The Curious Case of Mary Orchard

The story of a girl from Bath who led a seemingly dual life in Maidenhead and London at the height of Victorian Britain.

Bath Guildhall and Abbey 1819, David Cox.jpg

Bath Guildhall & Abbey 1819, David Cox

Introduction

This tale remains open to the interpretation of the reader; I merely present the evidence as gathered. Please forgive the following genealogical background; I do think that it provides valuable context as to the story of Mary Orchard which necessarily only really begins at her adulthood.

In 1787, during the earliest years of Britain’s Industrial Revolution, just after the thirteen colonies of North America were lost, a periwig maker and hairdresser of Bath, Somerset, England named William Orchard provided the bond of marriage for his son Walter and bride Eleanor Allen.

William's wealth, either earned through the sale of fabulous periwigs or inherited, was sensibly invested in a number of properties in the Bath area. By 1765, he had also been acting as an estate agent from a property on the Abbey Green, and in 1779 he formally announced the move of his periwig business there (William Orchard & Son). He died in 1789, leaving a will which currently remains un-digitised in the Somerset Archives, and bears future investigation.

The Orchard Tree

Walter and Eleanor went on to have four children: William Henry (1788), Eleanor Elizabeth Sophia (1792), Walter James (1794), and our central protagonist Mary (1802). Walter James sadly died in 1801 at 7 years old.

Eleanor opened a perfumery business in her husband's peruke-making and hairdressing shop on Abbey Green in 1793. It moved to the property next-door in 1794. In 1795, Eleanor inherited the estate of Ann Smith, a spinster of Bath, who was a witness to Eleanor's marriage in 1787. As Eleanor's parentage is insofar untraceable (and note that prestigious Bath surname of the time 'Allen'), it is yet to be determined what, if any, relation Ann Smith was to her. Indeed, as Ann's estate subsequently reverted to her nieces and nephews upon Eleanor's death (in fact 40 years afterward when the solicitors responsible finally caught up to it), it seems more likely that she wasn't a relation at all. Sadly, it seems that Ann's will, which would have cleared this up, was destroyed by enemy action in 1942 at Exeter - all that survives is mention in newspapers and a handwritten index of wills completed in 1939. Hopefully, this will itself provide a subject for a future article. For now, know that Eleanor certainly found herself of independent means (there was still over £1,000 left in the estate's value by 1879).

Walter was declared bankrupt in July 1796 and advertised the fixtures, fittings, and property at Abbey Green for auction, though as William Henry was apprenticed to him as a peruke-maker in 1797, it is possible he simply carried on his business in a reduced capacity. There is no further evidence of Walter or William Henry performing any further peruke-making though; in his adulthood William Henry describes himself as a 'proprietor of houses' and presumably sells off the family's portfolio of property to support his lifestyle.

A Female Exodus from Bath

A Maria Orchard was born in Bath around 1811; however there is no baptism record for her amongst the C of E and non-conformist registers. It seems most likely that Maria was born to an 18 year old Eleanor Elizabeth Sophia out of wedlock. Discussion on Maria's parentage is contentious amongst her descendants and hence is best saved for an article particular to her.

Whether or not it was this illegitimate birth divided the Orchard family remains to be resolved. What we do know is that Walter and William remained predominantly in Bath for the rest of their lives, where Eleanor and her daughters (and her likely granddaughter) did not.

The elder sister, Eleanor, was first in the family to make an appearance in records outside of Bath. In 1825, she married Thomas Louch at St. Giles in the Fields in Central London. Her marriage records contains the signatures of the two witnesses; her mother Eleanor and her sister Mary. These signatures are important, as they can be matched with others found in records described shortly.

Thomas Louch, son of Thomas and Ann, hailed from Taplow in Buckinghamshire, a village on north side of the River Thames between Bath and London. Baptised in 1791, he had a younger brother, William, who was born in 1793. They were both farmers.

