Vital Statistics
Charles Powell Tronson Pinsent: 1849 – 1904 GRO0133 (Merchant, Secretary Madras Harbour Trust, Madras (Chennai), India)
Harriet Ann Soden: 1860 – 1949
Married: Madras, India: 1879
Children by Harriet Ann Soden:
Gwendolyn Edith Mary Pinsent: 1880 – 1968 (Married John Hawkshaw Croysdale, Portsea, Hampshshire, 1907)
Frances Maud Pinsent: 1882 – 1962 (Married George Frederick Markwick, Portsea, Hampshire, 1908)
Harold Charles Frank Pinsent: 1884 – 1968 (Married Constance Amy Hildige Johnson, Portsea, Hampshire, 1912)
Phyllis Charlotte Pinsent: 1894 – 1981 (Married Harry Adrian Roberts, Portsea, Hampshire, 1918)
Family Branch: India
PinsentID: GRO0133
References
Click here to view close family members.
Charles Powell Tronson Pinsent was the second eldest son of Mr. Henry John Pinsent by his wife Charlotte Best (née Sharpe). Henry worked for the “Pacific and Orient Steam Navigation Company” (P. &. O. Co.) in London and Charles was born in Highgate (near Hampstead Heath in north London. The family relocated to Southampton a few years later – so that Henry could be near the Company’s primary port. This was in 1853. Charles grew up in Portswood, on the outskirts of Southampton, with two brothers and three sisters.
In the 1840s, the “P. & O. Co.” was awarded a contract to carry mail to the orient, and it grew rapidly as Britain grew into a global power with wide-ranging colonies and protectorates to manage. In the early days the “P. and O. Co.” ran ships into the Mediterranean and used a rail link to transfer passengers and freight to the Red Sea. There, they had other ships ready to carry the mail, freight and passengers out to India and elsewhere. However, after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, it was able to run its ships strait on through to India, Australia and points east – including Hong Kong and China. It was quite a challenge logistically and it required a large staff. The “P & O. Co.” realized that one way to keep its existing employees happy and acquire new ones was by building a school for their children. Charles and his younger brother (Frederick Henry Davison Pinsent) attended the company’s high school.
Charles passed his first set of exams at the “Collegiate & Commercial School” in Southampton in the summer of 1863 (Hampshire Advertiser: Friday 25th July 1863). He would have been around fourteen years old, so they were probably high-school entrance exams. His brother Frederick attended the school at much the same time and the both played cricket. To make life interesting, they were designated “Pinsent I” and “Pinsent II” (Hampshire Independent: Wednesday 10th August 1864)! As an aside, siblings attending English private schools then and later were usually referred to as “Smith, Major” and “Smith, Minor” – which is not much better.
Charles was a better at bowling than he was at batting – if the cricket scores from a match between “Polygon House Cricket Club v. P. & O. and Mr. Wall’s Schools United” is anything to go by (Hampshire Advertiser: Saturday 27th May 1865). That September he bowled well when the “P. & O. High School” met the “Polygon House Club”, taking six wickets for twenty-five runs (Hampshire Advertiser: Saturday 9th September 1865). Take my word for it. If you have played the game, you will understand. Charles may also have had some skill as an artist as he received a certificate for “higher grade freehand” while at the school that November (Hampshire Advertiser: Saturday 25th November 1865).
Charles’s early career post-school is poorly documented, although he is known to have worked for the “P. & O. Co.” for a few years. He may have spent time serving at sea. He does not reappear in the records until September 1874 when he traveled from Madras (now Chennai) to Negapatam (now Negapattinam – another coastal town in Tamil Nadu) (Indian Statesman: Monday 7th September 1874). Whether by rail or sea, I am not sure. Charles played cricket for Madras without particular distinction in January 1876. This was a match against one of the British Army garrison towns – Bangalore (Madras Weekly: Saturday 8th January 1876). There was a return match later the same month. Interestingly, a “Miss Pinsent” arrived in Madras in December 1876. Presumably this was one of his sisters. I do not know which one (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 9th December 1876).
