Looking for the real Fred Ovenell!

[Piorun]

Out of curiosity - if Fred disappears in 1911 how did the family come to have his picture in 1917 ?.

See the postcard on this thread.

Elaine: There's a Lieutenant Frank Taylor Gazetted in August 1919 showing a date of May 1919. This might fit with a Frank Taylor commissioned in 1918. Antony

[centurion]

There are just too many loose ends and inconsistencies:

Fred vanishes some time in 1905 leaving his wife and children in the workhouse yet his sister has a photo of him in 1918! This means that he must still be in communication with his family. More likely that it isn't him in the photos (possibly another Fred).

If he was still in communication with his family why didn't his parents do anything about their grandchildren in the workhouse?

If that is Fred Ovenell in the Cadets who is the Post card to? His Parents but why addressed only to Mrs Ovenell? His second wife? If so the marriage is bigamous and he must be using his real name - very dangerous. If he's using his real name why is there no Gazette entry when he is commissioned?

If it is Fred O in the photos how did he gain a hard to get cadetship and how has he managed to stay so young?

[ElaineW]

Thanks again for all your comments. I'll try to reply to some of the points raised.

How did he (Benjamin Pryke) come to have real Fred's papers in the first place? If Fred was still breathing wouldn't he need them?

I am presuming that Annie still had her marriage certificate to the real Fred Ovenell in her possession. As to the children listed on the service records, one of them was Henry John Ovenell who was Annie's son with the "real" Fred, and the other two were Albert Victor (Pryke) and Edith Evelyn (Pryke) who were Benjamin's children with his wife Jenny May Betts. (Just to confuse matters it appears that Benjamin and Jenny parted company sometime between 1911 and 1914 although they didn't divorce until 1918. Am awaiting copies of the divorce papers from TNA in case they hold any clues).

This still leaves us with the question of why Benjamin needed to become False Fred in the first place –

When Benjamin enlisted in the army he had Annie and three children to support. I presume he used Fred's marriage certificate (and name) in order to get the allowances.

Out of curiosity - if Fred disappears in 1911 how did the family come to have his picture in 1917 ?.

When I said Fred disappears, I am sorry what I meant was I cannot find any record of him after c1905/6 when a reference is made to his address in the Hackney Union Workhouse records.

The photos which I have posted were amongst the effects of one of Fred's sisters - apparently there was also a card from him in Egypt in 1918 and photographs of Egypt but the location of these are not known.

According to one of the other researchers, Fred's sister often spoke about her brother and how she had lost touch with him. It was her dearest wish to know what had happened to him before he died, but it wasn't to be. Apparently it was quite out of character for him to lose touch as they were a close family.

Fred vanishes some time in 1905 leaving his wife and children in the workhouse yet his sister has a photo of him in 1918! This means that he must still be in communication with his family. If he was still in communication with his family why didn't his parents do anything about their grandchildren in the workhouse?

I am in contact with the granddaughter of the "real" Fred Ovenell, daughter of his son Henry John Ovenell. She said to me that Annie dropped the Henry part of the name and called her son John, as the Henry connection referred to the Ovenell side of the family. (Fred's father was called Henry). I am presuming therefore that she either disassociated herself from the Ovenells, or they distanced themselves from her.

I have a far-fetched theory: he was a bigamist (horrible punishments in those days), living with both women (my grandfather managed to divide his time between his two families, though they did know about each other and he didn't marry the mistress). Clearly both Fred and Benjamin were born, but I can only find a mention of death for Pryke (1932).

We have followed our research through with many certificates from both the Ovenell and Pryke sides of the family. There is little doubt in our minds that they are two different people.

Not that it helps much, but re the date on the postcard we had decided it was sent in the first half of 1918 as apparently postcard rates increased to 1d on 3rd June 1918!

Thanks for all the other suggestions on the thread. I'll do a bit of digging and see if I can come up with anything else.

[centurion]

(Just to confuse matters it appears that Benjamin and Jenny parted company sometime between 1911 and 1914 although they didn't divorce until 1918. Am awaiting copies of the divorce papers from TNA in case they hold any clues).

[

If Annie and Benjamin divorced in 1918 they must have been married. Either this was bigamous or Fred and Annie had divorced or Fred was dead.

