Mary is born in at the end of December 1818, the second child and first daughter.
Emma is born in March 1834, although not baptised until October, the penultimate child and last daughter.
By this time, we're getting more information in the entries - her father's job is specified as tailor, not just trade, and it gives the address of Gee Street, St Lukes. (maps post)
They have separate entries in the 1841 census.
Mary is in the borough of Finsbury, parish of Islington, in Cloudesley Square. She's a servant.
I can't work out what it says his job is - the second word looks like Excise.
Emma is only 6, and still at home with her parents and 10 year old brother, William.
In 1843, Mary marries. (For some reason it's very funny to me that she gets married in August when Thomas returns from the Ross expedition to Antarctica only a month later.)
Her husband is Samuel Pratt, a smith. The witness signatures show William Jopson still has shaky handwriting, but it's smoother than at his own marriage, and Sarah (presumably the sister) has a beautiful soft flowing hand.
A point of interest - the 1845 Post Office London Directory shows a Benjamin Pratt, watch case maker, living at #5 Gee Street. Possibly a relation?
In 1851, Emma and Mary are unfortunately back together, their parents having died in the two years preceding.
It's a small household in Shoreditch consisting of only Samuel, Mary, 17 year old Emma, and Samuel's young cousin, Emma Lewis, who was born in Ireland. Our Emma is apparently employed as a flower maker. I assume this was like silk flowers for hats, dresses, interior decor etc.
The Jopsons, the Pratts, and the Lewis' were pretty close.
In 1860, Emma gets married...
...To Thomas Henry Lewis, cousin of Samuel Pratt and older brother of cousin Emma. They are the witness signatures and both have beautiful handwriting. It seems the Lewis family was from Ireland, the father, Jubal, being a revenue officer. Thomas Lewis is a coachmaker.
I've not found an 1861 census record for Emma and Thomas, but Mary and Samuel are living in Tower Hamlets, Shoreditch, and have three lodgers: a customs clerk, a watchmaker, and a tailor. Samuel is now a 'repairing machinist'. He was listed in the 1860 POLD as machinist, at 26 Critchill Place, St Johns.
In 1871, Emma and Thomas are living at 118 Gloucester Road, St Pancras (near to Clerkenwell).
They have four children at home - 8 year old Jane, three year old Thomas, two year old Samuel (how sweet), and Jubal, who's only 6 weeks. Thomas Sr is a Coachmaker, and was listed in the 1870 & 1875 POLD as the same, his premises being 120 Gloucester Road. They also have living with them a domestic servant (fancy!) and an apprentice.
Mary and Samuel (I know, there's a lot of people) are living in Hackney.
They have living with them a domestic servant and also, most vexingly, their niece - 6 year old Annie Lewis.
WHY is this girl living with them? I don't know. I assumed she was Emma's child, but now I don't know. I can't find a baptism for her under them, so she could be from one of Thomas' siblings. I've not found any record.
Moving on to 1881, Mary and Samuel are living in the same place with 16 year old Annie. He is now an engineer.
Emma and Thomas are also in the same place.
They have a different maid; a 20 year old daughter Eliza; 7 year old son Albert; 18 year old Jane is now a junior (juvenile) tailoress; and they have 4 year old daughter May who's already listed as a scholar.
The 1880 POLD still has Thomas as coach builder, 122 Gloucester Road, but the 1885 says office 122 and showroom 110. (fancy schmancy)
Things have changed by 1891. Samuel and Mary are living in Lewisham, still with Annie.
I'm not sure if her profession says bread maker?
Emma and Thomas are still in Gloucester Road.
30 year old Eliza is now a nurse; 23 year old Thomas is a traveller collector ??? maybe?; 22 year old Samuel is also a coachmaker; 14 year old Albert is a clerk; and 14 year old May is still a scholar.
The 1890 and 95 POLDs still show the business at 110 and 122 Gloucester Road.
It seems most likely Thomas died in 1894. The coachmaking company is listed in the POLDs at the same addresses until at least 1910, and has become a limited company (Ltd) before 1900.
The household in 1901 is only Emma and her youngest daughter, May, who is a print compositor (?).
Samuel and Mary are still living in Lewisham; he's now called a retired mechanical engineer. He dies in 1906, and she in 1907.
Emma is still featured in the 1911 census.
She is now living in Hornsey with May. May has married Frederick Flower, a printing compositor. They have two sons - Albert who's 3, and Leslie who's 11 months. (May Flower - what a pretty name)
Emma dies in 1914. This is from the national probate index:
A rough equivalence puts £59 then at about £8,000 now.
That concludes our series. I hope it was of some interest.
finally found my capo! here's a cover of my favorite iron & wine song, "cinder and smoke," which is featured on the henry collins playlist i made a few weeks back. i have so many feelings about it, just in general and in the context of the terror (just think about carnivale. and if you don't think about that or about collins, think about jopson with the last verse (below).)
Give me your hand
Your mother is drunk
(As all)
The firemen shake
A photo from father's arms
need i say more? >:)
anyways! smooches if you listen, as always. forgive the loosey-goosey chord changes and fumbling around, as i just figured out the chord progression this morning. and the creaking from the guitar is me moving while playing (something something stimming, something something autism FJSLKFS).