Charles became embroiled in a “case of great interest to the mercantile community (that) was heard in the Madras Small Cause Court” in May 1877. Mr. W. Maylor, the plaintiff, brought the action against the “P. & O. Co.’s” local agent. Mr. Maylor’s principal witness worked for the “Madras Railway Company” and he tried to show that the agent had over-charged him for landing fees when he off-loaded 163 tons of iron bridgework from the “S.S. Bokhara” in August 1876. Mr. Pinsent (“partner in the Firm of Shaw and Winch”) was one of many witnesses called to testify. “Plaintiff’s counsel commented strongly on the evidence of Mr. Pinsent (who was formerly employed in the P. and O. Office but resigned in order to start as a Broker and Agent). Mr. Pinsent had a contract for landing goods for the P. and O. Company, and at first said he had not any interest in any of the Madras boats, but upon being pressed by Mr. Miller he admitted that his mother was part owner of several boats which worked for the P. and O. Company, and that he looked after his mother’s interest. Much valuable evidence was elicited. Mr. Miller contended that it is quite illegal for boat-owners to demand such exorbitant rates …” (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 5th May 1877). The boats in question were, presumably, small craft used to off-load freight from the “P. & O.” liners.
After a trip to England, Charles returned to Madras in June/July 1878 on “P. & O. Co.” vessel “S. S. Australia” (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 3rd July 1878). Where he was, I don’t know but he was missing when called for jury duty in February 1879 – and was fined 20 rupees for it (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 8th February 1879)! Charles married Harriet, the eldest daughter of Mr. James Soden, in Madras Cathedral later that year (Pall Mall Gazette: November 29th 1879). Charles may have known her from childhood as both their fathers were “Purser’s” working for the “P. & O. Co.” She was ten years younger than he was.
Charles and Harriet had a daughter while staying at the “Church Mission Bungalow” in Egmore, in Madras in November 1880 (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 18th November 1880), and another while in Madras on 11th April 1882 (The Times of India: 14th April 1882). Their only son, Harold Charles Frank Pinsent was born in Hampstead, near London, on March 14th 1884 (Homeward Mail from India, China and the East: Tuesday 1st April 1884). How much Charles saw of his children – or they him – I am not sure. Harriet seems to have taken them back to England when they reached school age and they must have spent most of the 1890s living there with their grandfather Mr. Soden. However, the family must have been back out to India in 1894 as their last child was born there.
Charles was back in court as a plaintiff in May 1882, when “Hyath Meah Saib and Hyath Musthan Saib were charged with having, between the 18th March and 6th April 1882, committed the offense of criminal breach of trust, in having disposed of, or made away with 8,000 and 9,000 skins, the property of Messrs. Shaw and Winch.” The defendants appear to have asked “Messrs. Shaw and Winch” for a deposit before they would let them take the skins in their tannery and ship them to their agent in London. Mr. Pinsent visited the tannery in March 1882 and found there were approximately ten thousand rupees-worth of skins ready to be shipped. However, the tanners never sent them and when he returned in April he found that they were gone. “Messrs. Shaw and Winch” promptly took possession of the tannery and charged the defendants with breach of trust (Madras Weekly News: Wednesday 24th May 1882). They were granted legal possession of the tannery a few weeks later (Madras Weekly News: Saturday 1st July 1882). However, in the meantime the defendants fought back and tried to discredit Charles!
Mr. Pinsent was back in court as a defendant charged with cheating on the previous plaintiff’s insurance: “Mr. Normandy, in his opening said that the prosecutor charged Mr. Charles Pinsent of the firm of Messrs. Shaw and Winch, with cheating under the following circumstances. Up to June 1881, the prosecutor, who was a skin and hide merchant, had effected his insurance on all shipments in England, through Messrs. Willis and Rodwell in London. Subsequently to that date, owing to the inducements and representations of the defendant, that he could effect the insurances more advantageously to the prosecutor in Madras, the prosecutor has been induced to insure through Messrs. Shaw, and Winch in Madras. About March 1882, the prosecutor came for the first time to learn that Messrs. Shaw and Winch had not, as a matter of fact, paid to the Insurance Company in Madras the various amounts which, in their accounts rendered to the prosecutor, they had represented they had so paid. Therein lay the charge”. The case dragged on … Mr. Norton addressing the Magistrate said Mr. Pinsent was as yet, beyond his cross-examination of the complainant, but no opportunity of disclosing the real motives of the prosecution. Those motives are based upon a feeling of retaliation; they have been supported by the most reckless swearing; and the have culminated in gross perjury; I am prepared with the most completed and overwhelming evidence to establish the fact that the complainant was only one of a very large number of skin merchants with whose free consent and knowledge Mr. Pinsent was entitled by specific arrangement to charge a half per cent. upon insurance effected by him upon all shipments. I was prepared so conclusively to establish my case, and to refute the statements of the complainant that would have asked your Worship for sanction to prosecute the latter for perjury. The credit and good name of a merchant are of so inestimable value to him that I ask your Worship, in dismissing the complaint, to add such an expression of opinion with regard to the conduct of the complaint as may in some measure mitigate the scandal and the disgrace which the more ventilation of such a charge must necessarily inflict upon Mr. Pinsent. His Worship repeated his opinion that Mr. Pinsent had been guilty of no deception, and the accused was discharged” (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 24th June 1882). Whether the perjury charge was brought, I do not know. Doubtless much relieved, Charles seems to have taken a break and returned to England as we find that he returned to India on the “P. & O.” vessel “S.S. Australia” the following December (Madras Weekly Mail: Wednesday 19th December 1882).
