Talk:John Anster Fitzgerald

Untitled

Request: Anster, John [Martin] (1793-1867), poet and scholar. --129.13.251.76 (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fitzgerald had limited connections with . . . . apparently, other human beings."

This unsourced comment would seem to be at odds with the record, below, of a man who with his wife raised five children

Census of England, 3 April 1881.
Household:
Dwelling 3 Mawson Row, Chiswick, Middlesex. reference: RG11, Fol. 1350/13 page 19.
Name Relation Married Gender Age Birthplace Occupation
John A. FITZGERALD Head M Male 55 Lambeth Artist
Mary A. FITZGERALD Wife M Female 50 Marylebone
Herbert H. FITZGERALD Son U Male 30 St Pancras General Agent
Claude J. FITZGERALD Son U Male 25 Chelsea Artist
Florence H. FITZGERALD Dau U Female 21 Brompton Art Student
Anster F. FITZGERALD Son U Male 14 Fulham Scholar
William T. FITZGERALD Son U Male 10 Brompton Scholar

Eddaido (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Then remove it as unsourced. I removed your refutation because you cited nothing more than a census record that indicates that Fitzgerald had a family. Being the father of a family is not inconsistent with one's having limited connections to other human beings (i.e., few or no connections outside the immediate household). Ewulp (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lambourne (1999; p. 198) has this: "Fitzgerald was a loner, one of those Victorian gentleman whose main domicile was their club, in his case the Savage Club." Ewulp (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information. Will be back. Eddaido (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Library of Congress gives 1832-11-25 citing S. Houfe, Dictionary of British Book Illustrators, 1981. Getty gives 1832, exhibited in London from 1845.

Perhaps "1832" is a transposition error and -11-25 is correct.

One point of entry maybe: Dictionary of British Book Illustrators (Gale Group, Dec 1982; ISBN 0902028731) by Simon Houfe at Amazon. --P64 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I know - such as it is and its unquotable. Fitzgerald's father would have been raised in comfort. It is claimed he with his own father spent time at the French court of Louis XVI including "into the choice circle at the Petite Trianon". In the last decade of the 18th century there was USA's war of independence etc followed by French blockades (Napoleonic wars) followed by the development in the early 19th century of other sources for sugar so Fitzgerald's father's sugar-sourced income collapsed before 1800 and was failing long before that. It is said elsewhere that he (father) became lethargic around the age of 40 (c. 1800) and died of asthma in 1829 aged 70 —2.5 years after marrying (his housekeeper?) and leaving her with at least 5 children under the age of eight. So John Auster Fitzgerald was illegitimate (if legitimated) and probably penniless though through his father well-connected. Only the two siblings born after his parents married were baptised on home turf, St James, Paddington - the others in surrounding areas. No, I have no private family knowledge which might help I just wanted to say why I chose 1823 when there was a baptism which fitted. He might have been a teenager by then. It might also explain why he was affectionate enough to marry and have his own family but maybe more than terse with not particularly welcome associates, particularly living in a "club" after his wife died. By the way they should have been Roman Catholics if that makes any difference for C of E baptism records, I don't know if that was still the usual practice. Eddaido (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)