec 1635 in LINTOT, France.
  3   ii. Anne ORANGE was born 1633 in Bolbec, France, was christened 24 Feb 1633 in LINTOT, France.
+ 4   iii. Jean ORANGE was born 16 Jan 1639 in Bolbec, France, was christened 23 Jan 1639 in LINTOT, France.
  5   iv. Daniel ORANGE was born 20 Dec 1641 in Bolbec, France, was christened 22 Dec 1641 in LINTOT, France.
+ 6   v. Mathieu ORANGE was born 26 Mar 1643 in Bolbec, France, was christened 29 Mar 1643 in LINTOT, France, and died Bef 1687.

 Descendant Register, Generation No. 2

2. Abraham ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born Abt 1635 in Bolbec, France, was christened 25 Dec 1635 in LINTOT, France. He married Marie LANGUETHUIT 8 May 1661 in Lintot, Seine-Maritime, France, daughter of Jean LANGUETHUIT and Jeanne POTTIER. She was born Abt 1636 in Trouville, France, was christened 23 Nov 1636 in LINTOT, France. 

 Children of Abraham ORANGE and Marie LANGUETHUIT are:+ 7   i. Abraham ORANGE was born 1 Apr 1671 in Bolbec, France, was christened 5 Apr 1671 in LINTOT, France, and died 1706 in Flanders, France, age 41.
  8   ii. Esther ORANGE was born 2 Feb 1668 in Bolbec, France, was christened 5 Feb 1668 in LINTOT, France.


4. Jean ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 16 Jan 1639 in Bolbec, France, was christened 23 Jan 1639 in LINTOT, France. He married Judith FAUQUET 21 Oct 1663 in Lintot, France, daughter of Elie FAUQUET and Marie BARBET. She was born 1635 in Bolbec, France, was christened 12 Aug 1635 in Fe(/)camp, France, and died in London, England. 

 Children of Jean ORANGE and Judith FAUQUET are:+ 9   i. Judith ORANGE was born 16 Aug 1664 in Bolbec, France, was christened 24 Aug 1664 in LINTOT, France.
  10   ii. Pierre ORANGE was born 16 Aug 1666 in Bolbec, France, was christened 22 Aug 1666 in LINTOT, France, and died in ?England.
  11   iii. Jean ORANGE was born 7 Jul 1668 in Bolbec, France, was christened 8 Jul 1668 in LINTOT, France.
  12   iv. Louis ORANGE was born 26 Oct 1670 in Bolbec, France, was christened 23 Nov 1670 in LINTOT, France.
+ 13   v. Marthe ORANGE was born 24 Feb 1673 in Bolbec, France, was christened 5 Mar 1673 in LINTOT, France.
+ 14   vi. Madeleine ORANGE was born 27 Jan 1675 in Bolbec, France, was christened 2 Feb 1675 in LINTOT, France, and died Bef 1706 in London?.
  15   vii. Abraham ORANGE was born 22 Nov 1677 in Bolbec, France, was christened 28 Nov 1677 in LINTOT, France, and died 13 Feb 1678 in Bolbec, France.
  16   viii. Ann ORANGE was born 16 May 1679 in Bolbec, France, was christened 21 May 1679 in LINTOT, France, and died 4 Jun 1679 in Bolbec, France.


6. Mathieu ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 26 Mar 1643 in Bolbec, France, was christened 29 Mar 1643 in LINTOT, France, and died Bef 1687. He married Ester LAMY 18 Oct 1671 in Lintot ER, Seine-Maritime, France, daughter of Pierre LAMY and Judith GALOPIN. She was born 1650 in Bolbec, France, was christened 6 Mar 1650 in LINTOT, France. 

 Child of Mathieu ORANGE and Ester LAMY is:  17   i. Esther ORANGE was born 14 Nov 1674 in Gruchet, France, was christened 18 Nov 1674 in LINTOT, France

 Descendant Register, Generation No. 3

7. Abraham ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 1 Apr 1671 in Bolbec, France, was christened 5 Apr 1671 in LINTOT, France, and died 1706 in Flanders, France, age 41. He married Susanne JANVIER Bef Jul 1694, daughter of Jacob JANVIER and Suzanne LE CARON. She was born Abt 1667 in Rouen, France, was christened 10 Aug 1672 in Quevilly 10 8 1672 source: Denis Vatinel, and died Aft 1722. 

 Children of Abraham ORANGE and Susanne JANVIER are:+ 18   i. Abraham ORANGE was born Abt Apr 1695 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England C049031, was christened 7 Apr 1695 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England C049031.
+ 19   ii. Jean ORANGE was born Abt Dec 1696 in London, England, was christened 13 Dec 1696 in Son of Abraham Orange and Suzanne vol 39 p 9, and died 1771 in Bethnal Green, London.
  20   iii. Pierre Mathieu ORANGE was born Abt 1700 in London, England, was christened 12 May 1700 in Bap par Mr J Renoult min de l'eglise. godparent Pierre Torgque Godmother Esther Orange. He married Mary Jane GIRAUD 6 Dec 1741 in Saint Dunstans, Stepney. She was born 1718 in Spitalfields, Middlesex, England. He married Martha ELLIS 1 Jul 1722 in Artillery, French Church, Spitalfields, London, daughter of Jean ELLIS and Ruth MARBLE. She was born Abt 1702 in Canterbury, and died Bef 1741. 
  21   iv. Jeanne ORANGE was born Abt 1703 in London, England, and died 19 Dec 1707 in Bethnal Green, London, England.
  22   v. Baby ORANGE was born 1705 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London.
  23   vi. Peter ORANGE was born Abt 1707 in London, England, and died 16 Jun 1768 in Saint Thomas Hospital, London.


9. Judith ORANGE (Jean ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 16 Aug 1664 in Bolbec, France, was christened 24 Aug 1664 in LINTOT, France. She married Isaac DESRAMEY 12 Aug 1688 in St Jean, Spitalfields, London, son of Isaac DESRAMEY and Judith LAUNAY. He was born Abt 1664 in Autretot, France. 

 Children of Judith ORANGE and Isaac DESRAMEY are:  24   i. Judith DESRAMEY was born 14 Nov 1689 in La Patent French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, was christened 17 Nov 1689 in La Patent French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London  and died Bef 1695.
  25   ii. Anne DESRAMEY was born Abt 1691 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 25 Jan 1691 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields
  26   iii. Isaac DESRAMEY was born 1692 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, was christened 30 Oct 1692 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London.
  27   iv. Jean DESRAMEY was born Abt 1694 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, was christened 16 Aug 1696 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields
  28   v. Judith DESRAMEY was born Abt 1695 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 17 Mar 1695 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields
  29   vi. Esther DESRAMEY was born Abt Aug 1696 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 16 Aug 1696 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields
  30   vii. Isaac DESRAMEY was born Abt Aug 1696 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 16 Aug 1696 in St Jean, Spitalfields.
  31   viii. Isaac DESRAMEY was born Abt 1699 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 12 Feb 1699 in S/o Isaac Desramets Et Judith, gp Isaac Leplay, Suzanne Carriere
  32   ix. Pierre DESRAMEY was born Jan 1701 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, was christened 12 Jan 1701 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot
  33   x. Pierre DESRAMEY was born Sep 1702 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot , was christened 20 Sep 1702 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot


13. Marthe ORANGE (Jean ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 24 Feb 1673 in Bolbec, France, was christened 5 Mar 1673 in LINTOT, France. She married James SIEURIN 27 Feb 1700 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney. He was born Abt 1673. 

 Child of Marthe ORANGE and James SIEURIN is:  34   i. Marthe SIEURIN was born May 1702 in Threadneedle Street, French Huguenot, London, was christened 17 May 1702 in Threadneedle Street  p = JAQUES SIEURIN & MARTHE.


14. Madeleine ORANGE (Jean ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 27 Jan 1675 in Bolbec, France, was christened 2 Feb 1675 in LINTOT, France, and died Bef 1706 in London?. She married Isaac LEPLAY 28 Feb 1700 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney. He was born Abt 1675. 

 Child of Madeleine ORANGE and Isaac LEPLAY is:  35   i. Magdeline LEPLAY was born 1704 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London.

Descendant Register, Generation No. 4

18. Abraham ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born Abt Apr 1695 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England C049031, was christened 7 Apr 1695 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England C049031. He married UNKNOWN ANN. She was born Abt 1710. He married Penelope JACKSON 22 Oct 1733 in Fleet Prison, London City, Middlesex, England, daughter of Thomas JACKSON and UNKNOWN MARY. She was born 25 Jan 1710 in Saint Martins in the Fields, Westminster, was christened 4 Feb 1710 in Saint Martins in the Fields, Westminster,parents Thomas Jackson and Mary - Parish Records C001455. He married Judith PONTIER 8 Nov 1716 in Saint Botolph Bishopsgate, London,, daughter of Ambrose PONTIER and Judith ALAVOINE. She was born Abt 1697 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot,  p - Jean Le Bachelle & Louise, and died Bef 1732. 

 Child of Abraham ORANGE and UNKNOWN ANN is:  36   i. Abraham ORANGE was born 1730 in Bishopsgate, Middlesex, England.


Child of Abraham ORANGE and Penelope JACKSON is:+ 37   i. John ORANGE was born 1733 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London, was christened 28 Feb 1734 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London, England, and died Bef 1798.