Thomas and Eleanor’s only child, Eleanor Sophia (named for her mother and grandmother), was born in 1827 at Maidenhead in Berkshire. It is worth noting that although the Taplow and Maidenhead are in separate counties, they are only separated by the Thames and are direct geographical neighbours, reached by crossing the Thames using the Bath Road. The Louches did not remain in London, and Maidenhead goes on to become a significant location in the story ahead.

Southern England & Wales

Interlude

One more event occurs before we reach Mary; that of the marriage of Maria Orchard and John Fitzpatrick. Of John Fitzpatrick, he appears apropos of nothing and similarly disappears as a phantom. His mystery is one familiar to genealogists likely enough created by a lack of records. DNA tracing has postulated an as-yet unproven theory pertaining to Irish origins and emigration to the USA, but his story is for another time and place.

Maria’s marriage record contains the signatures of four witnesses – Francis McKenzie, James Smith, Emma Orchard and Eleanor Orchard. The signature of Eleanor Orchard is a distinct match for the Eleanor Orchard who witnessed the Orchard and Louch marriage of 1825; that is Eleanor Orchard (née Allen) the elder from the beginning of this story. As to whom Emma Orchard may have been, that remains undetermined for now.

1825

1830

The subsequent census records are where we learn that Maria Orchard (then Fitzpatrick) was born in Bath around 1811. Those census records also tell us that her daughter Ellen (the name being the diminutive form of Eleanor) Catherine Fitzpatrick was born in 1832 in Soho, London, within a mile of the two London churches mentioned so far. As with her mother, there are no baptism records.

We will return to Maria and Ellen toward the end of this tale. Before we finally come to explore the life and times of Mary Orchard, we neatly bookend this chapter of the Orchard genealogy. Walter Orchard's sister Anne died on the 1st February 1837 at the Kingsmead Terrace property in Bath, followed by Walter himself a few days later. They lived together there in their eighties, which was remarked upon in their obituary, though their causes of death was not.

Three months later, Eleanor Orchard the elder (née Allen) died at Taplow. It is reasonable to assume that she had remained close to her daughter Eleanor's family at Maidenhead and perhaps any Louches at Taplow.

Now, let us properly meet Mary Orchard, who leaps out of the records at us with a number of peculiarities.

A Mary of Many Faces

Mary Orchard was married at St. Martin in the Fields, the same church as her sister, on 27th September 1838 – a year after the teenage Queen Victoria took the throne. Mary married her brother-in-law, the aforementioned William Louch. They presented for banns on 24th August, 2nd September and 9th September. It could well be relevant that the two witness signatures for the marriage were church regulars and not relations of either family. William’s residence at the time is given as Maidenhead. Mary’s is given just as Oxford Street. Her father is named as Walter Orchard, wig maker. None of that is overly unexpected, though the ambiguity of 'Oxford Street' is of note. It could even be that news of her father's death 20 months prior had not reached her, as his profession is given, rather than the term 'deceased', though that is not conclusive.

Eleven days later, at Trinity Church a mile and a half to the north, Mary Orchard, spinster, married Henry Thomas Edell, a ‘Letter Carrier in Twopenny Post Office’. The pair lived at 33 Wells Street, just off Oxford Street. That may not pique anyone’s curiosity; there must have been a number of Mary Orchards in London at the time. However, Mary’s father is listed as Walter Orchard, hair merchant. In this marriage, one witness is Thomas Cheshire, a church regular, and the other is Sarah Osgathorpe, also of Bath (and henceforth of Marylebone); a young lady of 20 who never herself married. Comparing Mary’s signature on this marriage with the one at St. Martin’s at the end of September produces a match.

1825

September 1838

October 1838

Still, as a genealogist, I accept that this may be circumstantial and that the matching signatures could well be coincidence. The alternative, that the same Mary Orchard married two different men two weeks apart, is quite bizarre.