... i'd also be remiss if i didn't dedicate this lil ditty to @bell-swamp-fitzjames, a musical/terror AU/all-around wonderful cheerleader when i message them about edits and random shit that pops into my head. and a lovely friend!! cig is, on top of all of these things, a fucking BEAST of an edit maker and music collector. and a fucking lovely writer.
give them love if you haven't already. that's an order, sailors.
(more covers to come soon, with more sappy dedications and fandom connections attached. i love my blorbos and i love my friends!)
((also, some funny outtake-y stuff up top. wanted to be transparent about my recording process and keep that in, lol.))
William and Sarah Jopson, I believe, had seven children. The eldest, Thomas, was on the Franklin expedition. The eldest and youngest daughters, Mary and Emma, are well documented through census and other records. But the three or four who came in between have been much harder to track down, and so I collected them together in my research and, due to their propensity for disappearing, called them The Vanishing Four.
Let us start with a basic timeline. The parents marry in January of 1816. Thomas is born November the same year, and Mary in December 1818.
[[Number 1]]
In 1821, we see the arrival of next child, Sarah.
She is baptised on June 3rd in the parish of Marylebone, and is registered as daughter of Sarah and William Jopson, born 12th May, father in trade.
After this, there were several Sarah Jopsons and Jobsons around the same age and parish doing various things, and I've had a very difficult time tracking down who I can most reasonably expect to be our one.
I think the most likely entry for her in the 1841 census is this.
At number 8 Cloudesley Street, Islington, she is F.S. - female servant. She's 20 years old - a match - and born in the same parish (y) - also a match.
In the 1851 census records, this is the best match I found. She may now be a housekeeper, which is reasonable, although is listed as only 28 when she should have been 29 or 30.
This is St Giles in the Fields, which is in a reasonable distance, and she's listed as born in Marylebone.
Whoever this person is, I'm pretty sure she's also this Sarah Jopson ->
This is part of the Civil Registration Marriage Index for summer 1853. She has the right name and is living in St Giles. The record just lists names, district, and what book the proper details can be found in. The books don't seem to be available - I believe they have been damaged to the point of destruction. I found transcript of only one page of the right book, four entries, and it included the bookseller's assistant, Kirton, from the same household who was marrying a Sarah - but her birth parish and father's name were not a match for Miss Jopson.
So this is where our trail for Sarah ends. Without knowing who she married, I can't find more records of her. There are hundreds of Sarahs born in 1820/21 in Marylebone.
For quite a while I actually thought she died - although all these records matched her mother's death when I eventually analysed all of them fully. 😵💫
[[Number 2]]
On the 12 November, 1823, Ann Jane is born.
All her records were easy to find; her vanishing was sadly a different sort.
She is baptised on December 20th; daughter of William and Sarah Jopson - notice how the 'b' has been corrected to a 'p', and the 'p' confirmed underneath! - again, in the parish of Marylebone.
Our next record is from the Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths for Spa Fields, St James', and Clerkenwell.
On the 21 June, 1827, a Jane Jobson of St Lukes is buried; aged 3 years and 6 months.
Unfortunately, the age and the location are too exact for this to be anyone else. There was no-one even comparable.
Again we see the b/p confusion; and I think it's interesting she was registered only under one/part of name. Perhaps the Ann was to appease a relative; perhaps they couldn't initially choose; or perhaps they ended up simply not calling her that; or maybe it was a clerical error.
[[Number 3]]
William Jopson Junior was born in 1831. Probably.
He really gave me the runaround, mostly because there are two other people with the same name (but with a 'b') born in nearly the same year. (I had an approximate birth year from the 1841 census)
Do you remember the J Jopson from the trade directories in the parents' post? I wonder if this was him. A brother, maybe??
Let us begin with our WJ with the 1941 census. (I have found no baptism record.)
As we'll all remember from previous posts, this census was not as accurate as later ones - adults ages were rounded and the houses in this one haven't been numbered; only a street name is given. The mark in the second column marks the start of a building. The double dash marks the end of a household, and the single dash the end of a family.
We have William Jopson the tailor aged "50", Sarah aged "45", William aged 10, and Emma aged 6. So far, so good.
There's also no marking in the census for relationships between the householders, and I did wonder whether WJ was a nephew, from the earlier baptism record I found, but unfortunately William Frederick died in 1833.
The next possible record I found was the 1861 census - there's a William Jobson, Seaman Royal Navy, married to a Hannah, with two children, Emma and Hannah - but it says he was born in Devon, so this isn't our WJ. But things are about to get very confusing.
The 1871 census, and we have a William Jobson of the right age, married to a Hannah, and residing in Devon. But he was born in London. So is this our WJ?
He's a coastguard, and they have four children at home, Emma, Hannah, Benjamin, and William.
For 1881, I have two records. The first is in Kent and is for the Vessel (ship) Pembroke. William Jobson is an AB pensioner, age 50, married, and born in Middlesex, London. Sounds about right. The Pembroke was sitting around Chatham at the time.
The second record is from Gillingham, Chatam. Living at 9 Nelson Road is William Jobson, 50, seaman, born in London, and his wife Hannah.