Child of Abraham ORANGE and Judith PONTIER is:  38   i. Abraham ORANGE was born 4 Sep 1717 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England , was christened 22 Sep 1717 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England .


19. Jean ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born Abt Dec 1696 in London, England, was christened 13 Dec 1696 in Son of Abraham Orange and Suzanne vol 39 p 9, and died 1771 in Bethnal Green, London. He married Marthe Catherine SAUVIGNON 16 Mar 1718 in Wheeler Street, Spitalfields, daughter of Samuel SAUVIGNON and Judith PAUGNOU. She was born Abt 1698, and died 1784 in Bethnal Green. 

 Children of Jean ORANGE and Marthe Catherine SAUVIGNON are:+ 39   i. Jean Pierre ORANGE was born 4 Jun 1719 in french Chapel Artillary Lane, London, was christened 21 Jun 1719 in Bell Lane And Browns Lane And Marche Church, Frenchstepneyot, Stepney, London C049161, and died 1 Mar 1791 in French Hospital, London.
  40   ii. Ann Judith ORANGE was born 21 Jan 1721 in Bell Lane And Browns Lane And Marche Church Frenchstepneyot, Stepney, was christened 19 Feb 1721 in Bell Lane And Browns Lane And Marche Church Frenchstepneyot, Stepney, and died Abt 1721.
  41   iii. Jacques ORANGE was born 15 Jul 1723 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 28 Jul 1723 in french Chapel Artillary Lane, London 
+ 42   iv. James ORANGE was born 7 Sep 1725 in french Chapel Artillary Lane, London.
  43   v. Pierre ORANGE was born 7 Sep 1725 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 26 Sep 1725 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
+ 44   vi. Jean Baptiste ORANGE was born 1 Apr 1728 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 21 Apr 1728 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England C049051, and died 1804.
  45   vii. Marthe ORANGE was born 7 Dec 1729 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 21 Dec 1729 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England. She married Henry LEBACHELLE 9 Oct 1759 in Bethnal Green Church, Bethnal Green, son of Jean LEBACHELLE and Louise UNKNOWN. He was born Aug 1720 in Threadneedle Street, London, was christened 28 Aug 1720 in Threadneedle Street,  1715 - 1840 942.1 L1 B4H V.23 Book 6903811. 
  46   viii. Samuel ORANGE was born 20 Jun 1732 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 11 Jun 1732 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
  47   ix. Orange ORANGE was born 26 Mar 1733 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 8 Apr 1733 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
+ 48   x. Anne ORANGE was born Aug 1734 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 1 Sep 1734 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 

Descendant Register, Generation No. 5

37. John ORANGE (Abraham ORANGE6, Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 1733 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London, was christened 28 Feb 1734 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London, England, and died Bef 1798. He married UNKNOWN ANN Abt 1765. She was born Abt 1735, and died Aft 1798. 

 Children of John ORANGE and UNKNOWN ANN are:  49   i. Abraham ORANGE was born 2 Sep 1766 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green note from J. Roberts, was christened 3 Sep 1766 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green  and died in died an infant.
+ 50   ii. Thomas Abraham ORANGE was born Abt Aug 1767 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 23 Aug 1767 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, London, England.
+ 51   iii. Abraham ORANGE was born 18 Mar 1770 in Bethnal Green, was christened 18 Mar 1770 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
  52   iv. Mary ORANGE was born 25 Feb 1772 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 22 Mar 1772 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
  53   v. Susannah ORANGE was born Nov 1775 in saint Botolp, Bishopsgate, Middx, was christened 5 Nov 1775 in St Botolp Bisopsgate
  54   vi. William Sunday ORANGE was born 1777 in Saint Botolp, Bishipsgate, London, was christened 3 Jul 1777 in St Botolph Bishopsgate, London, p - John and Ann 


39. Jean Pierre ORANGE (Jean ORANGE6, Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 4 Jun 1719 in french Chapel Artillary Lane, London, was christened 21 Jun 1719 in Bell Lane And Browns Lane And Marche Church, Frenchstepneyot, Stepney, London , and died 1 Mar 1791 in French Hospital, London. He married Martha Catherine COMPIGNE 14 Feb 1742 in Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London, daughter of Jean COMPIGNE and Jeanne BLANCHARD. She was born 14 Dec 1717 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, was christened 25 Dec 1717 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London , and died 1784 in Bethnal Green, London, Middx. 

 Children of Jean Pierre ORANGE and Martha Catherine COMPIGNE are:  55   i. Debora ORANGE was born 30 Nov 1744 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 2 Dec 1744 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England .
  56   ii. Ester ORANGE was born 8 May 1747 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 31 May 1747 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England .
  57   iii. Jean Isaac ORANGE was born 26 Jul 1748 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 14 Aug 1748 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England . He married Jemima GREW 9 Apr 1777 in Saint Leonards, Shoreditch. She was born Abt 1748. 
  58   iv. David ORANGE was born 9 Jan 1752 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 22 Jan 1752 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England .
+ 59   v. Guillaume ORANGE was born 25 Sep 1754 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 1 Oct 1754 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England .
  60   vi. Ann ORANGE was born 1743 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, was christened 1 Sep 1743 in Ann 1 9 1743 Artillery godfather Pierre Orange (JR's BB).
  61   vii. John ORANGE was born 1749 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot.


42. James ORANGE (Jean ORANGE6, Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 7 Sep 1725 in french Chapel Artillary Lane, London. He married Rachael COMPIGNE 24 Jun 1744 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, London, daughter of Jean COMPIGNE and Jeanne BLANCHARD. She was born 17 Jan 1722 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, was christened 4 Feb 1722 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London . 

 Children of James ORANGE and Rachael COMPIGNE are:+ 62   i. Jean ORANGE was born 26 May 1745 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 16 Jun 1745 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England C049051, and died Bef 1798.
  63   ii. Isaac ORANGE was born 13 Feb 1747 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 26 Feb 1747 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
  64   iii. Magdelene ORANGE was born 25 Nov 1748 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 22 Dec 1748 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
+ 65   iv. Pierre ORANGE was born 10 Dec 1750 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 6 Jan 1751 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, and died 1825.
  66   v. Marie ORANGE was born 31 Mar 1752 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 26 Apr 1752 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England 
  67   vi. Elizabeth ORANGE was born 4 Apr 1753 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 28 Apr 1754 in age 1 Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
+ 68   vii. Thomas ORANGE was born Abt Jan 1755 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 9 Jan 1756 in age 1 Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
  69   viii. George ORANGE was born Abt May 1757 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 24 May 1758 in Age 1 - Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, London He married Ann PRICE 10 Mar 1785 in Saint Katherine Creechurch, London,. She was born Abt 1765. 
  70   ix. James George ORANGE was born 10 Nov 1759 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 29 Nov 1759 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
+ 71   x. William ORANGE was born 26 Apr 1762 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, was christened 23 May 1762 in Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green
  72   xi. Rachel ORANGE was born abt 1745 in Bethnal Green, London, Middx. She married Jonathan DOWSETT 17 Feb 1768 in St Botolph, Bishopsgate,London, Middx. He was born abt 1745 in London, Middx. 


44. Jean Baptiste ORANGE (Jean ORANGE6, Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born 1 Apr 1728 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 21 Apr 1728 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England C049051, and died 1804. He married Marie Ann PRADEL 31 Oct 1748 in St Martins Orgar Cannon St, daughter of Moyse PRADEL and Marie MARTIN. She was born 1723 in Swanfields, French Huguenot, Stepney, was christened 8 Dec 1723 in Swanfields, French Huguenot, Stepney p = MOISE PRADEL & MARIE MARTIN, and died Bef 1803. 

 Children of Jean Baptiste ORANGE and Marie Ann PRADEL are:+ 73   i. Jean Baptiste ORANGE was born 21 Apr 1755 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, was christened 11 May 1755 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London C049061.
+ 74   ii. Marie Anne ORANGE was born 30 Jul 1749 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, was christened 13 Aug 1749 in Saint Jean French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London
  75   iii. Samuel ORANGE was born 27 Mar 1766 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England, was christened 20 Apr 1766 in Threadneedle Street French Huguenot, London, London, England , and died 13 Oct 1824 in mEOT. He married Betsy MALLARD Jun 1792. 

 48. Anne ORANGE (Jean ORANGE6, Abraham ORANGE5, Abraham ORANGE4, Abraham ORANGE3, Jean ORANGE2, Jean? ORANGE1) was born Aug 1734 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England, was christened 1 Sep 1734 in The Artillery-French Huguenot, Spitalfields, London, England  She married Daniel HAUCHECORNE 1759 in St Matthew's Church, Bethnal Green,, son of Pierre HAUCHECORNE and Marie COQUART. He was born 28 June 1733 in Spitalfields, London, Middx. 

=====

SAMUEL ORANGE 1766 - 1824

Samuel was a colonel in the British Army, married the wealthy LADY JACKSON and took HER FAMILY NAME..  In his youth he studied medicine under Sir William Blizzard, physician and surgeon to the king.. He was a student of great promise, but after his marriage, speculated and gambled losing his property.  Lady Jackson’s inheritance had come to her with the provision that she would lose it all if she changed her name.  In  order to have both the lady and the money, Mr Orange before the marriage ceremony had his name changed to JACKSON.

