Find Ancestors

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

New Scottish Census

New Scottish census records

Do you have Scottish ancestors?

Perhaps you do and you just didn't know! Search our brand new Scottish census records today and discover if you have Scottish roots.

Search Scottish Census


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Where is Henry?????

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 13:14

I have been chipping away at this problem over a number of years and it is possible I have got too ‘close’ and now cannot see the obvious that a fresh pair of eyes will immediately spot.

It is a bit long and complicated so settle down with a cuppa and please bear with it.

Amelia Hannah Worwood born 1829 St Georges in the East Middlesex has a relationship with Henry Reay b.1799 Bromfield Cumberland.

They have a daughter Amelia Reay Worwood b.1848 Camberwell Surrey.

In 1851 Amelia Hannah is with her daughter in Camberwell (same address as given in her partner Henry Reay’s will in 1852) claiming to be married but with no husband present.

Partner Henry is found in Newington as a ‘General Merchant’

In April 1852 Henry dies leaving a will in which Amelia Hannah Worwood is described as a single woman with a daughter Amelia Reay Worwood and an unborn child. Their address is as she is found in 1851.

A son Henry is born, after the will is written and just before Henry Reay’s death, in 1852 at Camberwell. Registered as Henry Reay.

The Death Duty register for Henry Reay states that Amelia Hannah Worwood is a single woman. Both the children, Amelia Reay Worwood and Henry Reay Worwood, are listed in the consanguinity column as ‘Str’ (Stranger).
So whatever Amelia may have stated in the census or at her son’s birth registration she was definitely not married to Henry Reay Senior!

In 1856 Amelia Hannah Worwood marries William Edmund Fielding as Worwood.

In 1857 an Administration Summons is taken out in Chancery against the Executors of the will on behalf of Amelia Reay Worwood by her Grandfather James Worwood and her stepfather William Edmund Fielding.

In 1858 Henry Reay Worwood is baptised late at St Dunstans Stepney.
In 1859 Amelia Reay Worwood is baptised late at St Dunstans Stepney.

Both entries give the dates of birth and mother as Amelia Hannah Worwood, a single woman. The entry for Henry Reay Worwood also gives his father as Henry Reay and then his father’s name is crossed out.
The address at both baptisms is Rutland Street where James Worwood, Grandfather, is living.

In 1859 duty is paid on Amelia Hannah Fielding nee Worwood, Amelia Reay Worwood and Henry Reay Worwood’s inheritances.

All of the above named are missing from the 1861 census....Unless anyone can find any of them.

In 1870 Amelia Reay Worwood marries John Bell.

In 1871, 1881 and 1891 Amelia Hannah and husband William Fielding are living in Penge Surrey as are Amelia Reay and her husband John Bell. No sign of Henry Reay Worwood anywhere in any census as far as I can see.
1871 for Amelia Hannah and William Fielding for reference

In January 1894 Amelia Hannah Fielding nee Worwood dies (No will, administration granted to her husband) and an entry is made in the death duty register for Henry Reay to this effect. Directly below this a new entry is made.....

Amelia Reay Bell (bracketed with) Henry Reay and duty paid June 1894.

So where is Henry between his baptism in 1858, the duty paid on his inheritance in 1859 (both as Henry Reay Worwood) and an additional entry in his father’s death duty register in 1894 as Henry Reay? And, come to that, where is he after 1894 and in what name?

I have Ancestry (but not worldwide), Findmypast and have ‘Googled’ but can find nothing that appears to relate to ‘my’ Henry Junior.....Henry Reay b.1799, his siblings and ancestors feature heavily in records and I do have those references.

So was Henry Reay Worwood in the Army or Navy (not that I can find him in the online records), gone abroad or wafting in the wind and only appearing when money was in the offing? Or, perish the thought, he died young and naughty mummy pretended he was alive to claim his inheritance. However as Henry Reay Worwood is mentioned in his father’s death duty register (as Henry Reay) after his mother’s death it would mean a big collusion by his nearest and dearest!

Have you now given up on your ‘cuppa’ and taken to something stronger? He is certainly driving me to drink!

Many thanks in advance for any ideas, suggestions or other help with this.


The lady in my avatar is Amelia Hannah Worwood's sister in law :-)


Choccy Report 1 Oct 2012 14:11

His name has been corrected by someone to Henry Reay Worwood (not convinced yet that it is him)

1891 England Census

Name: Henry R Norwood
[Henry Reay Warwood]
Age: 37
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1854
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Frances Norwood
Gender: Male
Where born: Islington, London, England

Civil parish: Walthamstow
Ecclesiastical parish: St Michael
County/Island: Essex
Country: England

Street Address:


Condition as to marriage:


Employment status: View image

Registration district: West Ham
Sub-registration district: Walthamstow
ED, institution, or vessel: 32
Neighbors: View others on page
Piece: 1358
Folio: 108
Page Number: 51
Household Members: Name Age
Henry R Norwood 37
Frances Norwood 37
Henry C Norwood 15
William S Norwood 13
Charles J Norwood 12
Herbert S Norwood 10
Ernest A Norwood 8
Fredk D Norwood 5
Eleanor J Norwood 8/12

Source Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 1358; Folio: 108; Page: 51; GSU roll: 6096468.

think this is their marriage -

Marriages Mar 1875 (>99%)

DAY Lucy W.Ham 4a 106
>>>>>HUNT Frances W. Ham 4a 106
Mitchell George West Ham 4a 106
>>>>>Norwood Henry Robert West Ham 4a 106

Births Mar 1854 (>99%)

Norwood Henry Robert Hackney 1b 286

this census can probably be eliminated?!