Nevertheless, his problems were far from over: “On Thursday last, the High Court was the scene of great excitement in consequence, as it was believed, of the anticipated failure of the firm of Messrs. Shaw and Winch, Merchants, of this city. Several suits were filed by Messrs. Branson and Branson on behalf of Kondiah Chetty, an indigo (vegetable dye) merchant … … Great excitement prevailed during the greater part of Wednesday night, during which time all the goods in the godowns (wharehouses) of the firm were taken possession of by the Agra Bank, which was represented by Messrs. Leslie and Blackhall; Messrs. Pinsent, Striven, Spark, Atkinson and Morgan were also present at the office of Shaw and Winch the greater part of the night, injunctions were granted restraining the several defendants from dealing with the property under litigation, and notices of injunction three suits are made returnable today” (Bangalore Spectator: Monday 22nd April 1884). One of the issues was discussed in the “High Court” that October.
“The first suite was by one Baliah Chetty, against Mr. Pinsent, Mr. R. E. Cripps and the Agra Bank. … the plaintiff sued in respect of 100 baskets of indigo, valued at about Rs. 15,000. On the 4th September 76 baskets belonging to the plaintiff were conveyed to the godown of the first defendant, and on the 13th September the remaining 24 baskets were conveyed thither. These were to be inspected, weighed and payment to be made before delivery. The goods were to remain the property of the plaintiff till payment had been made for it, and the plaintiff had his own lock on the godown door. These goods had never been paid for. Plaintiff therefore sought to recover the goods and compensation for the time he had been kept out of his property. The first defendant (Mr. Pinsent) put in a written statement in which he stated that he had no dealings with the plaintiff, directly or indirectly. He received the goods from Hyath Meah and Co., who had received an advance of money from him, after he had inspected the goods. He denied all knowledge of the second defendant having entered into any negotiations for the goods on his account, and the second defendant did not act as his dubash, (clerk?) and he knew of no claims on the goods until 17th September when he received a note of demand from the plaintiff, through his attorney, Messrs. Grant and Laing. The keys of his godowns were handed over to the Agra Bank every evening, as they had a lien on the goods, having given this defendant an advance of payment for the same. The second defendant (Mr. Cripps) admitted that he entered into these negotiations as the dubash of Messrs. Shaw and Winch, and he did not personally undertake to pay for the goods” (Madras Weekly Mail: Wednesday 29th October 1884).
The following February, Charles Pinsent was arrested for a relative small debt (Rs. 4.894) but “His Lordship accepted Mr. Champion’s bail for the full amount, on Mr. Pinsent swearing that within one month he would file his position and schedule of insolvency. Mr. Pinsent was accordingly released from custody” (Indian Daily News: Tuesday 17th February 1885).
The underlying cause of the problem wended its way through the Courts. Evidence in the “High Court” showed that a native vendor had deposited a consignment of indigo in Pinsent’s “godown” and, quite reasonably, expected payment. The “Bank of Agra” claimed that Charles Pinsent and three other defendants conspired to defraud it of money they borrowed to pay the debt, and a lower court decreed that the indigo should be transferred to the bank’s account. This had been done, but there were still damages and costs of Rs. 3,400 outstanding. Charles was arrested but discharged by the bank shortly thereafter. It seems to have forgiven him his debt, which was relatively small in comparison with the original amount. The Court had heard that as Pinsent owed Rs. 50,000 to the Bank secured against his various properties and insolvency was likely if they did not step in, it was just looking for a way to prevent legal confusion. The Court accepted that the bank’s position was reasonable but Pinsent’s co-defendants objected – fearing the bank would throw his costs onto them.(Indian Law Reports: Volume VIII: Madras Series: April 27th, 1885).