Also their adult daughter Hannah, young son, Thomas, and niece, Florey Surman (?). I can't find any other results for this girl, so can't use her as a link. I also can't find baptism records for any of the children.
So was this William Jobson registered in two places? Are these two the same person? I think so.
I also found this for the Devon William:
He also served on a Pembroke, which really threw me, but I think it was this one. That carries for being Achilles first, and also for Coastguard duty. I suppose seamen were census registered at home even if they weren't there?? I never found that for anyone else though.
The last record I found was the 1891 census for William and Hannah, both living in Gillingham, but this was Devon William.
I've been wondering off and on whether these two were the same person and there were mistakes about birthplace made on the census'. It makes less sense, I think, for there to be mistakes in the ship records. And the children don't quite match up, but you have to make allowances for infant mortality.
So our WJ also went to sea, married a girl in Devon, and ended up in Kent. Maybe.
[[Number 4]]
Number four was much easier, but also the biggest surprise. I'd been through a couple of other Jopson trees, and I'd never seen this before, but I think the original William and Sarah had another child.
This is a baptism record from 1839 for St Lukes. On April 5th, Sarah and William Jobson of 30 Gee Street, he a tailor, baptise Henry John. It's noted he was born November 26th 1836. (tho it looks like 26 to me)
Unfortunately, this is a burial record for Golden Lane Cemetery, 1839. Henry John Jopson, aged 2 years and 7 months, from Gee Street, is buried on the 17th of April. (So it must have been 1836, you see.)
It does confuse me why he was baptised so late, when all the other children were done within a few weeks of birth, as is usual. I'm making an assumption that he was ill at the time of his baptism, and that was why it was done, in case he died; the difference between dates is less than a fortnight. Interestingly, many of the entries in that baptism record noted the children had been born in earlier years, one on the previous page was 1834. Confusing.
So, there I shall leave you. More questions were asked than were answered with these ones. It was frustrating and confusing, and almost every record had to be worked with. I had huge long lists of possible records for several of these and it was a real pain analysing and checking them. I hope what I've put together is of some interest, and now we only have the two most recorded siblings to look at.
Hello, my Jopson family research posts are finally making an appearance!
Below is the intended posting order; the stuff I’ve found will be split up to clump information more usefully and understandably, and reduce posts being outrageously long.
Posts will be bolded and dated as they are released, and this post is pinned for ease of reference. Any questions, just ask. :) I hope you enjoy them <3
Mum & Dad - attempting to trace the lives of Thomas Jopson’s parents - posted November 14th 2022
The Area In Which They Lived - Volume 1 - tracking the suspected chronology of Sarah and William Jopson Srs; brief notes on the suspected socio-economic state of their homes; comparison with in-show’s Jopson’s story; discussion of my incorrectness in previous reblog - posted 20th February 2023 Update posted 14th November 2023
The Children - Volume 1 - The Vanishing Four - posted 3rd April 2025
The Children - Volume 2 - Mary & Emma - posted 27th April 2025
First of all, I would like to apologise for the inaccuracies in this reblog I made a while back. I had only made a cursory investigation at that point, and many things will be different. This post, of his parents, felt like starting at ‘the beginning’, and will set us a good foundation moving forward.
The first proper record I’ve found for these two is the publication of marriage banns.
You’re likely all familiar with that bit in film weddings where they’re like “if you know any reason these two should not be married, speak now or forever hold your peace.” Banns served the same function, and a marriage could be void without them. They were ‘published’ for three usually consecutive Sundays, being read outloud in the parish churches of the applicants, and were the opportunity for anyone to object to the marriage.
Sarah Goodfellow and William Jopson, both of that parish and previously unmarried (bachelor and spinster), published marriage banns on December 31st 1815, and January 7th and 14th 1816, in the parish of St Marylebone, Westminster, England.
Clearly no-one objected, as they then married on the 21st.
Marriages solemnized in the Parish of St Mary-Le-Bone, in the County of Middlesex, in the year 1816.
William Jopson of this parish, bachelor, and Sarah Goodfellow of this parish, spinster, were married in this church by banns, this 21st day of January, by me (signed) R W Chapman, Curate (asistant priest).
It’s then signed: William Jopson
Sarah Goodfellow X her mark So Sarah was illiterate.
The signed witnesses present are John Goodfellow, probably her father or brother (and it looks like he wrote in Sarah’s entry), Alice Darna[?], and Jane Black. I’m not sure why there’s a third witness signature, there’s usually only two. (I haven’t looked in to who these people are, but imagine I wouldn’t find anything. I might try anyway :3 )
The marraige is also entered in Pallot’s Marriage Index - (this covered 101 parishes in the old City of London & Middlesex, and collected data, through record agents, between 1780 and the onset of general registration in 1837. Compilation began in 1813, under the name of the groom, date, and church name. There was also a baptismal section (which would have been very useful), but these records were lost in the bombings of WWII) - although William’s surname is misspelt as Jobson, even though it’s clear on the registration. This happens frequently throughout his life, and has been the source of some bother for me.
Their first child, a son, Thomas Jopson (our boy!), is born on the 14th of November, 1816, and baptised on December 8th. This is also registered at St Marylebone, Westminster, and his father’s profession is listed as ‘Trade’. (We know from Thomas’ navy allotment listing that his father was a tailor, and this would come under trade. The entries in these birth/baptism registers are quite broad, and the most frequent entries I’ve seen are trade, labourer and merchant.) No address is part of the record.