[ElaineW]

Sorry, was referring to the divorce of Benjamin Pryke and his wife Jenny May Betts.

[Piorun]

Hello again, Elaine. Thank you for allowing us to help and for allowing us into your family. You do realise that the service papers for Fred Ovenell (my "False Fred") appear to show that he was posted to the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force in 1916 which, at the time, was based in Egypt. Perhaps the plot thickens some more? Yours, Antony

PS I think the Frank Taylor link I posted earlier was an infantryman so it may be a false trail. I didn't want to rule it out.

[ElaineW]

A couple of questions about the service papers for "false" Fred.

When it was discovered that Benjamin Pryke had been using the "real" Fred Ovenell's identity why were his service records not renamed to reflect the fact that he was actually Benjamin Pryke. What they did was to add his proper name as an alias.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1219&path=O.Ov.Ove.1455

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1219&path=O.Ov.Ove.1452

I know it is not illegal to change your name, unless of course you do it for illegal purposes, but one would presume Benjamin was claiming allowances for Annie and the children under false pretenses.

Also was it common for the sheet giving personal information to have been written out twice.

There are in fact two collections of papers for Fred Ovenell on Ancestry and on the sheet which gives the childrens' names and dates of birth, there is a variation in dates.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1219&path=O.Ov.Ove.1447

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1219&path=O.Ov.Ove.1463

[Piorun]

These questions have been bothering me, too, Elaine. It is a real annoyance that they didn't change his entire record to Pryke - unless they knew that there were no records for the real Fred Ovenell and it was the easiest way to do it. As to the duplicate papers, I'm sure that there were always two sets of some forms (if not all) and that writing them out twice was the way it was done (carbon paper was only good if pressed or struck hard). False Fred's signature is the same on both sets as is virtually all the information. I think the birth-date difference is simply a clerical error. At the end of his service, False Fred appears to have been up for trial (court-martial or civil I don't know) but "trial (was) deferred" in lieu of his being made to complete his service in the Labour Corps. What that was about, we don't know - although, if memory serves me, he was still claiming his SWB under Fred's name and signature after that. What I can't figure out is why he got transferred to the Worcesters after apparently being ill in the Hampshires. Normal practice if he was unfir for line service with the Hampshires would have been to transfer him to the Labour Corps straight away. His signature as a former Worcester is the same (or very similar) to the signature he used to enlist in the Hampshires five years earlier. Yours, Antony

[centurion]

A lot of men served under aliases - sometimes for personal but perfectly legitimate reasons, sometimes to avoid creditors, relatives of women whom "he had done wrong" or policemen who wanted to ask embarrassing questions etc etc. The forces were not that worried about the use of a nom de guerre so to speak (one has only to think of a certain aircraft man Shaw - ie Lawrence) and would keep the service records under the name under which he joined and served (which allows other service related material to be linked) but would also sometimes keep a record of the man's real name if known (presumably just in case the police with the embarrassing questions come a knocking)

With regard to the allowances. The rules relating to separation allowance and related matters were changed many times during the war. By the end it seems that common law marriages were recognised for this purpose (given the number of men serving it would be almost inevitable that this would have to be done) so that Benjamin would eventually be covered. I have read some of the orders altering the terms but not being legally trained I cannot fathom whether these had a retrospective element or not but effectively it would seem that no action would be taken. The Army still looked for deliberate fraud and I have come across one case where a soldier was asked to produce the wife for whom he was claiming and paid someone to say they were his wife - he was rumbled and I think they both did time. Possibly once the rules had changed to cover common law wives etc Benjamin felt safe in coming clean (but that's pure speculation).

BTW if you don't have an Ancestry subscription the links in the last post don't help.

[corisande]

I was going through the thread, and to clarify things can the OP say

1. It is the consensus that "real Fred" walked out soon after he married and his wife and children went into the workhouse.

2. Nothing more was heard from him by his wife - ever

3. He appears though to have kept in tough with his parents. I assume they did not keep in touch with their daughter in law and grandchildren.

4. You have this photo of an officer cadet in 1918, that is assumed to be the "real" Fred Ovenell. Is this the only surfacing of said Fred after he walked out on his family in 1905.