The squabbling co-defendants also fought their own battles. In December 1885, “a case brought by Mr. Francis Cripps against Mr. C. P. T. Pinsent, in which the plaintiff claimed the sum of Rs. 5,190 and interest, being damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of certain misrepresentations by the defendant as to the value of the security offered by Mr. Robert E. Cripps, the late dubash of defendant’s firm, to his brother”. However, the case did not go according to script: Evidently, “the case had since taken a turn. It was now working round and forming itself into a case of contract, in which the plaintiff was requested to pay for Mr. Pinsent, the latter being unable to pay it himself. The present case was one for damages and deceit, and misrepresentation”. Although the plaintiff’s lawyers tried to show that Mr. Pinsent had just used Mr. Cripps as a cut-out to avoid directly doing business with the vendors, His Lordship was having none of it, and he dismissed the suit with costs (Madras Weekly Mail: Wednesday 23rd December 1885). Given that the vendor in question was “Hyath Meah & Co.” of tannery fame, Charles may well have been reluctant to have direct dealings with the vendor. The co-defendants appealed the verdict and the case was heard in the “High Court” in 1888. Again, they argued that the damages would just fall to them and Mr. Justice Kernan appears to have agreed (Indian Law Reports Volume VIII: Madras Series, 6th February 1885). However, there is no indication that Charles Pinsent was declared insolvent.
In the intervening years, Mr. Charles Pinsent had been elected to be “Secretary” to the “Madras Harbour Trust” by the non-official members of the Board. The vote was unanimous, although the “official members” recused themselves. Perhaps there was conflict of interest over business dealings (Homeward Mail from India, China and the East: Monday 12th July 1886). According to the Madras Weekly Mail (Saturday 19th June 1886): “The election (of Charles Pinsent) is unobjectionable, indeed the trustees may be congratulated on finding ready to hand a comparatively young man, who spent many years in the service of the Peninsular and Oriental S. N. Company, both afloat and ashore and has of late years been connected with local commerce, and the local freight market. Mr. Pinsent commenced his business career as an Assistant Purser in the Peninsular and Oriental Company’s “Home Service” between Southampton, Alexandria and Marseille in 1866, before the opening of the Canal, and was transferred in 1868 to the Calcutta Suez line. In 1870 be proceeded to Bombay and was placed by the Superintendent in charge of the dock yard accounts at the Company’s Mazagon Office, being subsequently promoted to a responsible position in the Central, or Fort Office in that city. Mr. Pinsent’s qualifications were recognized by his being, in 1872, specially selected for the appointment of Chief Assistant In the Company’s Madras Agency, where be served with much credit to himself, and satisfaction to his employers until 1876, when he resigned the service of the Company to join the firm of Shaw and Winch. He is active in his habits, is blessed with a cheery disposition, and is courteous and shrewd. His early training should now stand him in good stead; and should the Board direct him to go at once to Bombay, to look up the officers of the Port Trust of that city, and to gain an insight into their methods, regulations, and experience, he should soon be in a position to put things in proper trim for the local Trust”. No mention of financial problems there then. The Madras Government sanctioned his appointment and the Board requested that he join “as soon as possible, after furnishing the required security” (Madras Weekly Mail: Saturday 14th August 1886).
It may also be relevant that as “Brother” Charles Pinsent he had risen to be a senior member of Freemason Lodge “Perfect Unanimity (#150)” in Madras. He was appointed its “Worshipful Master” for the year 1887 and his own brother, “Brother F. H. D. Pinsent” was a “Senior Warden”. The lodge was the first established in British India and it was by then over 100 years old (Hampshire Advertiser: Saturday 19th February 1887). “Worshipful Brother” C. Pinsent was “Deputy District Grand Master of Grand Mark Lodge” in Vepery in 1903 (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 5th February 1903).