We already know a little about the Louches, thanks to the existing family attachment to the Orchards, but what of the Edells? Henry Thomas’ father was Henry Edell, a tailor. At 34, Henry senior married the 18-year-old Mary Wakely at St. Anne’s in Soho in 1797. Two children followed: Henry Thomas in 1803 and Mary in 1808. Mary married William Wheadon at All Souls in 1832, having a son, James in 1835. Then, in early1837, both of the Edell parents died. The fact that they were buried on the same day suggests a tragic accident or disease. By 1838 when their second child Mary was born, the Wheadons had left London for Beaminster, Dorset, some distance away. The birth of another son, George followed in 1840. Sadly, William passed away in 1840 and the child George in 1842. Mary did have another son which she named George in 1848 (the father not noted) and henceforth worked as a schoolmistress, remaining in Beaminster until 1890 when she passed. I describe her life in brief because it illustrates how Henry Thomas Edell was left alone in London after his parents died, and that his marriage to Mary Orchard in 1838 came out of a time where both had very recently lost both parents.

Just over a year after these marriages, Mary conceived her only child, a daughter, and she gave birth later that year on 5th September 1840 at Maidenhead. There is a significant delay before the baptism on 23rd February 1841. She was baptised as Emma Rosalina Angelina Mary Ann, daughter of William and Mary Louch, not in Maidenhead or its surrounding villages, but back at St. Martin’s in the Fields, where William and Mary were married.

The next day, on 24th February 1841 at Trinity Church, Emma Rosalina Angelina Mary Ann was baptised, daughter of Henry Thomas and Mary Edell of 33 Wells Street; the same address used at marriage. Both this record and the other baptism record confirm the fathers’ profession as per their marriage certificates. Both records also confirm the date of birth of the child as 5th September 1840. These facts will have convinced most readers that indeed something irregular is afoot. The remainder will have any doubt assuaged below.

The Louch Tree

The Edell Tree

Census night on 6th June 1841 in Maidenhead, at the home of Mary’s sister, sees Thomas, Eleanor and Mary Ann Louch residing in a house on the High Street. ‘Mary Ann’ is the name which is henceforth used by Thomas and Eleanor’s daughter who was baptised ‘Eleanor Sophia’. Also present are William, Mary, and ‘Angelina’ Louch; the latter listed at nine months old. Angelina is one of Mary’s child’s baptized middle names.

There is no sign of Henry Thomas Edell at any location on the 1841 census. It is unknown if that was because he was travelling, or simply didn’t answer the door of his London home that night.

Murder in the Meadow?

The following census of 30th March 1851 has Mary Orchard using her other married name of Mary Edell, with her daughter as Angelina Edell. They are residing at 6 Howland Street in Fitzrovia, Central London. Mary is listed as ‘wife’ to the head of the household, but the household head is not present.

This is the point where any doubts regarding coincidence and mistaken identity can be quashed. On this night, we find Henry Thomas Edell at the Louch house on Maidenhead High Street, described as a ‘Visitor’ with the profession of ‘Gentleman’. His marital status is left blank, where William Louch’s is ‘Married’. There is no doubt that Henry was married, and every other row on the document is marked ‘Mar’ (married), ‘U’ (unmarried) or ‘Widow’ as you’d expect. I imagine the census-taker might have been witness to an uncomfortable disagreement on semantics that night, which left him bewildered and unable to complete his form fully.

This raises all sorts of questions that there seems to be no answer for. Did Henry and William, the two spouses, know of each other all along? Had Henry discovered Mary’s double-life and travelled to confront the Louches, coincidentally on census night? Was it Henry and William who were actually the pair in love?

It is doubtful that it is that latter happy circumstance, sadly, as a newspaper report from the Berkshire Chronicle on 3rd December 1853 suggests:

“On the same day [28 Nov 1853], at Maidenhead, [the jury returned a verdict] on the body of Henry Edell, aged 45 years. The deceased was formerly a Post office clerk, but had lately been in a state of imbecility, and was on a visit to his brother-in-law, Mr. Louch [Thomas], of the above place. On Wednesday [23 Nov 1853] deceased went out about one o’clock, and was not seen after four o’clock, when, as it was very foggy, it is presumed that in going across the meadow he accidentally walked into the stream near the Chapel Arches, where his body was discovered on the day of the inquest [the following Monday]. When deceased was missed, it was imagined that he had proceeded to London, as he had stated he should do a day or two before, and had on two previous occasions left for London without saying he was going. But inquiries being made in town without gaining any information, search was made in the ditches, which led to the discovery of the body. Verdict, accordingly.”