Do you know he was serving as Fred Ovenell. I am not clear from the thread if his name in the photo was Fred Ovenell, or could he have been serving under a different name?

Does he then disappear and is never heard of again by anyone?

As you are well aware the search options are made easier by the rarity of Ovenell and Pryke. Although the OCR on the LG is temperamental one can usually be sure with just the surname, and a cross-check on the Time (dodgy OCR too - but does not get me any further with Ovenell)

On the surface it looks as if "real" Fred joined up under another name (no MIC or LG entries) The only other remote possibility is that he was i Intelligence, and sometimes these men's records "disappear"

[ElaineW]

In answer to the questions from Corisande.

1. That is certainly my feeling and I don't think the other researchers have any alternative strong feelings on the subject.

2. I understand from his granddaughter (daughter of Henry John Ovenell born 1901) that "Fred packed his bags and disappeared into the night". As to the date of this I don't have any definite information. What I do know is that Henry John's mother always called him John. She dropped the Henry part of the name as it related to the Ovenell side of the family, so presumably she wanted to disassociate herself from them. By 1914 Annie Ovenell (Fred's wife) had met up with Benjamin Pryke, and their son Benjamin was born.

3. I have no evidence of this.

4. I don't have any other evidence of contact between Fred and his parents until the photos c1918. I will check with one of the other researchers who is more directly related to that side of the family as to whether there are any other documents, but the impression I get is that there isn't.

As to whether the real Fred Ovenell was serving under his birth name, we have no idea. Because of the lack of any MIC, service records or entries in the Gazette it does now seem to be unlikely.

I am wondering if the Royal Artillery Historical Society would be able to help with the photo of the platoon. We seem to have an approximate date and location for it now - would they have any record of the names of the soldiers?

[Piorun]

I was going through the thread, and to clarify things can the OP say

2. Nothing more was heard from him by his wife - ever

3. He appears though to have kept in tough with his parents. I assume they did not keep in touch with their daughter in law and grandchildren.

4. You have this photo of an officer cadet in 1918, that is assumed to be the "real" Fred Ovenell. Is this the only surfacing of said Fred after he walked out on his family in 1905.

Do you know he was serving as Fred Ovenell. I am not clear from the thread if his name in the photo was Fred Ovenell, or could he have been serving under a different name?

Does he then disappear and is never heard of again by anyone?

2. To our knowledge so far, nothing more was heard of him by his wife.

3/4. I think all we have to on is a tale of postcard(s) or letters from Egypt and the postcard and photo posted by Elaine. These we suppose to be of the Real Fred as the back of the group shot is signed "Fred", it is addressed to "Mrs. Ovenell" and Elaine believe that the salutation is to "Dear M&F" (i.e., mother and father). Others of us think that it might be to "Mrs. F" - an endearment for "Missus Fred" (i.e., a wife). The postcard front has a marking pointing to the man in the middle and he is the same man in the solo photo.

There are a couple of posts suggesting that a Fred Ovenell was still around later, including a Census report that one of our Pals has suggested shows a Fred Ovenell as the brother of a W.H. Ovenell (who Centurion, I think, noted had served) who was born in 1885. Elaine feels that this Fred was born in 1861 and, therefore, is not her Fred, who was born in 1881. My only doubts are that 24 years is a long span between siblings and I wonder if the 1861 date is a mistake in handwriting interpretation. Yours, Antony

[ElaineW]

There are a couple of posts suggesting that a Fred Ovenell was still around later, including a Census report that one of our Pals has suggested shows a Fred Ovenell as the brother of a W.H. Ovenell (who Centurion, I think, noted had served) who was born in 1885. Elaine feels that this Fred was born in 1861 and, therefore, is not her Fred, who was born in 1881. My only doubts are that 24 years is a long span between siblings and I wonder if the 1861 date is a mistake in handwriting interpretation. Yours, Antony

The Fred Ovenell who has been found in the 1911 census is not the Fred Ovenell we are looking for. He is in fact our Fred's uncle - brother to Henry Edgar Ovenell, Fred's father.

I think he is possibly also the one that is mentioned in the probate documents for William Simmonds that was raised in post #11 as the occupation of grocer matches with the information on the 1911 census.

[corisande]

As far as I can see, Pryke, the false Fred, was only claiming for 3 children. The child, Benjamin, born in 1914 was not claimed.