Sometime after settling into the job; Charles was asked show Sir Alexander Rendel the “Consulting Engineer to the Secretary of State for India” (who was on an inspection tour of the Indian railway system) around the “Harbor Works”, “Workshops” and the “northern and southern groynes.” The latter were used to protect shipping (Madras Weekly Mail: Wednesday 26th February 1890). Apparently, he not only approved of the work done but also agreed with the proposal for an eastern rather than north-eastern entrance to the harbour.
In December 1896, the Chairman of the “Madras Harbour Board Trust” sent a list of proposed upgrades to the Madras Government; among which was ” (ii) Harbour Improvements: In my letter No. 343, dated the 2nd June 1891, I submitted to Government a proposal made by Mr. Pinsent, the Board’s Secretary, for a deep water tidal dock in the sand accreted to the south of the Harbour with a canal entering the Cooum south of the Fort; and in its order thereon G.O. No. 347 Marine, dated the 4th August 1891, Government ruled with reference to the question of the erection of Commissariat godowns upon the proposed site – that “the Harbour Trust Board has no right to or control over the accretion on the south side of the Southern arm of the Harbour” and “the Government directs that no buildings excepting sheds of the most temporary character, which can easily be removed shall be constructed on any portion of the land” (Madras Weekly Mail: 11th February 1897). Perhaps these suggestions came from his discussions with Sir Alexander Rendell. The Government was still keeping its options open.
The approved changes must have been completed by January 1893 as Mr. C. Pinsent and other port officials accompanied “His Excellency the Governor” and other dignitaries on a harbour tour. They were trollied over the “southern groyne,” and then took a boat across to the “northern groyne” where they inspected the cranes before being trollied back to the “Harbour Office” (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 26th January 1893). Charles must have handled countless tours in the 1890s and beyond. For instance, Mr. C. Pinsent, the “Secretary”, and Mr. Longhurst, the “Engineer” showed a “Special Railway Commissioner” around in November 1901 (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 28th November 1901).
Meantime, in the early days there were operational changes to effect. The Board planned to change its principal contractor and also the way it paid its workers. Charles wrote an open letter to the “coolies” to let them know that they would be paid punctually, and that the new system would be tried out for six months to see if it worked (Madras Weekly Mail: Wednesday 5th March 1890). Presumably it went ahead.
Charles and Harriet may have made several trips back to England over the years but trips they took as “Mr. and Mrs. Pinsent” are hard to differentiate from those made by his brother Frederick and his wife, and possibly others too. There was a DEVONPORT Branch of the family resident in India at the time. Nevertheless, we know that Charles and Harriet took leave in the Summer of 1893 and they returned to Madras from London on the “S. S. Rome” in October 1893 (The Colonies and India: Saturday 7th October 1893). Mr. Hutchence, the “traffic manager” – who had himself just returned from a year’s furlough in Australia – had been asked to fill in as “Secretary” while Charles was away (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 3rd August 1893). Charles was granted “privilege leave” on account of ill-health in April 1896 and Mr. Hutchence was, once again, asked to fill in for him (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 9th April 1896). Presumably Charles had left Madras fairly promptly as he returned from London on the “S. S. Peninsular” on 14th May 1896 (Passenger Lists 1890-1960: Findmypast).
Life was, of course, going on elsewhere and the extent of the British Empire and its global responsibilities comes into focus in November 1899 when the “Commanding Officer in Bombay” specifically complimented Charles and one of his colleagues for the help they had given in arranging for troops to be dispatched to South Africa at the start of the Boer War (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 2nd November 1899). The “Indian Government” offered a similar vote of thanks a year or so later (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 25th April 1901). Those seem to have been politer times!
