www.925-1000.com

He married Catherine Tebbot at St Martin in the Fields in 1800.
Their son Charles Thomas Fox (Grimwade p.513-4, 748) was christened at St Bartholomew the Great in 1801.
Other christenings of their children were recorded at St Luke, Finsbury from 1802-12 without detail of their father’s trade or address.
The christening of their son George at St Luke’s in 1816 (born 1814) records their address as Old Street and his father as a silversmith.
In addition to son Charles Thomas his sons Young William in 1830, Frederick in 1834, and George in 1840 all applied for freedom by patrimony in the Clothmakers Company.
He was recorded on the 1841 UK Census as a silversmith aged 65 years living at Alfred Terrace, Islington.
Several deaths of a Charles Fox are recorded in the Islington area 1841-51 but without sufficient information to identify between them.
Catherine was recorded on the 1851 UK Census as a widow.
Further history of the Fox silversmith business can be found in Volume I pages 162-3 of The Directory of Gold and Silversmiths Jewellers and Allied Traders 1838-1914 by John Culme.

There are suggestions that the silversmith identified by Grimwade as Charles Fox I may have been the second Charles Fox to have entered a mark at Goldsmiths Hall.

In The Directory of Gold & Silversmiths Jewellers & Allied Traders 1838-1914 John Culme refers to Charles Fox and James Turner in partnership entering a mark in 1801 from 3 Old Street, going their separate ways in 1804, after which Fox moved to 139 Old Street from where he entered a mark in 1804, being joined there by his son Charles junior around 1822.
John Culme goes on to note:
Charles Fox signed himself junior when entering a mark at Goldsmiths Hall from 139 Old Street in 1822; Other marks were entered from the same address until 1838;
Charles Fox senior retired in 1827 or 1828. This conclusion seems drawn from the fact that both Charles Fox senior and Charles Fox junior were named on insurance policies for 139 Old Street in July 1827 but an endorsement on the policy for Charles Fox junior in June 1828 re-allocated the sums insured;
Charles Fox junior continued the business until around 1841 at which point his sons Charles Thomas and George took over and entered their first mark from 139 Old Street in 1841.

The evidence of Charles Thomas and George Fox being made free by patrimony in the Clothworkers Company has again been reviewed. Their applications each show a date of 1801 for their father’s freedom.
The indentures signed in 1792 for a Charles Fox to be an apprentice of Henry Green, freeman of the Clothworkers Company, have been reviewed. The reverse side of the indentures shows the apprentice was turned over in 1799 to Thomas Fray of the Goldsmiths Company. Following convention the apprentice was made free in the Clothworkers Company in 1801.
The indentures refer to the apprentice Charles Fox being the son of Thomas Fox not Charles Fox however and negate a family connection at 139 Old Street between the Charles senior (1804-28) and Charles Thomas and George (from 1841) suggested above.

Another suggested scenario is that the Charles Fox who entered the 1801 and 1804 marks may have been of Irish lineage and somehow had a family connection with the others at 139 Old Street, retiring from the business in 1822 and dying in 1838.
As previously shown he was clearly not the father of the Charles Fox who became a freeman in the Clothworkers Company in 1801 and who was the father of Charles Thomas and George.
No other evidence has been found to support the suggestion.

Another suggested scenario is that the Charles Fox made free in 1801 could have been the partner of James Turner from 1801, at 139 Old Street until 1822 as plain Charles Fox and there as Charles Fox senior until 1841, Charles Thomas Fox being referred to as Charles junior from 1822 until 1841.The order of business set out by John Culme provides for the possibility of Charles Fox I being at 139 Old Street from 1804-1828 and his son Charles Fox II there from 1822-41.
As matters stand this scenario has my interest, particularly as it’s my own.

It would be a blessing to me and to the benefit of Forum members who can stand the further excitement or are intending to take a written examination on this subject if any alternative scenarios are substantiated by evidence please.

Mike

Dear Mike

I'm afraid I cannot help with your Charles Fox family conundrum. What I can do is add something to the mix and ask for your help. I came across your very interesting post when I was investigating the marks on a pair of coasters. The marks seem to be Charles Fox II, however the date stamp is from 1854 which is after he stopped working in 1841. Do you know if his son could have used the same mark? Or can you shed any light as to what may have been going on here?



Thank you so much for your help. I know this is not the right thread to post hallmark questions in but I thought since it's directly related to this post I might get away with it.

Thank you for your help.

Best wishes,

Emma

Hi Emma,

I'll answer for Mike as unfortunately he passed away last October.

The maker's mark in your image was registered on the 9th May 1838. The date letter on your coaster is that of 1838, not 1854. Although the date letters are very, very similar, and are easily confused following a period of wear, in this case 1838 can be confirmed by the style of the Duty mark, Leopard's Head and Lion Passant as different engravers were used at these dates.


For members thoughts on Mike see: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=34855

Trev.

Dear Trev

I'm so sorry to hear about Mike. From the tributes it seems he had a wonderful sense of humour, I wish I could have known him.

Thanks for your help with the marks. I was going back and forth with 1838 and 1854 so it's great to get an answer.

Best wishes

Emma