 Marriage Banns 

Samuel Orange Esq of the Parish of St Botolph Aldgate London, Bachelor, and Betty Charlotte Mallard of this Parish Spinster married in this Church  by License this 12th day of June 1792 by me  H Mayo Rector. Both signed their names in the presence of James Jackson and Mary Mallard

More about Lady Jackson

Otherwise known as Betty  Charlotte Mallard, was born to Robert Mallard and Mary nee Jackson.. Mary nee Jackson's brother James Jackson was a wealthy man and left his inheritance to his niece  Betty ~ "Lady Jackson".  It appears that in order for Samuel ORANGE to wed Betty, he had to change his name to "Jackson"..

=

Richard Rumbles 1886 Burnham Overy, Norfolk, England

In the 1910 census in the USA Richard,his wife Helen and son,Leslie are listed as Robert, Hattye and Loris Rundles and living in Manhatten in New York

-----

Victor Hans Scholz 1897 London - 1964 Canada

Home Child _ sent to Canada age 13

Name:
SCHOLZ
Given Name:
Victor
Age:
13
Sex:
M
Ship:
Emp of Britain
Year of Arrival:
1911
Departure Port:
Liverpool
Departure Date:
07 April 1911
Arrival Port:
Saint John
Arrival Date:
14 April 1911
Party:
Party of Boys
Destination:
Toronto, ON
Comments:
Fegan Children
Source:
Library and Archives Canada/Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
Reference:
RG76 c1c
Microfilm:
T-4824
Type of Record:
Passenger Lists/Listes de passagers

===

Extract from Attestation Paper WW1 Canada

Name scholz
GIVEN NAME victor hans
present address r.r. no I Jordan station rd.

town born: london england
name of next of kng. Mrs ellen stevens

address of next of kin.. 13 longroyd rd upper tooting london england

relationship@: mother
date of birth april 30th 1897
what is your trade: farmer

are you married no
are you willing to be vaccinated: yes

declaration .. I victor hans scholes,,
dated 21 november 1916
witness j nilson? sargeant

--

On the Marriage Certificate 3 Aug 1896: Alice wed Albert Ernest Saltiel~ her father was ~ Thomas John Orange cabinet maker Deceased,, This was to protect her, Alice was the dau of CAROLINE Orange! "single" woman,, (& Thomas John Orange was her grandfather & raised her as his own) 1851-1871 Thomas resided at 13 Little York Street, by 1881 had moved to 92 Temple Street.

Evidence:
London, England, Births and Baptisms, 1813-1906

christened 2 Jan 1877 , 3 years old,, Alice ~ mother Caroline Orange of 13 Little York Street, Single Woman
:      Alice Orange
Record Type:     Baptism
Date:     2 Jan 1877
Mother's Name:     Caroline Orange
Parish:     Holy Trinity, Bethnal Green
Borough:     Tower Hamlets
County:     Middlesex

Source Citation: London Metropolitan Archives, Holy Trinity, Bethnal Green, Register of baptisms, P72/TRI, Item 002

WENT TO CANADA ON SHIP BAVARIA... Alice Saltiel nee Orange came with her son Ernest Saltiel & son JOHN STANLEY SALTIEL

1.        SALTIEL, JOHN STANLEY  Digital  - Soldiers of the First World War - CEF
Date of Birth: 25/02/1899 | Regiment Number: 2009303

 2.      SALTIEL, ALBERT ERNEST Digital - Soldiers of the First World War - CEF
Date of Birth: 27/06/1897 | Regiment Number: 3230978

 3.      SALTIEL, Mrs Alice - Home Children (1869-1930)
Age: 31 | Year of Arrival: 1905

 4.      SALTIEL, John S - Home Children (1869-1930)
Age: 5 | Year of Arrival: 1905

 5.      SALTIEL, Ernest - Home Children (1869-1930)
Age: 7 | Year of Arrival: 1905

===

Alice Saltiel Nee Orange 1873-1960
Home Children (1869-1930)

Name:
SALTIEL
Given Name: Mrs Alice Age: 31 Sex:F

Ship: Bavarian Year of Arrival:1905
Departure Port: Liverpool
Departure Date: 04 May 1905
lIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA

---

Name:
SALTIEL
Given Name:
Ernest
Age: 7  Sex: M
Ship: Bavarian
Year of Arrival: 1905
Departure Port: Liverpool
Departure Date: 04 May 1905
Arrival Port: Quebec
Arrival Date: 13 May 1905
Party: Annie Macpherson from London
Destination:
Stratford, Ontario
Comments:
87 boys and girls
Source:
Library and Archives Canada
Reference:
RG76 C 1 a
Microfilm:
T-484
Type of Record:
Passenger Lists

--

JOHN STANLEY SALTIEL ATTESTATION PAPER son of Albert Ernest Saltiel &  Alice ORANGE

Regimental number(s):
2009303
Reference:
RG 150, Accession 1992-93/166, Box 8621 - 13
Date of Birth: 25/02/1899
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: SALTIEL Given Name: John S Age: 5
Sex: M
Ship: Bavarian
Year of Arrival: 1905
Departure Port: Liverpool
Departure Date: 04 May 1905
Arrival Port: Quebec
Arrival Date: 13 May 1905
Party: Annie Macpherson from London
Destination: Stratford, Ontario
Comments:
87 boys and girls
Source:
Library and Archives Canada
Reference:
RG76 C 1 a
Microfilm:
T-484
Type of Record:
Passenger Lists

----

ATTESTATION PAPER CANADA ERNEST SALTIEL

[Attestation paper signed jan 18 1918 Ontario Canada]
Soldier of First World War - CEF
Name: SALTIEL, ALBERT ERNEST
Regimental number(s):
3230978
Reference:
RG 150, Accession 1992-93/166, Box 8621 - 12
Date of Birth: 27/06/1897
Attestation paper:

18 Oct 1917, date when he signed to Join Up, his mother Alice Saltiel nee Orange was living at Parry Sound, Ontario Canada

===

Name:
SALTIEL
Given Name:
Ernest
Age:
7
Sex:
M
Ship:
Bavarian
Year of Arrival:
1905
Departure Port:
Liverpool
Departure Date:
04 May 1905
Arrival Port:
Quebec
Arrival Date:
13 May 1905
Party:
Annie Macpherson from London
Destination:
Stratford, Ontario
Comments:
87 boys and girls
Source:
Library and Archives Canada
Reference:
RG76 C 1 a
Microfilm:
T-484
Type of Record:
Passenger Lists

-----=

SEARLE Robert bn 1863 baby in photo

Dated about 1860s

=

England, The National Roll of the Great War, 1914-1918
NATIONAL ROLL OF THE GREAT WAR


SEARLE, R.A., Sergeant, Middlesex Regiment
He voluntered in August 1914, and was retained with his unit on most important duties on coastal defence.. Later he was drafted with the Army of Occupation to Germany,where he was severely injured in a railway accident, and in 1920 he was still in hospital.

=

England, The National Roll of the Great War, 1914-1918
NATIONAL ROLL OF THE GREAT WAR

SEARLE, J H A., Sergeant, Royal Fusiliers and Machine Gun Corps.
He joined in June 1916 and servedon the Western Front, taking part in engagement at Ypres and Meteren. Later he served with the Army of Occupation in Germany.. He holds the General Service and Victory Medals, and was demobilised in February 1919.

=

Henry Lewis SearleMarriage  to May Elizabeth Thurlow

Searle ~ Thurlow Marriage

Newspaper article
Searle- Thurlow
On Saturday last the marriage took place at St Michael and All Angels' Church, of Miss May Elizaheth Thurlow the eldest daughter of Mr. and Mrs. J. E. Thurloy, of Victoria Gardens, Wembley, to Mr Henry Lewis Searle, of 6 Hill View, Brent Road, Stonebridge, youngest son of Mr and Mrs R. A. Searle, who have resided in the borough for many years.
The bridegroom is the Entertainment Secretary of the Altamira Services Rendered Club, and his father is also an active member of the Club.
The bride wore a pretty ensemble in blue,  with hat and shoes to match.  She was given away by Miss Beatrice Jones.

The  duties of best man were carried out by Mr Thomas Aston, a friend.
A reception was held at St Thomas' Hall,  St Thomas' Road , Craven Park. and about forty guests were present.

A horse-drawn four-wheel carriage, familiarly known as a "Growler" as in  attendance, and four of the guests wore tall hats.


THANKS

The Happy couple wish to express through our columns their sincere thanks for the numerous and beautiful presents received

==========

Stevens, Arthur William 1899 - 1917

Arthur William Stevens - Canadian Engineers World War 1


Birth 19 Feb 1897, Ontario Canada
Canadian Soldiers of WW1
Arthur William Stevens
Residence: Ingersoll Ontario 
Birth Date: 19 Feb 1897
Birth Location: Ingersoll Ontario 
Relative: W A Stevens
Relationship: Father 
Regiment Number: 27642 

He may have bluffed about his age (year of birth was 1899)
-----

Name: Arthur Wm Stevens
Date of Birth: 19 Feb 1899
Gender: Male 
Birth County: Oxford 
Father's name: Wm Alfred Iryphens Stevens
Mother's name: Jane Elizabeth Garbutt
Roll Number: MS929_147 
----

 STEVENS, ARTHUR WILLIAM  Sapper 127642 01/08/1917  19 Canadian Engineers Canadian XVI. J. 20. LIJSSENTHOEK MILITARY CEMETERY


Name: STEVENS, ARTHUR WILLIAM
Initials: A W
Nationality: Canadian
Rank: Sapper
Regiment/Service: Canadian Engineers
Unit Text: 2nd Tunnelling Coy.
Age: 19
Date of Death: 01/08/1917
Service No: 127642
Additional information: Son of Mr. and Mrs. William A. Stevens, of Ingersoll, Ontario.
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Grave/Memorial Reference: XVI. J. 20.
Cemetery: LIJSSENTHOEK MILITARY CEMETERY

==============

Mr  William Webb bn abt 1890 [London Area]

is pictured in the Pictorial set of Knoweldge books, volume 3, page 10, reprinted edition 1930...