AS his own two children would have been born Pryke, I cannot see why he did not include the new Benjamin

[corisande]

Elaine

I assume you have tried to contact both the "Heather" and "Gary" on GenesReunited who have assorted Ovenells born in Oxord

[ElaineW]

As far as I can see, Pryke, the false Fred, was only claiming for 3 children. The child, Benjamin, born in 1914 was not claimed.

AS his own two children would have been born Pryke, I cannot see why he did not include the new Benjamin

We are not sure why he didn't claim for Benjamin as well. Benjamin certainly remained with Annie, in fact he changed his name to Wareham when Annie married Leonard Wareham in 1918.

[centurion]

As far as I can see, Pryke, the false Fred, was only claiming for 3 children. The child, Benjamin, born in 1914 was not claimed.

AS his own two children would have been born Pryke, I cannot see why he did not include the new Benjamin

Probably the child was not yet of an age when it would be weaned. Children below that age were deemed to be covered by the wife's allowance.

[corisande]

Annie married Leonard Wareham in 1918.

Sheesh, this is complicated. So am I right in thinking with Annie Tyler

1. She married (cert exists) Fred Ovenell in 1901 and had 2 children by him

2. Fred "disappeared around 1905 and left her and children in workhouse

3. She shacks up with the married Benjamin Pryce between 1911 and 1914, but does not marry him.

4. He goes off to the war and claims allowances for her and 3 children in name of Ovenell

5. She marries Leonard Wareham late in 1918

So what date did Pryke get outed as not being Ovenell. Did he carry on getting allowances after she married in 1918. Did Annie get a divorce from Fred before remarrying Wareham. I notice the registrar uses "Ovenall" not "Ovenell" for her 1918 marriage - not important, but shows the sot of spelling errors.

[Stebie9173]

If Wilfred is a brother then his officers papers may make some reference to family ?

Have you pursued the "profession" angle - his occupation being jeweller / watchmaker ? There may be some records from that profession that track him?

Steve.

[ElaineW]

Corisande - your points 1 - 5 in post #68 are correct, apart from in point 3 I would prefer "she moved in with Benjamin Pryke"

When Annie Ovenell (nee Tyler) married Leonard Wareham in 1918 she stated she was a widow. I have to say I am taking this with a "pinch of salt" at the moment!

The declaration from the "false" Fred was dated 8 March 1920

[Piorun]

Sheesh, this is complicated. So am I right in thinking with Annie Tyler

1. She married (cert exists) Fred Ovenell in 1901 and had 2 children by him

2. Fred "disappeared around 1905 and left her and children in workhouse

3. She shacks up with the married Benjamin Pryce between 1911 and 1914, but does not marry him.

4. He goes off to the war and claims allowances for her and 3 children in name of Ovenell

I think she had one child by Fred.

Pryke seems to have run into disciplinary problems around the time that his wife was looking for a divorce and it may be that the Pay Office had begun to twig that the so-called 'Fred Ovenell' wasn't who he said he was, given that he had a gang of wee Prykes also needing support. Antony

[ElaineW]

Yes, should have added she had Annie Ovenell and Benjamin Pryke had one son, born 1914.

[corisande]

and to add to my post above on Annie Tyler

6. She has a child by Leonard Wareham, another Leonard J Wareham. Difficult to say from he dates to know if the 1918 marriage was forced by the birth, probably not.

Anyway you have no reason to think that Annie divorced Fred, and Fred was still alive at the time of her marriage to Wareham. I accept that the real Fred could have died between the photo being taken in 1918 and Annie marrying in 1918. But I would have thought that his parents would have corrected the CWGC entry if he had been killed.

So that marriage certainly looks bigamous.

[ElaineW]

If Wilfred is a brother then his officers papers may make some reference to family ?

Have you pursued the "profession" angle - his occupation being jeweller / watchmaker ? There may be some records from that profession that track him?

Steve.

I am sure Wilfred Henry is a brother to Fred, although I don't personally have any certificates for him.

Haven't tried the profession angle yet.

[centurion]

Getting back to the post card - the way Mrs Ovenell is written is odd

That doesn't look like an O - are we seeing Ovenell because that's what, from the context, we expect to see?