Talk:Tony Crombie

Kronenberg
There is supporting and convincing circumstantial evidence on the internet that his birth name was Kronenberg, as suggested in this edit - but, better references are needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Tony Crombie was my partner's grandmother's first cousin, Caroline Bitton. She continues here: Caroline moved to the U.S. after marrying a U.S. officer during the war. She spoke about Tony, fairly often, although it is not known how well they knew each other. Caroline's father, Jacob Bitton, was the brother of Tony's mother, Sarah Bitton, who married a Samuel Kronenberg. Tony's birth register can be found in the England and Wales, civil registration birth index 1916-2005, Volume 1C, Page 227. I determined his actual birth name, by process of elimination - matching birth dates, marriage and census records (i.e., Tony J. Crombie, Tony = Anthony, same DOB for an Anthony J. Kronenberg born to a Bitton mother in East End, in the Jewish communities where he and Caroline were raised. The birth certificate, with full details, can be ordered from GRO, if needed as a source document. I am confident that this information is correct. My guess is that you found one of my family trees or one belonging to a private member who had copied information from my tree. At the time I made the connection to the obviously anglicized name, I could not find any other public or private trees indicating that name change, in any of the sites I use.
 * Incidentally, Caroline and Tony are also related to Isaac Bitton, East-End bare-knuckle boxer of the early 19th century, although I am still trying to determine from which of his children, they descend. Isaac was also a distant cousin of Daniel Mendoza, another well known boxer, so they are related to him as well. Caroline passed away in 2008 and was not very forthcoming about her family and life in London, unfortunately. However, I suspect Bevis-Marks Synagogue may hold further information on their families and I plan to start there once I pick-up my research againJpjenk (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I'm reluctant to suggest going too far down the road of original research, which is not allowed here - but, if the information in the article is accurate and if there is no objection, I think it should be kept in.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)