It says::

"The vast and ever-increasing poplulation of Greater London calls for enormous markets to which wholesale dealers may bring their wares, and where the retailers may gather to buy.  Here is an early morming scene in the Central Meat Market at Smithfield.  The thing that strikes us most is the absolute cleanliness of all the arrangements for handing the meat."

Mr. Webb was a butcher, and owned a Butchers at Smithfield market..  He also had race horses. 

=======

 BENJAMIN WELLS 1826 - 1899

Benjamin Wells was a Courtier to Queen Victoria, and played the "FLUTE" to Prince Albert

Letter from Benjamin Wells
 to the “Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review”

Published in the January 1st, 1890 editionIntroduction

The core text which follows is taken verbatim from a letter which was written by the eminent English flautist Benjamin Wells (1826 – 1899) to the London monthly publication  “Musical Opinion & Music Trade Review”   It was published in the January 1890 issue of that periodical as part of an interesting series of letters on the subject of the flute which appeared at that time.  We have presented a summary of the remainder of these letters elsewhere on this web site.

Wells was born in Cambridge, England in 1826, making him a direct contemporary of the flautist and writer Richard S. Rockstro, who was born in the same year.  However, Wells far outshone Rockstro in terms of his musical accomplishments, becoming one of the most celebrated flautists and teachers in England for many years while Rockstro toiled in relative obscurity prior to the publication of his famous “Treatise on the Flute” in 1890.  Rockstro is however mentioned in the letter which follows.  

Wells was an accomplished pianist as well as a flautist, and composed some music for flute.  In his teenage years he was a  pupil at the Royal Academy of Music and studied first under Joseph Richardson and then under Richardson’s successor John Clinton.  By 1843 (at only 17 years of age) he had become sufficiently well-recognised  to participate in the first performance of Balfe’s “Bohemian Girl” at Drury Lane Theatre. He subsequently became a close friend of Balfe’s. In 1845 (aged nineteen) he was appointed first flute at the “showcase” concerts given by students and professors at the Royal Academy of Music – a high honor for one so young.

Wells began on an 8-key flute and adopted the Siccama Diatonic flute for a short time in the late 1840’s, but by 1851 he had abandoned that instrument.  In that year he was appointed as principal demonstrator of Rudall & Rose’s various renditions of the Boehm cylinder flute at the 1851 Exhibition, and the following letter deals at some length with his experiences on that occasion. 

Following the 1851 Exhibition, Wells played a Carte 1851 model flute thenceforth until 1868.  He became a regular member of Jullien’s orchestra until Jullien’s departure from the scene in 1859. In 1856 at the age of thirty, he succeeded his old teacher Clinton as Professor of Flute at the Royal Academy of Music.  At about the same time he became private flute tutor to the Royal Consort, Prince Albert (who died in 1862) – a signal honor!  He subsequently became President of the London Flute Society and a popular lecturer and teacher of the flute as well as maintaining an active performing schedule.  Upon the introduction of the Carte 1867 flute, which replaced the 1851, Wells immediately (1868) adopted the new design and played it thereafter until his death in 1899 at age 73.   

At the time (1890) when he wrote the following letter at the age of 64, Wells was still a prominent performer – indeed, he was widely viewed as one of England’s most talented performers upon the instrument, and his reputation had reached America and elsewhere.  This view of Wells is fully reflected in the series of letters to the  “Musical Opinion & Music Trade Review” of which Wells’ letter forms only a single contribution. 

Despite this celebrity, Wells was completely ignored by Rockstro in his 1890 “Treatise on the Flute” , the publication of which followed shortly upon the heels of the following letter.  His equally celebrated flautist colleague John Radcliff  (b. 1842, d. 1917), who had designed his own old-fingered variant of the Boehm flute, was similarly ignored despite the fact that others of lesser or at least no greater accomplishment were recognized by Rockstro.  The reasons for these and other glaring omissions in Rockstro’s work have never been satisfactorily explained, and to judge by the tone of his letter with respect to Rockstro, Wells must have been quite surprised to find himself excluded!

It should be readily apparent that Wells was a consequential figure in the story of the flute in nineteenth century England.  It is a real shame that he left so little in the way of written commentary on the changing state of the instrument during his career.  A text of one of his lectures would have been of the greatest interest (as would a similar contribution from his younger colleague John Radcliff, who also gave lectures). Failing that, the following letter at least gives us some insight into his views and experiences.

We have taken the liberty of inserting our own comments in [brackets] at various points in the text,  Otherwise, the letter is reproduced word for word as it was written.


To the Editor, Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review;

SIR;-

I have been much interested and amused by the correspondence, in your excellent journal, on the subject of “Flutes, Ancient and Modern”, which is the title of a lecture that I delivered for many years in London and the provinces, and I still have a number of old programmes connected therewith.

[The first point of interest – the title of Wells’ lectures was apparently exactly the same as the title of those delivered by John Radcliff, although Radcliff’s lectures carried the extended title of “Flutes, Ancient and Modern; or, from Pan to Pinafore”. This may be read as a very veiled challenge to Radcliff  - Wells has the programmes to prove his case for priority in the title!!]

If you will allow me to say a few words on the subject, it might interest some of your readers, although I am by no means desirous (even if I were capable) of entering into competition with the vast amount of mechanical knowledge of flutes exhibited in your pages.  I am simply a flute player who has performed upon all flutes, from the shilling fife to the elaborate instruments at the present large prices.

[Clearly, Wells has experience with more or less anything with a hole in it that can be made to produce a note or two!]

I do not wish to make invidious comparisons between the improvements of Mr. Rockstro, Mr. Barratt [sic – Rockstro spells his name “Barrett”] or Mr. Radcliff, who are all old friends of mine,

[Wells does not want to take sides in the debate regarding various models which has been raging in recent issues of the periodical.  This allusion to Rockstro as an “old friend of mine” is puzzling – here Wells is speaking of the very individual who was about to publish his life’s work on the flute – the “Treatise on the Flute” which appeared later in 1890 -  without any reference at any point to his “old friend” Wells (or for that matter to Wells’ other acknowledged friend and equally distinguished colleague Radcliff).  It would be fascinating to know the reasons for Rockstro’s omissions here!

In the case of Radcliff, a possible explanation of sorts is apparent – Radcliff had introduced his own flute design in 1870 which as of 1890 was still very much in direct competition for customers with Rockstro’s own Boehm-based model (introduced commercially in 1877), both models being made by Rudall, Carte & Co.  The main correspondence thread reflects this competition very well.  Rockstro may have been unwilling to give Radcliff any space in his book because to do so would have inevitably involved drawing attention to Radcliff’s model.  If this was the strategy, it did not succeed – the Radcliff model actually outsold the Rockstro model, albeit by a relatively small margin. 

But this explanation does not cover Wells, who had never thrown his hat into the flute design ring.  Perhaps it was simply Wells’ championship of the Carte 1867 model flute (implying its superiority over the Rockstro) that drew Rockstro’s ire?!?  But then if that was the case, why include the third member of Wells’ acknowledged cadre of friends - William Lewis Barratt (or Barrett)??  The latter was a prominent professional flautist who ranked with Wells and Radcliff (as reflected in the main correspondence chain summarized elsewhere) and had recently modified his Carte 1867 flute to eliminate the “open” (all fingers off) D which characterized Carte’s successive designs and which complicated the fingering for C sharp. Barrett was mentioned by Rockstro – Article 685 deals in detail with his modification.  This makes the suppression of Radcliff’s design (which was based on the Carte 1851 minus the open D) all the more difficult to understand, and does nothing to help us to understand Wells’ exclusion either!

It is possible that Wells’ exclusion was based on nothing more than professional jealousy – as we began by saying, Wells and Rockstro were direct contemporaries, but Wells quickly achieved (and retained) far greater prominence as a player than Rockstro ever did.  This may have rankled more than we can guess …………………..]

and I am sure that they each and all conscientiously believe that the alterations they have suggested are for the benefit of the flute playing community.  That being the case, they are entitled to the gratitude of the flautistic world, even though there be differences of opinion as to which or either of them has hit upon the narrow path that leads straight to perfection in flute playing.

[This comment refers to the fact that the series of letters of which this one is a part had thrown up some strongly partisan views regarding the various designs mentioned.  Wells seems to think that such arguments do nothing to detract from the value of the efforts of each and every one of them.  A commendably balanced viewpoint ……………..]

