Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liverpool and Chester based quandary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Liverpool and Chester based quandary

    Dear all,


    I've been 'doing' genealogy for ten years now and have never yet been this stumped. If anyone can help, I'd be most grateful!



    In the small Cheshire village of Malpas, 16 miles South of Chester, Ann (or Anne) Jones was born around 1826. Her birth year comes from information given in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. Her father – as we know from her marriage certificate – was an Officer in Customs and Excise and was named Thomas Jones.

    Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a baptismal record to match this information. Likewise, I am unable to find Ann on the 1841 census.

    Ann’s first appearance on any actual records comes in 1851 when she is found at 23 Vauxhall Road in Liverpool working as a servant in a public house owned by the 36 year old widow Hannah Rushton. Her age is given as 25.

    On 19th July 1857 whilst still living on Vauxhall Road, she married Thomas Forsyth at St. Nicholas’ Church in Liverpool.

    Thomas’ origins are similar shady. We know that he was born around 1835 (according to the 1871 and 1881 censuses – the 1861 census states 1833). We know he was born in Liverpool (or, more specifically, Toxteth Park, according to the 1861 census) and we know that his father was one Thomas Forsyth, a porter.

    Thomas himself, a carter, was living on Trueman Street at the time of the marriage.

    In the 1861 census – our first for Thomas, as I cannot find him in either 1841 or 1851 – the family are living at No.11 Catherine Street South. Thomas is a 28 year old carter, whilst ‘Anne’ is 35. What is confusing is that there are two children – listed as Thomas’ son and daughter with the family. William is aged 22 and is a carter born in Toxteth Park, and Jane is a 17 year old former servant.

    Judging by their ages, Thomas would have been six years old when his son was born. They are thus much more likely to be Ann’s children (born c1839 and c1844), but even then the dates can’t be quite right.

    I can’t find any reference to the childrens’ births either.

    In early 1861, the couple have a child of their own - Mary Ann, and another two years later, Thomas William (my Great Great Grandfather) on 27th December 1863. The family are still at No.11 at this time. Thomas is still a carter, and Ann (formerly ‘Jones’) registers the birth herself.

    Ann dies in either 1865 or 1868 and Thomas remarries in 1869.

    And so these are my difficulties. I would like to find Ann on the 1841 census – and also find a baptismal record. For Thomas, I would like to find him in 1841 and 1851, and also find a baptismal record. And I want to work out where William and Jane came from!

    Any help or ideas would be most gratefully received!

    Stephen

  • #2
    Have you seen the original image for the 1861 census? I do have a few entries in my own tree where there are impossible "children" who eventually turn out to be the children of some temporarily missing head of household - Thomas's father in this case.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      Just looked at the image & it does say son & daughter but given the ages more likely his brother & sister.
      How about this one for Thomas in 1851?

      Living Toxteth Park
      Elizabeth age 38 widow born North Wales Nold?(Mold)
      Thomas son age 16 born North Wales Nold?
      William son age 10 born Liverpool
      Elizabeth dau age 8 born Liverpool
      Moggie

      Comment


      • #4
        Possible for 1841

        Living Liverpool
        Thomas age 30 carter? born Scotland
        Elizabeth age 25 not born in county
        William age 2 born in county
        Mary age 9mths born in county
        &

        Living Mold Flintshire
        Thomas Forsyth age 6 born in county
        John Williams age 60
        Mary William age 60
        Sarah Williams age 20

        Moggie

        Comment


        • #5
          Cripes! You lot are quick! (and good)

          Olde Crone - definitely a possibility, although it does very much state that they are 'son' and 'daughter'.
          Maudarby - I had considered this one, but the Mold birthplace would entirely contradict his own statements for 1871 and 1881 (Liverpool) and 1861 (Toxteth Park). They do seem very specific about the matter!
          The 1841 census entry looks interesting (indeed, a family member did once state that 'his ancestors' were from Dunoon in Scotland), but there's a definite lack of Thomas (Jr) on that form.
          The Mold entry looks feasible...but we'd have to discount his statements between 1861-81 that he is of Liverpool stock.

          Many thanks for all of this - all good food for thought!

          Comment


          • #6
            I woulden't pay too much attention to conflicting information about birthplaces. Remember that the images you see were not those filled in by the householder and I suspect that many lazy enumerators just put the place of birth as the place where the person was then living.

            Another reason for conflicting birthplaces is that people were worried about being sent back to where they came from if they fell on hard times, so said they were born where they were lving at the time of the census.

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Olde Crone, by that reasoning then, the 'Mold' birthplace would be the correct one, but the ones taken from '61 to '81 would all be incorrect due to laziness on behalf of the enumerator. Having a William there at the right age is a boon, but then there's the problem of the 8 year old Elizabeth, when one would be hoping for an 8 year old Jane.

              I'd check the Mold registers to see if Thomas was indeed born to Thomas, but I've never had much luck with them in the past for other members of the family.

              Comment


              • #8
                Could Elizabeth be an Elizabeth Jane?? which is why they have interchanged names? also I presume that you have looked for a 'Hannah' baptism? for Ann/e also, or even perhaps a Susannah
                Julie
                They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                .......I find dead people

                Comment


                • #9
                  Julie, the child in question would have to be a Mary Jane. Not unfeasible, but it's that whole 'Mold' thing that's putting me off from that train of thought.

                  Re: The Malpas baptism for Ann/Anne, I've only been able to use familysearch which tends to bring up all possible permutations anyway. I don't have an Ancestry subscription this year so haven't been able to go digging there, sadly.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X