<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.

Thank you!

After reading that article I'm sold on Wolf Meyer Popert, aka Wilhelm Meyer Popert, aka William Meyer Popert, born 19 March 1795, died 3 September 1846 in Hamburg (so the "H" was probably just "Herr" in William Greenwood Walker's book which was mistakenly taken for an initial when the list of subscribers was formatted out alphabetically by last name).

Nice to know we were circling the right family tree. The article cites a lot of the same sources we were digging through. I'm glad Thomas Niessen was able to fill-in some dates.

I did not know that. Now it makes a lot more sense! I see he hasn't posted on this site since January... and Tab, you are no longer a CG editor?

Good question. I have no idea what the CG preference is for assigning names. Name at time of birth? Name commonly used in life? Name at time of death?

Steinitz has the same first name as Popert and CG went with Wilhelm instead of Wolf (birth name) or William (name at death and appears as such on his grave stone).