In the year 1851 I was appointed to represent Messrs. Rudall, Rose & Carte (who were the patentees of Mr. Boehm’s last splendid invention, the “cylindrical and parabolic flute”) at the Great Exhibition, and to play this flute before the Jury, the chairman of which was Hector Berlioz, other members consisting of Sterndale Bennett, Sir George Smart, Sir Henry Bishop and Charles Godfrey, father of the present Lieutenant Godfrey of the Grenadier Guards.  There were a number of flutes exhibited, each maker bringing his own professor to play for him.

[This is an extremely enlightening paragraph! It begins with an error – the entry at the 1851 Exhibition was under the name Rudall & Rose, since Rudall, Rose & Carte had yet to be established as a corporate entity – this only happened the following year (1852). It could well be that Carte was sufficiently prominent that it was Rudall, Rose and Carte in all but name.

But more significantly, Wells has long been recognized as the “demonstrator of the Boehm flute” at the 1851 Exhibition.  However, it has widely been assumed that he did so on behalf of Theobald Boehm himself (who entered his own instruments entirely separately from Rudall & Rose and won the prestigious Council Medal under his own name) and that Richard Carte, who was himself an eminent professional flautist who had recently introduced his 1851 design variant of Boehm’s flute and had just in consequence been admitted to the firm, would have demonstrated the products of Rudall & Rose.  Wells confirms that this was not so – for some reason, Carte was no longer considered up to the task of demonstrating his own flutes!!] 

It so happened that Siccama’s and Boehm’s flutes were to be tried together, and I found myself face to face with my old master, Joseph Richardson, who was, without exception, the finest executant in the world.  Of course, Richardson had to start, which he did by taking flight in a chromatic scale (the astounding speed of which I shall never forget) and perching upon the top note.

[The Siccama flute had been introduced in 1846 by the linguist and keen amateur flautist Abel Siccama.  His flutes were made to a very high standard by the talented maker John Hudson.  They were basically similar to the old 8-key conical bored flute but with a modified conical bore and simple mechanism to bring the holes for E and A into their proper location and size. In that respect, they followed the design precepts of Boehm, who had established the dictum that the holes in a flute should be placed and sized correctly on the basis of their acoustical functions, it being then up to the maker to devise suitable mechanism to bring them under the control of the fingers.  Richardson played the Siccama flute until his death in 1862, and Robert Sidney Pratten played this design for some years also. Wells was undoubtedly familiar with this design, having played it himself for a time.] 

Berlioz immediately said: “Gently, Mr. Richardson, this is not a question of your talent; we all know that.  But please play me the scale of G flat very slowly”.  To make a long story short, we had alternately to play arpeggios of diminished sevenths and various other combinations, slow and fast.  Berlioz suddenly asked Richardson what special improvement he claimed for Mr. Siccama’s flute, to which he replied that it was in the bore, being more like that of Mr. Boehm’s flute.

[This comment must surely rank with the greatest faux pas in recorded musical history, and to the present authors it seems quite incredible not only that those present on this occasion should have accepted it at face value but that later writers (including Wells, it would seem) have never questioned it!  To anyone (like Wells) having the slightest familiarity with the two designs, Richardson’s quoted statement is clearly absurd!!  Siccama’s modified conical bore is of course nothing like the cylinder bore used in the 1847 Boehm, and both Richardson and Wells (as present and former users of the design) must have known that!  If they really examined the two flutes, so should the Jury! 

We can think of two possible explanations:

Obviously an understandable case of getting flustered by an unexpected grilling from the Jury!  Regardless, instead of probing further into this clearly untrue statement, the Jury immediately took it at its face value as an “endorsement through imitation” of Boehm’s design by Siccama!!  What a farce!! ]

This admission was fatal to Siccama, whose face and red hair were like the fiery furnace poor Daniel was thrown into, while Boehm seemed much gratified. 

[Here we must include Boehm as one of the guilty parties to this debacle – he of all people must surely have known that Richardson’s statement was untrue.  Evidently, though, he took pleasure in the unwarranted discomfiture of his rival manufacturer!  The main importance of this statement is that it shows that Boehm was present at this comparison even though he had his own stand exhibiting his own instruments under his own name.  We also learn incidentally that Siccama had red hair!!]

Berlioz directly turned to the other members of the Jury, and said “It appears to me, gentlemen, that we could not have a better compliment to the ingenuity of Mr. Boehm”. The result is well known.  Mr. Boehm obtained the Council Medal, and Messrs. Rudall, Rose & Carte the prize medal for Mr. Carte’s improvements for facility of fingering the Boehm system.

[Now we come to one of the greatest misunderstandings of all in connection with the 1851 Exhibition.  To understand the following comments, it is necessary first to understand the criteria for which the cited medals were to be awarded.  Direct reference to the criteria with which the Jury was provided by the Exhibition organisers reveals that the two medals were specifically intended to recognise two completely distinct criteria – innovation of ideas (the Council Medal)  and execution of ideas (the Prize Medal).  The distinction was specifically cited as being intended to help the Jury and to avoid any appearance of relative merit between the two awards – they were in fact for totally different criteria and hence implied no relative merit whatsoever. The Prize Medal (which Rudall & Rose won for Carte’s Patent Boehm Flutes) was specifically to be conferred by the Jury upon exhibitors whose offerings displayed “a certain standard of excellence in production or workmanship”.  A vital  point – there is no mention here of ideas or design innovation. Recognition of those factors was reserved for the Council Medal (awarded to Boehm), which was only to be awarded by the Council of Juries (as opposed to the individual Juries) to those exhibitors whose offerings displayed “some important novelty of invention or application” and was specifically not to be awarded on the basis of “excellence of production or workmanship alone, however eminent".  The comment was actually made at the time that some winners of the Council Medal were far inferior in terms of workmanship to their less innovative brethren!

Once we grasp this, the true state of affairs becomes quite clear.  Boehm won the Council Medal fair and square for his innovative ideas expressed in the flutes and oboe which he exhibited on his own stand.  The oboe was critical – the Jury specifically noted the fact that Boehm had demonstrated his improvements to be applicable to more than just flutes. Indeed, in the official citation for Boehm’s Council Medal, the word “flutes” appears only once as part of a list of instruments to which Boehm’s ideas can be applied.

By contrast, Carte’s 1851 flute was largely derivative (by Carte’s open admission) and hence did not qualify for an award based on innovation.  In fact, for the most part it used the same innovations for which Boehm received separate recognition – even the principles (as opposed to the application) of its mechanism were similar. However, the manufacturing expertise of Rudall & Rose was deservedly well known, and we cannot doubt that they put their very best work on display at the Exhibition.  They duly received the Prize Medal for their rendition of Carte’s 1851 flute on the Boehm principle, but this was specifically for workmanship and had nothing whatsoever to do with any level of recognition for innovation.

Despite this, marketing considerations induced Carte to claim that the Prize Medal constituted recognition of his innovative mechanism, despite the fact that the award criteria clearly excluded this. It is another mystery why this claim has never been challenged – seemingly, even Wells was taken in!  This can only be explained by Carte gambling successfully that few people would be familiar with (or bother to make themselves familiar with) the true criteria for the various awards.  It is high time that this false impression was corrected.]   

In the year 1867, Mr. George Spencer, an amateur flautist who took a deep interest in flutes and flute players, and more particularly – being an engineer – in the mechanical construction of the instrument, suggested that the complicated mechanism necessary for the long F natural key (played with the little finger of the left hand) might be dispensed with by doing away with the hole on that side altogether, and making another, to be played with the first finger of the right hand.  This was done, and the 1867 patent sprang into existence.

[This statement was directly challenged by Christopher Welch in the preface to the Second Edition (1892) of his 1882 book “History of the Boehm Flute”.  On page lxxvi of that work, he quotes the above passage from Wells’ letter directly, stating his view that Wells was most likely writing in good faith, and then proceeds to dispute Spencer’s claim to this innovation.  Welch says that as a result of an injury to his right forefinger, he had certain modifications made to his own Carte 1851 flute which included the relocation of the hole as described by Wells. He claims to have the dated drawings to prove his case.  Together with certain other modifications, this led to the Carte 1867 model entering production with Welch’s modification as one of its main features.]

Mr. Spencer and myself immediately gave up the 1851, and I believe that I subsequently sold mine to a professional pupil, Mr. A. P. Vivian, who was then playing on a conical “Pratten’s Perfected” .  I was the first to play in public on the 1867, and still play on it.

I observe that the gentleman rejoicing in the initial of “B” says that “the open D, which is on the Carte 1867, and no other system”  Now I am sorry to be obliged to contradict him, as I have played the open D ever since 1851, it being one of the principal features of Mr. Carte’s inventions at the Great Exhibition;

[Quite true – the open D is a feature of the Carte 1851.  But Wells is becoming a little picky here – if one reads the letter of “B” to which he refers, it is apparent that the writer was referring to the open D as being used on no other system than the Carte 1867 at his time of writing.  “B” never meant to imply that it had been used in the past on no system other than the Carte 1867!] 

and it was at my suggestion, in 1855, that Signor Paggi (who was an exceedingly fine oboe player) transposed his solo ”Rimembranze  Napolitane”  from the key of G to A, on purpose to trot out the open D;  it was dedicated to me, and I played it for the first time at a concert in the Hanover Square Rooms – the late Mr. J. L. Hatton accompanying.

