<John Townsend 1/31/12 3:15 AM

In the 1841 census of England is an entry for "William M. Popert", a foreign-born 44-year-old merchant living in Fenchurch Street, in the city of London. (Source: 1841 census, National Archives, HO 107 720/13, f. 16.). I expect that he was born about 1797 somewhere in Hamburg.>

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...

Perhaps Popert had become a citizen. I'm starting to like the William/Wilhelm/Wolf theory much more: Popert being born as Wolf Meyer Popert, and as with Steinitz, became a Wilhelm and eventually a William.

And I have a theory about the "H". Instead of "Herr" maybe someone had confused his profession as part of his name?

Perhaps he was mentioned as "Händler William Popert" and someone assumed his initials were H. W.?

(1) Nowadays there are two Jewish cemeteries in Hamburg (including Altona, which was an independent city back then): one in Altona, and one in Ohlsdorf.

Information on Ohlsdorf can be found here: http://www.jfhh.org/index_e.html. It was opened in 1883, but this doesn't mean that it is without interest; 375 gravestones from other Jewish cemeteries were brought there during the Nazi time. The on-line search gives two Poperts, but both died in the 20th century.

The Jewish Cemetery Altona is much older and very interesting in itself: http://www.jüdischer-friedhof-alton.... It is part of a German project for Jewish cemeteries: http://steinheim-institut.de/wiki/i.... All inscriptions are already digitized! This link http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cg... shows the name list. There are many Poperts, but I didn't find a candidate.

So, at the moment this idea has led nowhere.

(2) Do we know this genealogical tree: http://gw.geneanet.org/silentist?la... ?

No. 15 is William/Wilhelm Popert, but if you follow the link behind the name, then you'll find Winter's Chess History and another message by Tonwsend. Btw, is this the first time we see "Wilhelm" elsewhere?

No. 16 shows the family from the law case, but the child Wolf Meyer is missing. What could that mean? Died in infancy?

(3) I hope this is a promising approach: there is a Popert family chronicle! <"Die Popert-Chronik : Familie Popert in Hamburg und Altona"> by Joachim Grisebach, Hamburg 1988, 94 pages. I have already ordered a copy, but it will take one or two weeks.

I clicked through it all, and no mention of any Wolf or William. Meyer Wolf Popert's wife Hanelle died in 1838. They had three children: Samuel Meyer Popert (d. 1851), Joseph and Johann. The two latter still living in 1852.

The tree at http://gw.geneanet.org/silentist?la... has at least two errors then: "Simon Meyer d. 1851" should be Samuel Meyer, and Joseph did not "d. 1838".

<They had three children: Samuel Meyer Popert (d. 1851), Joseph and Johann.> Is it possible that only living children were named? A testament written in 1847 would not mention our man, of course. But what is with the other documents?

I think this must be the family arriving to England in July 1836, cf. <It can also be "S. M. Popert">.

The firm "Popert von Halle" (apparently in Hamburg) and "my partner Mr. Joel Aron von Halle" is also mentioned.

<And Whereas the said Meyer Wolff Popert was late of the City of Hamburgh, Merchant, and died on the sixteenth day of January one thousand eight hundred and thirteen Intestate leaving behind him Hanelle Popert, Widow, his Relict, Samuel Meyer Popert, Joseph Popert and Johann Popert his natural lawful and only children and together the only persons entitled to his Personal Estate and Effects. And whereas the said Hanelle Popert is since dead as also the said Samuel Popert without having administered at least in England to the Effects of the said Meyer Wolff Popert, And whereas the said Joseph Popert and Johann Popert are now residing at the City of Hamburgh

Now follows another long note where Liskenne appears before the Consistory Court of London applying for his right to administer Meyer Wolf Poperts English leftovers, one hundred pounds stock in the Bank of England (worth 300 pounds according to another form) on behalf of Joseph and Johann, since nobody have made claim to these English stocks since 1809 and until 1850 (i. e. when the dying Samuel made his brothers aware of them).

Liskenne appeared before the court only a few days later, not before Lushington but rather Frederick Thomas Pratt, who is "Doctor of Laws and Surrogate in his Chambers", and got his signature.

Notes on the Life of Howard Staunton (self-published, 2011)

Historical Notes on Some Chess Players (self-published, 2014)

Only 100 copies of each was printed, apparently, but you might be able to get copies from the author, or from Tony Peterson at http://www.chessbooks.co.uk .

In the book on Staunton (p.44), Townsend says that 'W. Popert' appears in the records of the London Chess Club (to be found in the London Metropolitan Archives). On 5 Nov. 1835, he is listed as proposing a new member to the club. Townsend also points out his discovery of 'William M. Popert' in the 1841 census and tentatively identifies him as the chess player.

In Townsend's second book, 'Historical Notes...', he has a section on 'William M. Popert' on pp.8-10. Here he says "a fuller look at the club's records has turned suspicion into certainty" (p.9). He says that 'W. Popert' appears in earlier records, including his election as a member on 5 Aug. 1830. His address is given as 1 Leadenhall Street in another entry (presumably also in 1830?). 'W. Popert' appears many other times in the records, but from 1839 until 1841/42 his name is given as 'W.M. Popert' (pp.9-10). Townsend says (p.10) that Popert lived in Fenchurch St. in 1841. Regarding William Greenwood Walker's listing of 'H.W. Popert', Townsend points out that Walker's book had numerous errors.

I was also able to run down the Wolff Levin Popert family tree (much like thomastonk did) as well as the tree of a Philip Popert (both families spent time in London before 1845). Neither tree produces a William M. Popert or a H. W. Popert.

At this point I am now satisfied that Bachmann's "John" is wrong. Coupled with Townsend finding a W. Popert in the London Chess Club archives I am now reasonably convinced William M. Popert was Staunton's opponent and not a John Popert (per Bachmann) or H. W. Popert (the listed subscriber).

As for H. W. Popert, it is either an error as Townsend suspects, or perhaps H. W. Popert was just a relative who wanted a copy of the book? We won't know for certain until someone tracks down the William M. Popert family tree to see if a H. W. Popert turns up.