Their second child, first daughter, Mary, is born on December 27th, 1818.
(notice how they managed to spell the surname correctly)
One of my major hopes for finding information on the family was Commercial Directories. As I hoped William had his own business, he should have been featured. These directories were like the Yellow Pages, which I imagine most of you are at least passingly familiar with, and listed businesses in varying formats, including by proprietor’s surname, by street address, and a full list of single profession. Ancestry holds copies of Robson’s London Directory for the years bewteen 1819 and 1841, plus 1843, and Post Office London directories for most years after until at least 1850. I knew, by this point, that I need not look later.
The 1820 Robson’s London Directory (henceforth RLD) tells us that a William Jopson, Tailor, operates at number 20 Buckingham Place, Fitzroy Square. From later census records, he would have been around 29 to 33 years old at this point.
(This John Jopson, solicitor, is in the RLD since at least 1802, but presumably not at all a relative. Solicitors are far above tailors, class-wise. Crozier’s dad was a solicitor, remember. He would be a gentleman, and would have to have been to have had the opportunity to study law. Therefore, I’ve decided there’s no connection.)
As I explain in a later post, I had the good fortune to come across this map. Falling off the bottom of sheet 025 is Fitzroy Square, between Regent’s Park and University College, underneath Somers Town. I have found Buckingham Street, but not yet any Buckingham Place, and I initially assumed they were the same thing, but they must be different places as, in the same year, there is a baker, Wm Fisher, at #7 Buckingham Place, and a sculptor, John Flaxman, in #7 Buckingham Street. At number 2 Buckingham Place was a cabinet maker, the sort of neighbour I would expect for the Jopsons. Also, I know this sounds a fancy place, but Bloomsbury was in some decline at this time, and in cities like London, the rich and the poor often live very close together. So there’s not a whole lot we learn from this record but, due to the locality, name, and profession, I am sure it’s them. (Please see the coming post ‘The area in which they lived, Volume#1′ for full maps of this)
In 1821, they welcome second daughter, Sarah.
In 1823, fourth child, Ann Jane.
(I love how they’ve clarified the spelling is a P)
They’re still registered as the Parish of St. Mary-Le-Bone.
Our next RLD entry is from 1826.
We now have a William Jopson somewhere called Smithfield, who now encompasses drapery as well (some drapers made shirts and things - almost like ‘ready to wear’, stuff below a tailor’s remit - tailoring was much more skilled work; and some seem to have been simply sellers of cloth).
I found a suitable match for Long Lane, just up the road from a live stock market, what would become the Metropolitan meat market, which puts them just south of Clerkenwell. I see no reason why this couldn’t be our Jopsons. I have no other William Jopsons, or even Jobsons, for that matter, who are proper tailors.
Now, this is where things get extra interesting. In the 1831 RLD, we have a Jopson tailoring at 30 Gee Street, Goswell Street, our Jopsons’ final address.
But it’s not William.
Could he be his father or brother? He’s not been present in any other year’s listings. It could have been a mistake, but this J Jopson also appears in 1832 and 1833.
He then disappears.
However, in 1834, William and Sarah have another daughter, Emma, and their address is recorded as Gee Street, St. Luke’s (the parish). So was William already working there before? Has he just taken over? Again, who is J? I do not know.
The Jopsons don’t feature in the commercial listings again at all until 1839, when, in a new format with the listings by profession, William Jopson appears at 30 Gee Street, Goswell Street, under the classification of tailors and drapers.
He is also present for the same in the Robson’s London and Birmingham Part 1.
In 1840 (different format again), he’s listed in the RLD under street name, surname, and profession. I like the street name one the best, because I love checking out who the neighbours are :) It gives, I think, more of a look into life, to see the sort of people and profession they were surrounded by.
(by the way, a cock founder made plumbing valves. Just in case you were wondering...)
A good place to go if you wanted a watch made in stages, and I love that there seems to be people just up the street who make hot air balloons???
A note for people less familliar with this type of terraced housing - a buiding being numbered 1/2 would most likely denote that they only occupied maybe one of two or two of three floors, or perhaps the back half of a property. It varies.
In 1841, we get our first proper census. (there is a possibility some more earlier information may be available, and although nothing came to light during a reasonable look at it, it deserves further study, in my opinion)
They were entered in the Borough of Finsbury and the Parish of St. Luke’s. The full address was not recorded in the final version, but is simply by street - Gee Street. Also, annoyingly and for no good reason, ages were often rounded down to to the nearest five years, which might explain something a little later in this post.
Households are marked by a double slash at the left of the name column, and a different family in the same house by a single slash.
We have head of the household, William Jopson, aged around 50, a tailor, not born in same county (Middlesex). Sarah Jopson, around 45, no profession listed, also not born in same county. William Jopson, aged 10, born in Middlesex. (I have looked high and low for any birth or baptism record for him, and found nothing! Although, there was apparently much shifting around of registration districts due to population growth in and around London at the time he was born, so it’s possible I couldn’t find the right lot. Alternatively, he was not baptised, or the record’s been lost, which is most likely.) Emma Jopson, aged 6, born in Middlesex. Then there’s a single slash, so another family present in the same house.