My opinion, being that of a single individual, is not worth much.  I cannot, however, before concluding, refrain from saying, with regard to the material employed for the construction of flutes, that there is nothing in the world that can compare with ebonite for volume of tone, durability and, indeed, everything.  I say this after playing on it for twenty years.

[Opinions regarding the qualities of ebonite as a material for flutes were all over the map at this time, as a perusal of the main letter series will make clear.  In truth, it seems to have been very much a matter of personal taste.]

Yours, &c.,

Benjamin Wells

3 Shaftesbury  Rd., Ravenscourt Park, W., (A. R. A. M.).

December 16, 1889


So there it is – one of the few known surviving written testaments of a great flautist and teacher, who has been undeservedly overlooked in the past, notably by his “good friend” Rockstro. One wishes that Wells had contributed more to the literature of the flute  - having participated from Richardson’s time right through the entire great “transition stage” of the flute in England from 1840 to 1880, he would have been uniquely placed to enhance our understanding of this period.  Still, we must make do with what we have – and at least the above letter allows us the opportunity to dispel a few errors which have been perpetuated in the past, to the detriment of historical objectivity.

________________________________

 Other know surviving works by Wells include:

  1. Album célèbre. 10 Morceaux choisis transcrits pour Flûte et Piano par B. Wells. Vol.ii / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1880  

  2. Dramatic Fantasia for Flute and Piano, etc / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883

  3. Gems of Melody, selected from the ... works of Rossini, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn, Bellini, Donizetti, Mozart, Weber, Auber, etc., for the flute ... with an accompaniment for the pianoforte by Parry, Forde, Carte, Dipple, Clinton, B. Wells, &c. New Edition. 1 / [by] Auber, Daniel Franois Esprit, 1782-1871 , et al. 1880

  4. The Merry Maid. Ballad ... arranged with Flute obligato by B. Wells / [by] Guglielmo, P. D ; Wells, Benjamin . 1876

  5. Scale Practice for the Flute / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1866

  6. Scena pastorale, Flute and Piano / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883

  7. Scène dramatique for Flute and Piano Forte / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883

  8. Serenade. [Flute and P. F.] / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883

  9. Simpson's Flute Gems, a series of favorite melodies ... for Flute & Piano / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1878

  10. Simpson's Flute Gems ... arranged for Flute & Piano by B. Wells / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1879


Acknowledgements

Adrian Duncan, Vancouver, for locating and preparing this interesting piece of correspondence for us.

==

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Wells%20letter%20to%20Musical%20Opinion.htm

Letter from Benjamin Wells
 to the “Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review”

Published in the January 1st, 1890 edition

Introduction

The core text which follows is taken verbatim from a letter which was written by the eminent English flautist Benjamin Wells (1826 – 1899) to the London monthly publication  “Musical Opinion & Music Trade Review”   It was published in the January 1890 issue of that periodical as part of an interesting series of letters on the subject of the flute which appeared at that time.  We have presented a summary of the remainder of these letters elsewhere on this web site.

Wells was born in Cambridge, England in 1826, making him a direct contemporary of the flautist and writer Richard S. Rockstro, who was born in the same year.  However, Wells far outshone Rockstro in terms of his musical accomplishments, becoming one of the most celebrated flautists and teachers in England for many years while Rockstro toiled in relative obscurity prior to the publication of his famous “Treatise on the Flute” in 1890.  Rockstro is however mentioned in the letter which follows.  

Wells was an accomplished pianist as well as a flautist, and composed some music for flute.  In his teenage years he was a  pupil at the Royal Academy of Music and studied first under Joseph Richardson and then under Richardson’s successor John Clinton.  By 1843 (at only 17 years of age) he had become sufficiently well-recognised  to participate in the first performance of Balfe’s “Bohemian Girl” at Drury Lane Theatre. He subsequently became a close friend of Balfe’s. In 1845 (aged nineteen) he was appointed first flute at the “showcase” concerts given by students and professors at the Royal Academy of Music – a high honor for one so young.

Wells began on an 8-key flute and adopted the Siccama Diatonic flute for a short time in the late 1840’s, but by 1851 he had abandoned that instrument.  In that year he was appointed as principal demonstrator of Rudall & Rose’s various renditions of the Boehm cylinder flute at the 1851 Exhibition, and the following letter deals at some length with his experiences on that occasion. 

Following the 1851 Exhibition, Wells played a Carte 1851 model flute thenceforth until 1868.  He became a regular member of Jullien’s orchestra until Jullien’s departure from the scene in 1859. In 1856 at the age of thirty, he succeeded his old teacher Clinton as Professor of Flute at the Royal Academy of Music.  At about the same time he became private flute tutor to the Royal Consort, Prince Albert (who died in 1862) – a signal honor!  He subsequently became President of the London Flute Society and a popular lecturer and teacher of the flute as well as maintaining an active performing schedule.  Upon the introduction of the Carte 1867 flute, which replaced the 1851, Wells immediately (1868) adopted the new design and played it thereafter until his death in 1899 at age 73.   

At the time (1890) when he wrote the following letter at the age of 64, Wells was still a prominent performer – indeed, he was widely viewed as one of England’s most talented performers upon the instrument, and his reputation had reached America and elsewhere.  This view of Wells is fully reflected in the series of letters to the  “Musical Opinion & Music Trade Review” of which Wells’ letter forms only a single contribution. 

Despite this celebrity, Wells was completely ignored by Rockstro in his 1890 “Treatise on the Flute” , the publication of which followed shortly upon the heels of the following letter.  His equally celebrated flautist colleague John Radcliff  (b. 1842, d. 1917), who had designed his own old-fingered variant of the Boehm flute, was similarly ignored despite the fact that others of lesser or at least no greater accomplishment were recognized by Rockstro.  The reasons for these and other glaring omissions in Rockstro’s work have never been satisfactorily explained, and to judge by the tone of his letter with respect to Rockstro, Wells must have been quite surprised to find himself excluded!

It should be readily apparent that Wells was a consequential figure in the story of the flute in nineteenth century England.  It is a real shame that he left so little in the way of written commentary on the changing state of the instrument during his career.  A text of one of his lectures would have been of the greatest interest (as would a similar contribution from his younger colleague John Radcliff, who also gave lectures). Failing that, the following letter at least gives us some insight into his views and experiences.

We have taken the liberty of inserting our own comments in [brackets] at various points in the text,  Otherwise, the letter is reproduced word for word as it was written.


To the Editor, Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review;

SIR;-

I have been much interested and amused by the correspondence, in your excellent journal, on the subject of “Flutes, Ancient and Modern”, which is the title of a lecture that I delivered for many years in London and the provinces, and I still have a number of old programmes connected therewith.

[The first point of interest – the title of Wells’ lectures was apparently exactly the same as the title of those delivered by John Radcliff, although Radcliff’s lectures carried the extended title of “Flutes, Ancient and Modern; or, from Pan to Pinafore”. This may be read as a very veiled challenge to Radcliff  - Wells has the programmes to prove his case for priority in the title!!]

If you will allow me to say a few words on the subject, it might interest some of your readers, although I am by no means desirous (even if I were capable) of entering into competition with the vast amount of mechanical knowledge of flutes exhibited in your pages.  I am simply a flute player who has performed upon all flutes, from the shilling fife to the elaborate instruments at the present large prices.

[Clearly, Wells has experience with more or less anything with a hole in it that can be made to produce a note or two!]

I do not wish to make invidious comparisons between the improvements of Mr. Rockstro, Mr. Barratt [sic – Rockstro spells his name “Barrett”] or Mr. Radcliff, who are all old friends of mine,

[Wells does not want to take sides in the debate regarding various models which has been raging in recent issues of the periodical.  This allusion to Rockstro as an “old friend of mine” is puzzling – here Wells is speaking of the very individual who was about to publish his life’s work on the flute – the “Treatise on the Flute” which appeared later in 1890 -  without any reference at any point to his “old friend” Wells (or for that matter to Wells’ other acknowledged friend and equally distinguished colleague Radcliff).  It would be fascinating to know the reasons for Rockstro’s omissions here!

In the case of Radcliff, a possible explanation of sorts is apparent – Radcliff had introduced his own flute design in 1870 which as of 1890 was still very much in direct competition for customers with Rockstro’s own Boehm-based model (introduced commercially in 1877), both models being made by Rudall, Carte & Co.  The main correspondence thread reflects this competition very well.  Rockstro may have been unwilling to give Radcliff any space in his book because to do so would have inevitably involved drawing attention to Radcliff’s model.  If this was the strategy, it did not succeed – the Radcliff model actually outsold the Rockstro model, albeit by a relatively small margin. 

But this explanation does not cover Wells, who had never thrown his hat into the flute design ring.  Perhaps it was simply Wells’ championship of the Carte 1867 model flute (implying its superiority over the Rockstro) that drew Rockstro’s ire?!?  But then if that was the case, why include the third member of Wells’ acknowledged cadre of friends - William Lewis Barratt (or Barrett)??  The latter was a prominent professional flautist who ranked with Wells and Radcliff (as reflected in the main correspondence chain summarized elsewhere) and had recently modified his Carte 1867 flute to eliminate the “open” (all fingers off) D which characterized Carte’s successive designs and which complicated the fingering for C sharp. Barrett was mentioned by Rockstro – Article 685 deals in detail with his modification.  This makes the suppression of Radcliff’s design (which was based on the Carte 1851 minus the open D) all the more difficult to understand, and does nothing to help us to understand Wells’ exclusion either!