A look at a map of the time shows that Chapel Arches are under the High Street in the centre of Maidenhead. The ditches and meadow to the north of the High Street aren’t treacherous, and the flow of the stream southward is culverted from that meadow to the south side of the High Street where the stream returns at the Chapel Arches. It may be relevant to note that an 1856 sale of land describes ‘meadow land’ to the south of Chapel Arches as owned by Messrs. Louch (i.e. the brothers).

Furthermore, there is the description of Henry’s imbecility. It is presumed that it was the Louches who would be giving details to the officer or jury. How reliable was that description? Could it have been based entirely on a man seemingly suffering from a paranoia that meant he made outrageous claims about his brother-in-law’s brother, perhaps based somewhat on the physical appearance of his daughter who had just reached puberty? How much of an imbecile is a man who can, on at least two occasions (and likely more), catch a coach from Fitzrovia to Maidenhead and back without assistance? It seems only to have been mentioned to support the theory that he was so weak-minded that he could have accidentally fallen into a stream and died. If truth, it seems a cruel irrelevance to mention with regards one’s brother-in-law, as it does nothing but disparage him. However, to an officer or jury, it would seem an easily accepted reason to close the case. Henry was neither a resident of the county, nor did he have anyone to press the matter on his behalf - except his wife and her family, of course - but it seems there was no intention from them to do that.

We know he visited in 1851 and at least once more before this ill-fated day of 1853; both times without his wife. The purpose of those visits is entirely curious – why not take your wife and child with you to see her sister and niece?

At this point, perhaps, you might expect Mary Orchard (or Edell, which she had settled on at this time) to sell the wealthy late Henry’s assets and retire with the poor farmer William, leaving the Edell name behind forever. This was not the case. There is nothing to suggest that Mary ever settled with William. Might she have suspected foul play with Henry’s death?

Death at Drury Lane

The next time Mary Orchard enters written record is on the 20th August 1855 in the Proceedings of the Old Bailey. However, she reports her name to the court not as Mary, but as Emma. As an aside, you’ll recall that ‘Emma Orchard’ was a witness to Maria Orchard’s marriage, but that signature and Mary’s are a very different script. Still, perhaps there was a familial reason she favoured ‘Emma’. Newspaper reports refer to Mary as ‘Emma Hill Edell’, but as there is no reference to the ‘Hill’ name in the Old Bailey transcripts, this is more likely a journalistic error.

The case was against a couple whom Mary had rented an attic room from on Drury Lane as storage for furniture. The couple had removed the furniture and sold it without permission.

An interesting piece of information held within the depositions is that of the name of her daughter, who also recorded a statement. She gives her full name to the court as “Emma Rosalina Augusta Mary Ann Edell”. The Angelina, which her mother used as her first name on both the 1841 and 1851 census, seems to have been exchanged for ‘Augusta’, without contradiction from her mother who is also present.

Another useful piece of information therein is that of the furniture being stored; “…seventeen chairs, a pianoforte, seven tables, and a great many other things.” Seven tables and seventeen chairs suggest a large property. ‘Emma’ (Mary) gives her address as 6 Howland Street. In directories in the years following, her name is listed at that address as a tobacconist’s shop. It seems that Mary may have cleared out the downstairs rooms to convert a well-situated house into a mid-terrace convenience store.

Later, some of the ‘other things’ stored are described as “twenty-seven or twenty-eight pictures, some of which were portraits of my deceased husband.” A newspaper article reporting on the case states the value of the furniture to be £150 (£12,000 in 2017). That value, plus commissioned portraits, suggests wealth. I have been unable to find detail of Henry’s reputation or doings in any publication that could justify such – it is quite possible that his father, the tailor, made fortune enough to keep his son as a ‘gentleman’, with further funds coming from the move from his parents’ house at Wells Street to Howland Street. Mary didn’t feel the need to sell the surplus furniture, so she wasn’t desperate for cash at that time. There is no evidence that any portraits of an Edell are extant.