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 14:20


You are right not to be convinced...

On Ancestry for the 1891 there is the alternative name of Henry Reay Warwood added to an entry for a Henry R Norwood who had married a Frances Hunt in 1875.

However tracking that Henry Norwood back and forward in the censuses, including the 1911 where he is Henry Robert Norwood, I was pretty sure he was Henry Robert Norwood baptised 1854 Hackney the son of Charles Norwood and Christiana Stevenson who married 1848 at Islington.

There are two trees on Genes with Henry, Charles and Christiana. I sent messages and they came back confirming that Henry R Norwood is Henry Robert Norwood the son of Charles and Christiana Norwood and therefore not ‘my’ Henry.

Thanks Choccy......Maybe I should have mentioned that :-(

But one never knows how much to include or disclude.



Astra Report 1 Oct 2012 14:20

Is this her in 1851??

REAY, Amelia Wife Married F 21 1830 Agent
Rotherhithe, Surrey VIEW
REAY, Amelia Daughter F 2 1849
Camberwell, Surrey VIEW
WORNECOST, Henry Visitor M 12 1839
Mile End Old Town, Middlesex VIEW

Piece: 1582 Folio: 139 Page: 46 Registration District: Camberwell Civil Parish: Camberwell Municipal Borough: Address: 14, Bath Place, Camberwell County: Surrey

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 14:36

Yes Astra

Henry 'Wornesost' may well be her brother Henry Worwood b.1840 badly transcribed by the enumerator.

Henry was born 1840 Mile End Old Town and not enumerated, as far as I can see given he only gives initials, with their father in 1851.

Henry then went on to follow in his father James Worwood's footsteps as a Lighterman.




Choccy Report 1 Oct 2012 15:09

brick wall at the moment!

Chris Ho :)

Chris Ho :) Report 1 Oct 2012 15:21

(agrees with Choccy, a well hidden Henry, I reckon!, and the rest 1861)

Chris :)

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 15:23



At the very least you confirm my 'non' findings hint at a real brick wall.


Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 15:28

Chris Ho

Another seasoned researcher, you, agrees :-D

At the very least it confirms I have done my best as far as present resources allow.....

Maybe one day the mystery/brickwall of Henry will come tumbling down!

Many thanks again to both you and Choccy, also to Astra


Chris Ho :)

Chris Ho :) Report 1 Oct 2012 15:41

Lol Chris, makes me feel quite guilty, not coming up with something, after you sat and typed such a well detailed posting!!.

Have another cuppa', something may well turn up...

Chris :)

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 1 Oct 2012 16:08


After the sun sinks below the yard arm I may go for something stronger ;-)

Please don't feel guilty.

I always type my problems into a word document, changing info as I find it, then copy and paste into something like this.

So it really didn't take much effort at all ;-)



Choccy Report 1 Oct 2012 16:12

what about birth certificates of children ?

Births Jun 1860 (>99%)

FIELDING Alfred Arthur Newington 1d 196

Births Dec 1861 (>99%)

FIELDING Ruth Rose Newington 1d 220

might lead to them in the 1861 census

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 2 Oct 2012 14:12


Sorry I have just seen your addition.....Email notification of watched threads is apparantly not working for me :-(

I think you are probably right as my 'thorough' search of Walworth in 1861, through Ancestry and FMP, hasn't found the Fielding family either together or as individuals.

It is funny that I have never been able to trace Grandfather James Worwood in 1861, however part of Rutland Street is missing so maybe they are all there......Or they all went on an extended foreign holiday with the inheritance :-D

If I ever get to the bottom of this I will certainly post on here again.

Many thanks to you all again for your help.


Janet Report 2 Oct 2012 15:36

As there doesn't seem to be much progress can I just ask?.

On the 1851 census Henry Reay describes himself as a General Merchant born Gill Cumberland aged 45 so presumable born c.1806 not 1799. Residing at Newington, unmarried. Thats providing I am looking at the right census.

I found a bankrupcy,( I know that information isn't required but is it of interest? )Henry Reay and John Reay Jnr Wine Merchants of Mark Lane.? London.

I then found some death notices from the Cumberland archives which connect this address in Mark Lane with another Reay from the Gill Cumberland.

REAY- On the 18th Nov. 1856, aged 60, JANE ELIZABETH, the wife of JOHN REAY, Esq., of Glocester-gardens, Hyde-park, and of the Gill, Cumberland.

REAY. - On the 27th April, 1882, at St. Leonard’s Mary S. REAY, daughter of the late Mr. John REAY, of the Gill, Cumberland.

REAY- On the 6th March 1846, at Gill-house, in the county of Cumberland, after a lingering illness, William REAY, Esq., late of Mark-lane, London, aged 43.

I appreciate that you may already have this information as it isn't what you have asked for, but if not could it give some background to your Henry Reay?........I will finish my cuppa now-jl

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 2 Oct 2012 19:19

Hi Janet

Yes that's Henry in 1851 being a little untruthful about his age, and you are spot on with the other info for the Reays!

Funny thing is that poor old bankrupt Henry, the case even appears in a scholarly book, died leaving an absolute fortune!

Sadly Henry isn't my direct line, Amelia is my 2xGGrandfather's sister, so we never benefited, which is about par for the course with my lot.

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this.....Have a biscuit with the next cuppa as a pat on the back :-D



Janet Report 3 Oct 2012 10:13

I will take your advice to heart, not the pat on the back, but I am really partial to a biscuit or two-lol-j