We have, I think, Joseph Luff[?], although the longer I look at it, the more I think it must say something else, especially as I couldn’t find any other mentions on a Joseph Luff. And, I believe, Elizabeth, same surname. They’ve both been put as 25 years old, born in Middlesex. No occupations are listed. I want to look into these two more, and find out who they were, as far as I can. If he was part of William’s workforce, then surely it would say so? Idk. Confusing.
Also in 1841, we have another listing in the RLD.
Still a lot of watches, but the balloon people have gone :(
In 1844, we’ve moved to the Post Office London Directory:
I’m not sure how they put the commercial directories together, but it is interesting (and irritating) that people and places aren’t listed every single year. Apparently they usually had someone go door-to-door, and people were often missed, and I see no reason to disagree with that theory. I don’t understand how they came to be missed so often, though. :/
He’s also in the POLD in 1845, 46, 47 and 48, listed the same.
This is the 1845, the state of play when Thomas left on the Franklin Expedition.
This is for ‘47. There’s another tailor.
In 1849, Sarah dies.
I actually managed to find a burial record as well:
July 13, 1849. Sarah Jopson, age 55 years, Gee Street, St Luke’s.
This record was for Bunhill Burial Ground or Golden Lane Cementry, more likely the latter.
Gee Street is marked in green, and Golden Lane and its graveyard in yellow; from Sheet 026 of this map. (the map was begun 19 years after the death, which is quite enough time for the marked graveyard to become “disused” (full))
I mentioned at the 1841 census that ages rounding down to the nearst five years would explain something. In the burial record, Sarah was 55, meaning she was born in 1794. If she had been exactly 45 in 1841, she would have been born in 1796 so aged 53. So she was, in fact, born in 1794. Thank you very much for that confusion, census. I did think that I had found a birth and baptism registration for her because of this erroneous date, but that turned out, on further inspection, post this bit of information, to be someone else.
A record I am sure of, however, is this registration of death being her husband, William, a year later, in 1850.
He is registered in Shoreditch, for some reason, but is absent from the ‘51 census, and all later commercial directories (I checked), and his youngest child, 16-year-old Emma, is living with her sister in ‘51, so I’m certain this pertains to him. I also checked the burial book, hoping to get a nice match, but it leaves off in October 1849 and doesn’t start recording again until half way through August 1850 >:[ Either he was buried somewhere else, or died before the start of August. I’ve not found a burial record in some of the books for other places, either.
Oddly though, I may have found a baptism record for him: a William Jopson, born 24th August 1786, baptised 5th August 1787 in St Sepulchre, London. Parents John and Ann Jopson. This is a text-only record, and I’ve not found anyone else who fits it, except for one death up in Liverpool which matches their birth year to this baptism year. St Sepulchre is just beside Long Lane, where our Jopsons lived for a while. For the 1841 census to record William as 50 years old, he would have had to be born between 1787 and 1791. It’s a reasonable fit, but as I can’t find any further information, I’m rather tentative to claim this record as him.
So that concludes my parents-posting for now. Should you venture to undertake your own research into these lovely people, please beware a William Jobson, later of 24 High Street Islington, a haberdasher and, briefly, bootmaker. He made a dreadful nusiance of himself throughout this process. His family begins with linen drapers in Cleveland Street, Fitzroy Square (a name you may now recognise), and remain largely in textile pursuits, and all move to Islington. And they name their children nearly the exact same names. Yay. I do wonder if they are related, but I’ll have no way to clarify, I don’t think.
I shall leave you with a moment of pure speculation *~*~* it appears to have often been the done thing in higher class families to have the mother’s maiden surname used as a middle name for the eldest son, as a way of preserving it. For one example, Ann Coulman and James Ross had little baby James Coulman Ross. I have no evidence of it being done in lower class families, as records often only have first names, but how sweet would it be if our lad’s name was Thomas Goodfellow Jopson? ;)
So, I was so extremely excited to do this one that I actually forgot to research the people at all for quite a long time. Whoops.
As I’ve mentioned previously, much of the ‘information’ I gave in this reblog was, shall we say, speculative, and I do apologise. Most glaringly, to me, I, gardening on the brain, completely misunderstood this post by @thomasblanky-moved, and confused the allotment of naval pay with small plots of rentable land to put a garden on. However, this was serendipitous as, in my rather frantic quest to find anything relating to these imaginary allotments, I found this rather sexy (but rather hard to read) map, which has been exceptionally helpful.
This map was published by Ordnance Survey between 1869 and 1880, so in places may be a smidge out of date for our main period, especially due to the rapid population growth in the area at the time (this lead to lots of other confusions, with boroughs and parishes and registration districts being moved around, and records being identified for places that didn’t seem correct), but has so far featured most of the places I’ve been looking for, and provides some interesting visual detail.
First of all, we’re starting with a simple tracking of movement throughout the years, based on previously shared census, birth and burial records.
This large map was pieced together from the Map of City of London and its Environs, from sheets 024, 025, 026, 027, 034, 035 and 036.