In May 1859 there is a further curiosity. Thomas Louch, brother-in-law of Mary, visited 22 Russell Court, Drury Lane and died following and eleven-hour long apoplectic attack; this location being two hundred feet from where Mary had her furniture stored a few years earlier. The 1861 census shows three families at that address, but none with obvious connections to Berkshire or Bath. In 1851, a tailor (and sometime thief) from Bath called Charles Shrapnell lived there; for now, this seems coincidence, as there is no obvious connection to the Orchards.

Decline

The 1861 census places ‘Emma’ and her daughter Emma at the Richmond Buildings in Soho, off St. Ann’s Place. Soho had long been the home of the aristocracy in London, but at this point in history they had moved on, resulting in a decline of a once up-market area. The Edells’ neighbours included dozens of German and Russian tailors, all unmarried men in their 20s. Mary gives her age as 48; she had just turned 59. Emma claims to be just 18, though she is 20. Mary has no job listed and Emma has asked the census-taker to record ‘Professional’ as her profession.

That is the last we see of the younger Emma. If she married, emigrated, or died, there seems to be no record. Her unique string of names doesn’t occur again, and any subsequent reference to the name ‘Edell’ in any searched records are not linked to this family. It can also be inferred that the Edell ladies ran out of money, with the property and the furnishings having presumably been sold to keep them in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.

On the High Street in Maidenhead, Eleanor Louch lived as a widow with her brother-in-law William. William had placed an advertisement to sell the house immediately after his brother’s death in 1859, but either he was not able to sell or Eleanor convinced him otherwise. Eleanor’s daughter Mary Ann (the one baptised Eleanor Sophia) had married Edwin Fry in 1850 and moved first to Cookham (to the north) and subsequently Winkfield (to the south) by 1861 with her own family.

In 1869 William Louch died and left his estate to his niece Mary Fry (née Louch). By 1871 Eleanor had moved from the High Street house to Park Street. Edwin Fry’s fortunes as a grocer and victualler seemed not have paid off and he moved his family in with his mother-in-law, taking up gardening. They didn’t get on – in 1870 Edwin broke “a cup and saucer, plate, and jug” of hers and ended up in court, where the magistrates quite sensibly advised the duo to “live together more peaceably.” They didn’t have to do so for too long, as Eleanor passed away in 1873.

By the 1871 census Mary Orchard has returned to Maidenhead as a visitor, using the Louch name. Rather than staying with her sister Eleanor's family, she is recorded as a visitor of her niece Maria Fitzpatrick (née Orchard). Only 9 years separate the pair in age. Similarly to Mary, Maria had been living in Central London with her only daughter, Ellen until at least 1861. Both Fitzpatricks had worked as domestic servants, suggesting they had no wealth of their own. By 1871, they lived in a Victorian terrace behind the large brewery off the High Street (all long-since demolished to make way for the shopping centre).

It is reasonable to assume Mary remained there; she died in 1880, with the death registered at the nearby registry office in Cookham. Maria had died four years earlier in 1876, and with them all memory of the family's origins in Bath and of the hairdresser to the Lords.

Descent

Edwin and Mary Ann Fry’s eldest daughter Louisa married George Jones, a hairdresser, who by 1891 had a successful business in Camden Town. One of the men who worked for him and lodged with his family was 20-year-old William Robert Astill. William was the son of Albert Astill and Ellen Astill (née Fitzpatrick).

After learning the trade from his second cousin once-removed, he remained a remained a hairdresser until his retirement. When he died aged 85 in 1956, he still had the tools of his trade - his razors and shaving cup. These heirlooms have descended through our family; the razors sit in a glass cabinet in my mother’s residence and the shaving cup was taken to New Zealand with another of his granddaughters.

William Robert Astill Shaving Razors.jpg

Click the pedigree to magnify