It is possible that Wells’ exclusion was based on nothing more than professional jealousy – as we began by saying, Wells and Rockstro were direct contemporaries, but Wells quickly achieved (and retained) far greater prominence as a player than Rockstro ever did.  This may have rankled more than we can guess …………………..]

and I am sure that they each and all conscientiously believe that the alterations they have suggested are for the benefit of the flute playing community.  That being the case, they are entitled to the gratitude of the flautistic world, even though there be differences of opinion as to which or either of them has hit upon the narrow path that leads straight to perfection in flute playing.

[This comment refers to the fact that the series of letters of which this one is a part had thrown up some strongly partisan views regarding the various designs mentioned.  Wells seems to think that such arguments do nothing to detract from the value of the efforts of each and every one of them.  A commendably balanced viewpoint ……………..]

In the year 1851 I was appointed to represent Messrs. Rudall, Rose & Carte (who were the patentees of Mr. Boehm’s last splendid invention, the “cylindrical and parabolic flute”) at the Great Exhibition, and to play this flute before the Jury, the chairman of which was Hector Berlioz, other members consisting of Sterndale Bennett, Sir George Smart, Sir Henry Bishop and Charles Godfrey, father of the present Lieutenant Godfrey of the Grenadier Guards.  There were a number of flutes exhibited, each maker bringing his own professor to play for him.

[This is an extremely enlightening paragraph! It begins with an error – the entry at the 1851 Exhibition was under the name Rudall & Rose, since Rudall, Rose & Carte had yet to be established as a corporate entity – this only happened the following year (1852). It could well be that Carte was sufficiently prominent that it was Rudall, Rose and Carte in all but name.

But more significantly, Wells has long been recognized as the “demonstrator of the Boehm flute” at the 1851 Exhibition.  However, it has widely been assumed that he did so on behalf of Theobald Boehm himself (who entered his own instruments entirely separately from Rudall & Rose and won the prestigious Council Medal under his own name) and that Richard Carte, who was himself an eminent professional flautist who had recently introduced his 1851 design variant of Boehm’s flute and had just in consequence been admitted to the firm, would have demonstrated the products of Rudall & Rose.  Wells confirms that this was not so – for some reason, Carte was no longer considered up to the task of demonstrating his own flutes!!] 

It so happened that Siccama’s and Boehm’s flutes were to be tried together, and I found myself face to face with my old master, Joseph Richardson, who was, without exception, the finest executant in the world.  Of course, Richardson had to start, which he did by taking flight in a chromatic scale (the astounding speed of which I shall never forget) and perching upon the top note.

[The Siccama flute had been introduced in 1846 by the linguist and keen amateur flautist Abel Siccama.  His flutes were made to a very high standard by the talented maker John Hudson.  They were basically similar to the old 8-key conical bored flute but with a modified conical bore and simple mechanism to bring the holes for E and A into their proper location and size. In that respect, they followed the design precepts of Boehm, who had established the dictum that the holes in a flute should be placed and sized correctly on the basis of their acoustical functions, it being then up to the maker to devise suitable mechanism to bring them under the control of the fingers.  Richardson played the Siccama flute until his death in 1862, and Robert Sidney Pratten played this design for some years also. Wells was undoubtedly familiar with this design, having played it himself for a time.] 

Berlioz immediately said: “Gently, Mr. Richardson, this is not a question of your talent; we all know that.  But please play me the scale of G flat very slowly”.  To make a long story short, we had alternately to play arpeggios of diminished sevenths and various other combinations, slow and fast.  Berlioz suddenly asked Richardson what special improvement he claimed for Mr. Siccama’s flute, to which he replied that it was in the bore, being more like that of Mr. Boehm’s flute.

[This comment must surely rank with the greatest faux pas in recorded musical history, and to the present authors it seems quite incredible not only that those present on this occasion should have accepted it at face value but that later writers (including Wells, it would seem) have never questioned it!  To anyone (like Wells) having the slightest familiarity with the two designs, Richardson’s quoted statement is clearly absurd!!  Siccama’s modified conical bore is of course nothing like the cylinder bore used in the 1847 Boehm, and both Richardson and Wells (as present and former users of the design) must have known that!  If they really examined the two flutes, so should the Jury! 

We can think of two possible explanations:

Obviously an understandable case of getting flustered by an unexpected grilling from the Jury!  Regardless, instead of probing further into this clearly untrue statement, the Jury immediately took it at its face value as an “endorsement through imitation” of Boehm’s design by Siccama!!  What a farce!! ]

This admission was fatal to Siccama, whose face and red hair were like the fiery furnace poor Daniel was thrown into, while Boehm seemed much gratified. 

[Here we must include Boehm as one of the guilty parties to this debacle – he of all people must surely have known that Richardson’s statement was untrue.  Evidently, though, he took pleasure in the unwarranted discomfiture of his rival manufacturer!  The main importance of this statement is that it shows that Boehm was present at this comparison even though he had his own stand exhibiting his own instruments under his own name.  We also learn incidentally that Siccama had red hair!!]

Berlioz directly turned to the other members of the Jury, and said “It appears to me, gentlemen, that we could not have a better compliment to the ingenuity of Mr. Boehm”. The result is well known.  Mr. Boehm obtained the Council Medal, and Messrs. Rudall, Rose & Carte the prize medal for Mr. Carte’s improvements for facility of fingering the Boehm system.

[Now we come to one of the greatest misunderstandings of all in connection with the 1851 Exhibition.  To understand the following comments, it is necessary first to understand the criteria for which the cited medals were to be awarded.  Direct reference to the criteria with which the Jury was provided by the Exhibition organisers reveals that the two medals were specifically intended to recognise two completely distinct criteria – innovation of ideas (the Council Medal)  and execution of ideas (the Prize Medal).  The distinction was specifically cited as being intended to help the Jury and to avoid any appearance of relative merit between the two awards – they were in fact for totally different criteria and hence implied no relative merit whatsoever. The Prize Medal (which Rudall & Rose won for Carte’s Patent Boehm Flutes) was specifically to be conferred by the Jury upon exhibitors whose offerings displayed “a certain standard of excellence in production or workmanship”.  A vital  point – there is no mention here of ideas or design innovation. Recognition of those factors was reserved for the Council Medal (awarded to Boehm), which was only to be awarded by the Council of Juries (as opposed to the individual Juries) to those exhibitors whose offerings displayed “some important novelty of invention or application” and was specifically not to be awarded on the basis of “excellence of production or workmanship alone, however eminent".  The comment was actually made at the time that some winners of the Council Medal were far inferior in terms of workmanship to their less innovative brethren!

Once we grasp this, the true state of affairs becomes quite clear.  Boehm won the Council Medal fair and square for his innovative ideas expressed in the flutes and oboe which he exhibited on his own stand.  The oboe was critical – the Jury specifically noted the fact that Boehm had demonstrated his improvements to be applicable to more than just flutes. Indeed, in the official citation for Boehm’s Council Medal, the word “flutes” appears only once as part of a list of instruments to which Boehm’s ideas can be applied.

By contrast, Carte’s 1851 flute was largely derivative (by Carte’s open admission) and hence did not qualify for an award based on innovation.  In fact, for the most part it used the same innovations for which Boehm received separate recognition – even the principles (as opposed to the application) of its mechanism were similar. However, the manufacturing expertise of Rudall & Rose was deservedly well known, and we cannot doubt that they put their very best work on display at the Exhibition.  They duly received the Prize Medal for their rendition of Carte’s 1851 flute on the Boehm principle, but this was specifically for workmanship and had nothing whatsoever to do with any level of recognition for innovation.

Despite this, marketing considerations induced Carte to claim that the Prize Medal constituted recognition of his innovative mechanism, despite the fact that the award criteria clearly excluded this. It is another mystery why this claim has never been challenged – seemingly, even Wells was taken in!  This can only be explained by Carte gambling successfully that few people would be familiar with (or bother to make themselves familiar with) the true criteria for the various awards.  It is high time that this false impression was corrected.]   

In the year 1867, Mr. George Spencer, an amateur flautist who took a deep interest in flutes and flute players, and more particularly – being an engineer – in the mechanical construction of the instrument, suggested that the complicated mechanism necessary for the long F natural key (played with the little finger of the left hand) might be dispensed with by doing away with the hole on that side altogether, and making another, to be played with the first finger of the right hand.  This was done, and the 1867 patent sprang into existence.

[This statement was directly challenged by Christopher Welch in the preface to the Second Edition (1892) of his 1882 book “History of the Boehm Flute”.  On page lxxvi of that work, he quotes the above passage from Wells’ letter directly, stating his view that Wells was most likely writing in good faith, and then proceeds to dispute Spencer’s claim to this innovation.  Welch says that as a result of an injury to his right forefinger, he had certain modifications made to his own Carte 1851 flute which included the relocation of the hole as described by Wells. He claims to have the dated drawings to prove his case.  Together with certain other modifications, this led to the Carte 1867 model entering production with Welch’s modification as one of its main features.]

Mr. Spencer and myself immediately gave up the 1851, and I believe that I subsequently sold mine to a professional pupil, Mr. A. P. Vivian, who was then playing on a conical “Pratten’s Perfected” .  I was the first to play in public on the 1867, and still play on it.