(please click to see)
Red boxes mark a few select parishes to help you find your way around; from left to right, they are St Marylebone (so big it goes far off to the left here), St Geroge Bloomsbury, St James Clerkenwell, St Sepulchre, St Luke’s, and Shoreditch (also falling off the side). Islington (unmarked, as off the map) is north of Clerkenwell.
1 = Our first result is St Marylebone parish church, found in the marriage records of Sarah and William Jopsons Sr. (it may not have been this one exactly, but it’ll do. There is no exact church name, and there are lots of churches :/ St Marylebone’s a big place.) 1816 - 1820. Covers banns, marriage, and four baptisms.
2 = Buckingham Street, Fitzroy Square; 1820 - 1826. From the 1820 Robson’s London Directory of professionals entry.
3 = Long Lane, Smithfield. From the 1826 RLD entry.
4 = Gee Street, St Luke’s. 1831 - 1850. Starting with RLD entries for J Jopson, then all future events.
What can I tell you about these places?
It’s been around 200 years, and the area’s undergone huge changes for various reasons, so nothing with absolute certainty. Interestingly, the street layout around Gee Street and, in fact, many of the locations, is still very similar nowadays, as you’ll see if you look at a modern-day map. (Should you do so, you’ll want this area: St Luke’s is roughly centre.)
(This was extremely helpful, as these places are now Central London, and I know nothing about where bits of London are in relation to each other, and using the historical map was difficult - finding them on e-maps first was essential!) To get some idea, let’s have a closer look.
This is some of the northern part of St Marylebone, from the sheet above our big compiled map. This is the fancy part. Detached houses with gardens. Uncrowded. Our family does not live here.
This is slightly lower down on the map, and is the area around our pink mark for our early records. We have there the church, and a charity school. Rows and rows of small terraced houses, and a warehouse. There will come to be (present on the map, but not in Thomas’ early lifetime) two railway stations nearby. Regent’s Park is some way above, and further over is Regent’s Canal. ;)
An important thing to understand is that rich and poor were not always separated in neighbourhoods as such, it could simply be the next street, or ‘areas’ of several streets. The difference would have been noticable, but the distance not necessarily great. I am not sure how to explain this sufficiently to those unfamiliar with it, because I find it so normal. (It also does not show on maps ^_^)
The area around Fitzroy Square (1820) is the same again, with rows and rows or terraced housing, all winding round each other, and, from the trade directories, we know the Jopsons’ neighbours included watchmakers, hat makers, metal smiths, textile manufacturers and shoe makers.
I had been unable to find the family’s registered address of Buckingham Place, Fitzroy Square on this map, and was unhappily satisfied to use Street as a replacement, but the beloved @explorersaremadeofhope directed me to two other maps of an earlier period, which have been extremely helpful.
From the Topographical Survey Of The Borough Of St. Marylebone 1834 to which I was referred, we have a much better view of the area surrounding the address. Buckingham Place runs alongside Upper Cleveland Street. So using the locations of the Buckinghams interchangeably means the info I provided was still correct. And a mystery solved!
When we get to Long Lane, Smithfield, in 1826, they’re in more of an industrial area (or it is by the time the map is published), rather than simply trade. I’ve previously mentioned what was, at that time, a live meat market, just along the road, and there’s a timberyard, various warehouses, more churches, schools and burial grounds, a jail (Newgate), foundries, stables, and distilleries, and St Bartholomew’s Hospital. The arrival of the railway and its stations are likely to have rearranged much of the surrounding area of where they came to stand.
Cruchley’s New Plan of London 1827 gives a better view of the street layout (and a nearly perfect date, too!) although does not mark individual buildings. It certainly looks a lot more jagged than the later map.
Also featured, so many crossings of different parish boundaries, which keep moving and reclassifying with population growth. Just underneath St Barts is the parish of St Sepulchre, London. This may have been the birthplace of William Jopson Sr.
As for neighbours, according to Pigot’s Directory, in 1825, there was a rag merchant, Susannah Preston, living at number 74 Long Lane. Also (found in the POLD by spelling ‘Longlane’ as one word) a currier and leather-cutter at 73, a razor maker at 8, a hat maker at 9, and a “blanket and tilting manufacturer” at number 5. (I do not know what that is.Something to do with horse saddles would be my best guess?) (Mr Jopson’s business is registered at no.4 1/2.)
From Fitzroy Square to here was a big move, and I wonder if there was an intermediary stop. I have found no documentation for the intermediary years. Yet.
Our last stop is Gee Street, St Luke’s, which is literally just up the road, and where the family was apparently based from the early ‘30s until 1850. Thomas, born in 1816, would have been in his late teens by the time of this move, so may not have spent much time there, depending where he worked (which he would have done by the age of around 14).
By the time our lovely darling map is made (1850), this area is heavily industrial as well as trade-based. Buildings surrounding Gee Street, there in the centre, include coal and gas stores (which are the big large circles which made it so easy to find over and over again <3); distilleries, breweries, and wine manufacturers; soap and dye works; engineering works and foundries; carriage manufacturers; builder’s and timber yards; a saw mill; a flour mill; a ropery; an almshouse; and St Luke’s church just down the road. There are several graveyards nearby also, of varying sizes (you’ll remember one was specifically marked in my previous post).
I don’t know if these were all here in the 1840s, but let’s take a look at the street neighbours from the professional directories.