Charles seems to have been dogged by ill-health and he was granted a six months furlough in October 1903. He left Madras for Bombay (probably by train) on 14th October (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 15th April) and from there boarded the “S. S. Moldavia” bound for London on 31st October 1903 (Homeward Mail from India, China and the East: Monday 16th November 1903). This was to be his last voyage home. He died at his mother’s residence, 16 Ilchester Mansions, Kensington, aged 54, on 8th April 1904 (London Standard: Monday 11th April 1904). The Harbour Trust Board heard of his demise later that month and offered Mrs. Pinsent their sympathy. She responded and in mid-May the Harbour Trust minutes include: “Read letter, dated 14th April, 1904, from Mrs. H. A. Pinsent. Resolved that in recognition of the good service, during 18 years, of the late Mr. C. Pinsent, the Board is prepared to grant a bonus of Rs. 15,000 for the benefit of his widow and family and that Government be earnestly recommended to accord sanction thereto” (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 26th May 1904). It was a nice gesture but Government’s are rarely moved to nice gestures: “The Hard Case of Mrs. Pinsent: In October last before the Late Mr. C. Pinsent —who, for nearly eighteen years had been the Secretary of the Madras Harbour Trust Board—went Home on leave, he applied for a bonus in consideration of his long services with the Board. The application, we understand, would have been granted, but that the Trustees found that under the Madras Harbour Trust Act no bonus or gratuity could be given to an officer of the Board unless he retired. Mr. Pinsent was accordingly given privilege leave, the question of the bonus being allowed to stand over until it was known whether he would be able, after treatment at Home, to return to work or not. Unfortunately, he died before retiring and the question of granting him a bonus lapsed. The Trustees, however, proposed, with the sanction Madras Government, to give Mrs. Pinsent and her children a gratuity of Rs. 15,00; but this the Government have refused to pass on the ground that the Act does not, authorize the Trust to make a grant, to the widow of one of its officers. Technically, no doubt, the Government are right; but it seems to us that the case is eminently one in which a generous view of the situation would meet with public approval, and that a compassionate, allowance might be granted to the widow of as hard-working and deserving officer of the Trust. If he had only realized the dread nature of his disease and the risk he taking in undergoing an operation, he would have formally resigned and secured that provision for his family which a strict adherence to the letter of the law precludes them from obtaining. We trust that some way out of the difficulty may be found, and that Mrs. Pinsent and her family may eventually secure the gift that the Trustees are generously prepared to allot” (Madras Weekly Mail: Thursday 18th August 1904). The Board registered its protest, but to no avail.
Harriet Ann Pinsent (née Soden) and her three eldest children (who were still off school age) had been living with her parents (Superintendent Purser James and Harriet Ann Soden) in Hampstead at the time of the 1891 Census. However, Harried herself must have returned to India as her fourth daughter, Phyllis, was born there in 1895. She is rarely mentioned in the Indian press after that and was back in England with her three youngest children before the next census was taken, in 1901. The family was then boarding in Devonport. Harriet was probably checking out the Naval College as her son, Harold Charles Frank Pinsent, joined the “Royal Navy” as a cadet. Her husband Charles, meanwhile, was still in India and her daughter Gwendolyn was, once again, with her Soden grandparents in Southsea near Portsmouth.
Harriet’s two eldest daughters, Gwendolyn and Maud, were brought up as young ladies and attended the “Hampstead Conservatoire” where they studied music under Madame Fissher Sobell and did very well for themselves. They gave “a brilliant rendering of Saint-Saens “Dance Macabre” for two pianofortes” in December 1898 (Hampstead News: Thursday 8th December 1898). The following year, Maud received a pianoforte prize of £5 5s and “she did very creditably as a soloist, and was joined by her sister Gwendoline Pinsent, in Schumann’s Andante and variations for two pianos” at a concert given in August (Black and White: Saturday August 5th, 1899). According to the Portsmouth Evening News (Friday 10th May 1907), Mme. Fisscher Sobell “was one of the most brilliant of the many famous pupils of Clara Schumann.” Maud’s reception at the Clarence Pier Concert in 1906 was particularly well received … The following year’s performance was much anticipated.
After Charles died, Harriet moved to Southsea to be with her elderly parents, and her eldest daughter, Gwendolyn, married Mr. John Hawkshaw Croysdale, a barrister-at-law from Yorkshire, in Southsea in April 1907. This was a month prior to her one of her sister’s concerts. The bride’s uncle, Rev. J. Newton Soden, officiated and Frances Maud and Phyllis Charlotte Pinsent (her sisters) served as bridesmaids (Hampshire Telegraph: Saturday 6th April 1907).
Frances Maud Pinsent and a “Miss Hildrige Johnson” attended a dance at the Esplanade Hotel in Southsea in February 1907 (Gentlewoman: Saturday 16th February 1907). The latter may well have been either Constance Amy Hildrige Johnson – the lady who married Frances’s brother Harold Charles Frank Pinsent in 1912, or one of her sisters. Frances Maud married Lieut. George Frederick Markwick, R.N. with much less fanfare than her sister in July 1908 (Hampshire Telegraph: Saturday 1st August 1908).