I observe that the gentleman rejoicing in the initial of “B” says that “the open D, which is on the Carte 1867, and no other system”  Now I am sorry to be obliged to contradict him, as I have played the open D ever since 1851, it being one of the principal features of Mr. Carte’s inventions at the Great Exhibition;

[Quite true – the open D is a feature of the Carte 1851.  But Wells is becoming a little picky here – if one reads the letter of “B” to which he refers, it is apparent that the writer was referring to the open D as being used on no other system than the Carte 1867 at his time of writing.  “B” never meant to imply that it had been used in the past on no system other than the Carte 1867!] 

and it was at my suggestion, in 1855, that Signor Paggi (who was an exceedingly fine oboe player) transposed his solo ”Rimembranze  Napolitane”  from the key of G to A, on purpose to trot out the open D;  it was dedicated to me, and I played it for the first time at a concert in the Hanover Square Rooms – the late Mr. J. L. Hatton accompanying.

My opinion, being that of a single individual, is not worth much.  I cannot, however, before concluding, refrain from saying, with regard to the material employed for the construction of flutes, that there is nothing in the world that can compare with ebonite for volume of tone, durability and, indeed, everything.  I say this after playing on it for twenty years.

[Opinions regarding the qualities of ebonite as a material for flutes were all over the map at this time, as a perusal of the main letter series will make clear.  In truth, it seems to have been very much a matter of personal taste.]

Yours, &c.,

Benjamin Wells

3 Shaftesbury  Rd., Ravenscourt Park, W., (A. R. A. M.).

December 16, 1889

==============

In Memory of Janet Helen Wells 1854- 1911,

Nurse and "Heroine"


A Poem Written by Benjamin Wells 1826 - 1899 to his daughter Janet ~1854 - 1911

http://www.anglozuluwar.com/nss-folder/downloads/sister_janet.pdf
BY Dr Adrian Greaves...

Poem written by Benjamin Wells A.R.A.M 1879 for his daughter Janet...
The Red Cross sister sails over the Main
On a mission of mercy, nol greed of gain
Leaves Father and mother and dearest riends
To Succour the wounded they dyuing to tend.

STrong in her faith this sister so brave
Frears no danger wherever there's life to save
And when that's past hope she cheers their last breath
With the glorious prmise of life after death.
This Red Cross sister has powerful friends
Who vie with each other to further her ends
So when war and pestilence ravage the land
True Charity comes from the Stafford House Band

Benjamin Wells A.R.A.M 1879

Additional information about this story

==

Janet Helen Wells received the "Royal Red Cross" From Queen Victoria, for her outstanding work and bravery serving with the British armed forces.. Florence Nightingale was the first recipient of the Royal Red Cross. The second was awarded to Sister Janet Wells, a nurse whose outstanding bravery has been largely forgotten by history.

=====

JANET HELEN WELLS 1854 - 1911  "Sister Janet ~ Heroine" Second person to be awarded the Royal Red Cross,, the first being Florence Nightingale..

The Times obituary of Sister Janet

Saturday June 10, 1911

The death took place on Tuesday last at Wood View, Purley, of Mrs. George King (Sister Janet, Royal Red Cross and Imperial Cross of Russia).

Janet Helen King was the daughter of Prof. Benjamin King (sic, should be Wells), ARAM., and was born in London. When she was but 18 years of age, deeply impressed by the accounts of those suffering of those fighting in the struggle between Servian Independence and Turkish supremacy, and impelled by a high sense of duty, she entered the Protestant Deaconesses’s Institution to be trained for nursing the sick and wounded in war.

Quickly becoming proficient, she was selected as one of a party of nine sent out by that institution to assist in nursing the sick and wounded engaged in the war between Russia and Turkey in 1877-78. The party proceeded to Bukarest under orders to the Russian National Red Cross Society, and were there directed to join the army of the Tsarevitch, which was operating on the Lom. Travelling by railway as far as Fratesti, they journed thence in rough carts to Semnitza and crossed the Danube by the bridge of boats to Sistova, where they waited for an escort to Vardin. Sistova was at the time of their arrival not only crowded with wounded from Plevna, but was being ravaged by typhus, so that the sisters found plenty of work to do while they were detained there. The escort having been provided, the sisters continued their journey in rough carts, suffering on the way from much privation from the bitter cold.

At Vardin they found their services sorely needed, and throughout the winter months they worked from early morning until late at night. Sister Janet was placed in charge of 200 patients who lay in huts scattered among the hills. More than once as she passed from hut to hut on her daily mission she was attacked by the wild dogs, and twice she was attacked by Bashi-Bazook patients. Communication across the Danube was stopped, coarse black bread was the only diet, and there was no news from home. When the army of Suleiman Pasha was driven back on Rustchuk the sisters were sent there, experiencing another terrible journey. Half of them were down with typhus, and Sister Janet was so severely tried in nursing her companions that on the capitulation of Rustchuk she returned to England, having been decorated for her services with the Imperial Order of the Red Cross of Russia.

Sister Janet was appointed Superintendent of the hospital at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and was selected by the Stafford House Committee for service with Surgeon General Ross in the Zulu War. At Utrecht, 3,200 sick and wounded passed through her hands, many of her patients being Zulus. Sir Garnet Wolseley, when he visited the hospital at Utrecht, personally thanked Sister Janet for her work, and on the conclusion of the war, she was awarded the South Africa medal and received from Queen Victoria the decoration of the Royal Red Cross for ‘the special devotion and competency displayed in nursing duties with her majesty’s troops’. Sister Janet married Mr George King in 1882.

The funeral service takes place today at St. Mark’s, Purley at half past 2.

Royal Red Cross Medal
Information about the Military Nursing Medal the Royal Red Cross and the Associate Royal Red Cross


The Royal Red Cross medal was introduced to Military Nursing by Royal Warrant by Queen Victoria on 27 April in 1883 which was St George's Day. The decoration is awarded to army nurses for exceptional services, devotion to duty and professional competence in British military nursing. Queen Victoria wanted a special award for the distinguished service by women nursing sisters in South Africa.

The Royal Warrant said that the Royal Red Cross medal be given:

upon any ladies, whether subjects or foreign persons, who may be recommended bu Our Secretary of State for War for special exertions in providing for the nursing of sick and wounded soldiers and sailors of Our Army and Navy.

During the reign of King George V the words or Our Air Force in the field were added to the Royal Warrant (cited in the book Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (Famous Regts. S) by Juliet Piggott).


Florence Nightingale

The first recipient of The Royal Red Cross was Florence Nightingale for her work in the Crimea War at Scutari Hospital where she attended to injured and ill soldiers and officers.


Sister Janet Wells

The second nurse to receive the Royal Red Cross was Sister Janet Wells. She was only 18 years old when she was posted to Zululand to command a medical post. She earned the nickname Angel of Mercy. Her medals are on display at the Tenterden and District Museum in Kent, England. Read more about Sister Janet Wells in the book Sister Janet: Nurse and Heroine of the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 .


As well as being awarded the RRC decoration, Janet Wells was awarded the South African Medal for the care of soldiers and Zulus in the Anglo Zulu War and also the Russian Imperial Order of the Red Cross for earlier nursing work during the 1877 to 1878 Russo Turkish Balkan War
(cited in Rorke's Drift by Adrian Greaves ).

The following are extracts from Sister Janet: Nurse and Heroine of the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 and are reproduced on www.qaranc.co.uk with kind permission of Dr Adrian Greaves of the Anglo Zulu War Historical Society. The book Sister Janet was published by Pen & Sword whose website is www.pen-and-sword.co.uk and the authors were Best & Stossel and Sister Janet was Edited by Dr Adrian Greaves.

From David Rattray Fugitives’ Drift Lodge
South Africa

The Anglo Zulu War of 1879 caused many British soldiers and Zulu warriors’ terrible wounds, and disease was rife. Hospital care was in its infancy, especially in the British army, and so it is remarkable that in the midst of this terrible war a nineteen-year-old English nurse, Sister Janet Wells, was sent from London to take charge of the isolated British army hospital at Utrecht. Already a decorated veteran of the 1878 Balkan War, she was highly experienced in treating war wounds. In her first two months at Utrecht she treated over 3,200 patients, both British soldiers and Zulus, many from the battles of Hlobane, Khambula and Ulundi.

She performed numerous operations, tended the sick and wounded, and brought an air of discipline, tempered by her charm and femininity, into a chaotic and desperate situation. Towards the end of the war she was sent to Rorke’s Drift where she administered to the remaining garrison. She walked the battlefields of Rorke’s Drift and Isandlwana where she collected flowers for her scrapbooks – already containing many sketches and photographs, which survive to this day.

After the war she returned to her home and family in London, just in time for her twentieth birthday. Recognition by Queen Victoria followed, who decorated her with the Royal Red Cross, the nursing equivalent of the Victoria Cross. The previous recipient was Florence Nightingale.

Hers is an astonishing story, of bravery and determination, which I commend to everyone who loves an adventure; it will especially fascinate students of the Anglo Zulu War – to whom this true account will come, I am sure, as something of a surprise.

David Rattray
Zululand
South Africa
September 2005

Wells_Winifred Lilian_to Pearson_ 1915-2003

Source: Wells/Kingham family tree

Williamson_Richard_Henry1883