We have a printer; engravers; watch makers; various kinds metal smiths, from gilders to fender makers; manufacturers of textile-adjacents, such as trimmings and busks; a chapel; an academy (presumably a small school); a bricklayer and plasterer; and, in 1847, another tailor... :O
St Luke’s church is just along the road, and is presumably where they would have attended. I’m not sure of its relationship to this chapel though, and haven’t found anything by searching the minister yet. In an 1868 map, it’s labelled as a United Methodist Free Church, but that means nothing to me :/
Allotment List Address
In Arctonauts’ much-appreciated transcription and organisation of Terror’s pay allotment listing for 1845, Thomas Jopson gives his father’s address as “Gee Street, Brick Lane”, which confused me greatly. (he also gives it as “number 3″, which is also confusingly ‘incorrect’, but I’ll let it be for now. It’s definitely actually no.30, according to literally all other records (that I’ve found)) See this post for an image of the entry. He evens puts it as London rather than Middlesex - “No. 3 Gee Street, Brick Lane, St Lukes, London”
From what I’d found in the records I’d been accessing, it would usually be “No.30 Gee Street, (Goswell Street), St Luke’s, Middlesex”. Perhaps this is showing more that Middlesex and London are really merging fully around this time; the muster book for 1839 (also Arctonauts) gives ‘where born’ as London, Middlesex for several people. (although Jopson is just ‘Middlesex’).
The entry Brick Lane really threw me, because the only Brick Lanes that I could find are nowhere near Gee Street. Goswell Road (or street, depending on the record) runs from the splitting of Pentonville Road in the north, all the way down until it becomes Aldersgate Street, down near Smithfield (they literally moved just up the road the last time). It’s what I would class as a ‘main road’; Gee Street is a little street coming off of it, and it would make sense for the address to read that way so that people could find it. You didn’t know where Gee St was, but you knew Goswell, of course (or others would), so you’d go there and find the right branch.
You sometimes also see ‘Old Street’ linked to the address, which is another big road and, though not directly connected, runs vaguely parallel underneath.
Goswell Road, as it is on the map, is marked alongside in blue; Gee Street in green, Old Street in yellow, and Long Lane in orange (because it’s interesting and I hadn’t noticed the direct road connection until just now, and I think it’s neat).
explorersaremadeofhope came to the rescue again, providing Cross’s New Plan Of London 1850. In it, we get a clearer, closer view of Gee Street, and the roads surrounding it.
So Brick Lane runs adjacent to Gee Street at the other end to Goswell Street, and #30 would likely be nearer this end, as the entries I’ve found for this street in censuses stops around #50. So, Gee Street, Brick Lane it is. I’m SO glad to have an answer to this one, because it was really bothering me. On my initially consulted map, Brick Lane isn’t labelled. The whole stretch from City Road downwards is called Central Street until it intersects with Old Road. I really should have had a better look for more maps.
For anyone writing fic, I would say to have a look at the linked maps (they should come up with the right section). It’s quite interesting to have a walk around street plans, even when unfamiliar with the area.
For those who are interested, there’s a very numerical overview of St Luke’s here.
Also some interesting text about the Ossulstone Hundred. (a ‘hundred’ was a way of dividing up land/populace for things like censuses etc.)
What were the houses like?
I am not an expert, but I have some idea, and will do my best to convey my best educated guess to those of you completely unfamiliar with this sort of environment. (It may seem assumptive and oddly described to those familiar, and I do apologise for my clunky wording, but I’m trying to help as much as possible to get the feeling of the thing)
The houses on the map all look to be terraced (joined together with no space between),which is pretty common of built-up areas in cities and towns, even now. According to new-ish building regulations, they were brick construction. Inside would probably be what is now usually called “two up, two down”, which refers to the numbers of rooms on each floor - one with a window at the front of the house, the other at the back. Sometimes partition walls were put up to make more individual rooms. The houses likely had three floors, possibly also a basement level. The business would be run in the front room of the street-level floor, possbily with manufacture or storage in either the back room or basement level. The family would live in the rooms upstairs (possibly also a back room street-level if the place was big enough - unlikely for our family, but possible) There seems to have been small yards at the backs of the houses, likely big enough for a coal shed and a privy but little else.
You may remember house half-numbers from previous records, and I believe this would be a sort of ‘flat’ or ‘apartment’ situation, where one family may have two floors of a house an another family the other two, so a business for one may be on upstairs floors instead (there’s a solicitors near where I work which is like this). Alternatively, it may be over a carriage way or something similar, or perhaps where a property (in this case, number four) has been properly divided in half, or an extra house has been added between two existing (impossible in terracing). ((while I was looking for clarification, I found this page, which you may find amusing))
This brilliant image, which is more what I was after, is taken from HERE, which is a page I strongly suggest you take a look at; it provides excellent first- and second-hand information about Victorian-era drapers’ shops!
There is an old film called ‘Hobson’s Choice’, a comedy about a shoemaker, which features shop-houses with this sort of layout, and may be worth a look. (It also shows a nice little trade/industry/business hierarchy idea, although is set around 1870s time.) The BBC sitcom ‘Open All Hours’ also shows this sort of building layout.