According to the 1911 Census, Harriet Pinsent was still living with her father (Mr. James Soden, (a retired “purser” in the “P. & O. Co.’s” service) and with her mother, Mrs. Harriet Ann Soden). The household included one of Harriet’s sisters, Edith Maud Stebbing and two of Harriet’s three daughters, Frances Maud Markwick and Phyllis Charlotte Pinsent. Lieutenant Markwick was also there – presumably home on leave. The family lived on St. Andrew’s Road in Southsea with one domestic servant. The Stebbings were another “P. & O. Co.” family and Charles had been to school with one of them in the 1860s.
Phyllis Charlotte Pinsent, the third “Miss Pinsent” in the family was considerably younger than her sisters and she was not to marry until after the “First World War”. Phyllis was also musical. When she was nineteen years old she contributed to a “Tango” tea dance demonstration put on in support of the “Royal Portsmouth and Gosport Hospital” in 1913 (Hampshire Telegraph: Friday 19th December 1913). That same year, Phyllis attended the funeral of Lieut. Henry S. Duke, who had served in the “Indian Ordnance Society” and been a high-ranking member of the Freemasons. She attended the funeral in her capacity as Lieut. Duke’s “step-daughter” which may imply that her mother had remarried sometime during the previous two years. If so, I have not located the marriage certificate. Perhaps she was actually a “God-daughter” (Portsmouth Evening News: Monday 5th January 1914).
Phyllis Charlotte did her bit to entertain the troups. She joined others at “laughter and song matinees” put on as part of the War Emergency Entertainment Programme (W.E.E.) at Claridge’s Hotel in the summer of 1915. The performances were notable for including three “Phyllises”! (The Referee: 7th and 28th March 1915 etc.). Our Phyllis’s was a member of the Academy of Dramatic Art, and she contributed a series of dances. She also participated in a competitive event within the organization toward the end of March and received a “Certificate of Honour” (Morning Post: 31st march 1915). Phyllis married Harry Adrian Roberts, an acting Captain in the “Royal Field Artillery” in Portsea, in Hampshire in June 1918. It was a quiet wedding.
Mrs. Charles Pinsent (Harriet) and her daughter Mrs. George Markwick (Frances Maud) attended the wedding of a friend, Captain Arthur Maude’s daughter, Mabel in 1917 (Westerham Herald: Saturday 15th September 1917) and Mrs. Pinsent gave a gift of a lace handkerchief when his other daughters, Sylvia, married two years later (Westerham Herald: Saturday 28th June 1919).
Harriet (née Soden) was living in Swanage on the coast of Dorset when she died in January 1949. Probate of her estate was granted to her son, Harold Charles Frank Pinsent who was, by then, a retired Captain in the “Royal Navy”. Her effects were valued at £2,632. It is possible that Harriet had a short second marriage after her first husband died. Some records, notably those retroactively compiled that describe her son Harold’s time at “Merchant Taylors’ School”, refer to her as “Harriet Ann Rayner”. However, I can find no other evidence for this (Merchant Taylor’s Register: 1561-1934: Vol II).
Family Tree
GRANDPARENTS
Grandfather: Henry Pinsent: 1769 – 1854
Grandmother: Joanna Wogan: 1772 – 1848
PARENTS
Father: Henry John Pinsent: 1812 – 1894
Mother: Charlotte Best Sharpe: 1819 – 1904
FATHER’S SIBLINGS (AUNTS, UNCLES)
Mary Ann Pinsent: 1802 – xxxx
Henrietta Pinsent: 1803 – 1806
Eliza Pinsent: 1805 – 1839
Henrietta Pinsent: 1806 – xxxx
Joanna Pinsent: 1808 – xxxx
Emma Pinsent: 1811 – xxxx
Henry John Pinsent: 1812 – 1894 ✔️
George Pinsent: 1814 – 1838
Emma Pinsent: 1817 – xxxx
MALE SIBLINGS (BROTHERS)
William Henry Pinsent: 1845 – 1895
Charles Powell Tronson Pinsent: 1849 – 1904 ✔️
Frederick Henry Davison Pinsent: 1852 – 1902
Please use the above links to explore this branch of the family tree. The default “Next” and “Previous” links below may lead to other unrelated branches.