For those of you unfamiliar with this housing type, here’s a bit of an idea. I couldn’t find exactly what I wanted, but these are close (and one’s Bethnal Green and one Clerkenwell, so they’ll do nicely)
There’s a bit if interesting info here (they’d probably be about third rate, in this metric) and also some floor plans, which may explain some things better for some of you. <3
What do we know about their socio-economic status?
Again, I will find this difficult to explain, and it’s nothing we can be certain of. They were certainly working class, and all the children would have to have become gainfuly employed as soon as they came of age (the girls would likely have gone into service). Work as a tailor should have been quite steady, although most customers would likely have been the same class as them, so there was likely just as much alteration/repurposing work as new garment manufacture. Polar navy service paid twice the usual salary, and I imagine that was a strong driving factor in Thomas signing up for it. By my metric, they would be ‘normal’; poor, but making a living. They would have had simple things, and not great amounts of them, but this would be usual for their environment and culture. (and no, no allotment >_<)
I do think the children were all likely educated, though. All handwriting I’ve found for them (although very small examples) is good, and very neat and regular, and, while they may have been taught at home, there are many schools around where they lived, and some of these were ‘charity’ schools (often free to attend). It would make sense to send them there to acquire a rudimentary education to better their prospects (and keep them from under your feet for a few hours). To be a captain’s steward, Thomas would have to be both literate (which we have evidence he was), and capable with numbers, as the CS kept the captian’s stores. (the ‘stock counts’ we see Irving do in the show, TJ would have to do for the captain’s personal stores; that pantry only he had access to). Again, he could have learnt this at home; his father must have been capable with numbers to run a business, and in his particular profession, but you might as well send your children to school if you can. It would be easier than teaching them at home, particularly with a business to run. There’s some nice, specific info on ‘Education of the Working Classes’ here. Naturally, they would likely have helped at home as well, and would have learnt domestic skills. It’s possible that TJ (and possibly his sisters) would have learnt some tailoring skills as well (useful for stewarding!).
They lived in busy trade, and later industrial, areas, so it would have been busy, noisy and fairly crowded. They likely knew most of their neighbours to speak to.
Nowadays, interestingly, the street names and layout is little changed (an incredible help to me <3). The main feature of Gee Street now is apparently a family court. It also has a nice little park-like area where there used to be a builders’ yard. There’s a block of flats on the graveyard where I believe Sarah Sr. was buried. St Luke’s workhouse seems to be completely gone, and mostly a car park. How things change. The church was heavily damaged by WWII bombings, but the main structure was saved, and it’s now a designated space for the London Symphony Orchestra. ((an extra link for you little freaks (affectionate) who want to know about the arrangements of emptying the crypt))
What about Jopson’s story in the show?
In the show, Jopson’s story in Ep06 mentions a “nurse from the workhouse” as a neighbour. This is, in fact, entirely possible - for almost every location they lived in ^_^ Workhouses were extremely common at this time.
Here’s a repeat of the big map from before, with the workhouses I could easily visually identify marked in orange - St Marylebone, Clerkenwell, and St Luke’s from left to right - and the previous known addresses of the family in their previous colours.
Always one in walking distance (:
St Luke’s, specifically (top right), had mostly female inmates (the men were sent way off east to Poplar High Street/East India Dock Road). ((I’d never seen that written down before, and always thought it was East India Duck Row. The reality is disappointing, but makes more sense))
Here’s a closer look:
St Luke’s Workhouse is in orange, Gee Street in green. The yellow highlit road is City Road, the blue, Goswell Street, the pink, Old Street. Purple marks St Luke’s chuch, and brown, the hospital. There is more info on the workhouse here. It came to be in this location in 1782, so was well-established by this time. The building was transformed into a hospital around 1868-71.
What about the circus?
It’s quite possible. Circuses were growing in popularity, though not quite yet the expansive big top events, and were performed by touring companies throughout the country. Here’s a bit about their presence in Dickens.
Astley’s Ampitheatre, from 1808-10
Those lower seats are likely permanent fixtures though, I imagine what show Jopson was describing as ‘risers’ were like this, but much higher:
(from Mickey’s Circus. I know exactly what I’m looking for and cannot find a good picture to show it) Think thin wooden benches stacked up like a staircase; a bit like what the US has as ‘bleachers’. But dangerous. They definitely were a real thing, and there are reasons seating evolved.
So the story overall is very plausible, and the writers did good work, as always. (Definitely didn’t happen to our real-life Jopsons, though).
Thank you all for reading. I know I can provide little information of certainty, but I hope I have managed to add something of interest for you. Although I can start with facts, much of this post had to be filled in with guided speculation, drawing from whatever previous research I could find. I have strived to make this evident, and to not press too firmly into my suppositions as they will, of course, be guided by my biases and limited experiences (and lack of resource - I am not a historical professional). At the very least, hopefully it will give you some flavour of life as it was, or a base for further interest.
Huge thanks to @chris-pikes and @dogeared-euclid, without whose kind words this post would likely still be mostly unfinished.
As always, if you have any questions or ideas you’d like to discuss, you may. :)
~~Edit Version~
Thank you again to @explorersaremadeofhope for their help!
And thanks to @nomilkinmyteaplease and @alittletoosmarttobestraight for reminding me about these.
