Rees Family Conundrum

[Old Supporter]

My Great, Great Grandfather, Thomas Rees and Great,Great Grandmother Ann were born in Wales in 1811 and 1806 respectively. They married and lived in Machen in Monmouthshire. In the 1841 Census they were still living there with 4 children. In the 1851 Census, Ann is still living in Monmouthshire, and is now shown as a Widow living with 4 of her children. In the 1861 Census, she is still living there, but is shown as the wife of Thomas Rees, who it says was born in Birmingham. Living with them was a son. The birth date of Thomas matches the same birth date as Thomas who was born in Wales, this is the same in the 1871 Census. In all the posted Census Thomas is listed as a Haulier.

Can anyone make any suggestions as to how I might solve this riddle? How can Ann be married, then widowed, and then married again to what looks like the same man in 3 successive Census.

Arthur (Old Supported)

[clematised]

Married women who may have run off or their husband run off would say widow just to save face, then he or she returns and the marriage is back on, they did not like to admit to the census taker who was in their eyes officialdom that they were having marital problems, they just re invent themselves and often people walk from one relationship to another claiming married, widowed, never single mother as that was difficult in bygone times, divorce never occured they just moved on and changed their marital status to suit themselves.

Edna

[Old Supporter]

Hi Edbna,

That could be one explanation of course, but Birmingham?

Arthur

[Old Supporter]

Hello again Edna,

I'm sorry I spelt your name wrong in the last post. That comes by trying to post in semi darkness without the light on.

Arthur

[Olde Crone Holden]

Absolutely nothing on the census can be guaranteed to be accurate - all census except 1911, are transcriptions. We don't know who filled in the form or gave the information, could have been a child or a neighbour, many other reasons, and then that information was incorrectly copied onto the returns.

With that in mind, does it actually SAY the word "Widow" on the census, or is it just W, which might have been "M" for married? Does she say she is head of household?

All of Edna's suggestions are valid of course and sadly, this may always remain a bit of a puzzle, but unless you can find any evidence of Thomas Rees dying between 41 and 51 I don't know how you will solve it.

OC

[Chrissie Smiff]

I haven't found Ann in 1851 yet. Which children has she got with her in 1851 please Arthur?

[Old Supporter]

Hi Chrissie,
In 1851 Wales Census living in Bassaleg Monmouth
Ann Rees Head Widow Age 45
Martha Rees Daughter Age 16
George Rees Son Age 11
Alfred Rees Son Age 8

I got this while searching for Martha Rees

Arthur

[Old Supporter]

Hi Olde Crone,

In the Wales 1851 Census searching for the son George Rees, it defiitely lists Ann as being the head of the family. and says Widow in full. I couldn't find any death for Thomas between 1841 and 1851.
Thanks for your interest though.

Arthur

[Chrissie Smiff]

Thank you, I have found them now. There are actually several possible Thomas deaths but I think that it is the same Thomas as Haulier and age are so consistent.

[Old Supporter]

Chrissie,
I think the same, but I cannot find Thomas Rees anywhere else in the 1851 Census.

Arthur

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Not absolutely EVERYTHING that we find in written records is always correct. Sometimes its case of weighing up all the evidence and trying to tease out the apparent facts.

How do you know for sure that they were both born in Wales? 1841 census records whether on not born in county of residence - in this case it was Monmouthshire & Thomas is recorded as "yes," Ann as "no."
1851 Thomas is not at home but 1861 & 1871 gives Warwickshire as place of birth
1851 - 1871 Ann consistently gives Rudry, Glamorganshire.

As Thomas was not at home on census night, the record of "widow" for Ann could have been a mistake, depending on the question asked e.g "And a husband, or are you on your own?" " You're head of household? Have you ever been married? Your husband's no longer here?"
And of course, the enumerator had to enter up his returns of collected information at a later date. Mistakes in copying up would have been made; there would have been omissions in some of the data collected and so best guesses made.

Going by the ages of the older children in 1841, Thomas & Ann must have married pre civil registration in 1837, so there is no marriage cert recording his father's name :( and giving a positive lead to baptisms etc.
Thomas Rees is a very common name, unfortunately, but nothing apparent showing up in 1851 census - perhaps he was on the night shift and SHOULD have been recorded at home, but wasn't, due to a misinterpretation of the "sleeping" condition. (I have a shepherd who was missing from one census and doubly recorded in a later one, when he was at home and also at the home of his employer "in the barn" - probably lambing time and he was sitting up with the ewes.)

Jay

[Chrissie Smiff]

Nor can I Arthur. I think he may be in hiding i.e. pretending to be born somewhere else perhaps? There are so many Thomas Rees of about the right age though that it would take forever to open the page to find out if he was a haulier.

[Olde Crone Holden]

"A haulier" could have been sleeping in his horse and cart on census night!

I would think it's the same man. The other possibility is that it is a new partner who is using her husband's identity - for the purposes of respectability in front of the census taker or for a more criminal reason. I don't know how you'd get to the bottom of that.

OC

[Guest]

in 1851 there is a Thomas Rees born abt 1813 Wales a Haulier living with wife Mary and family in
Tir Isaf, Llansamlet, Neath, Glamorganshire, Wales

[Janet in Yorkshire]

in 1851 there is a Thomas Rees born abt 1813 Wales a Haulier living with wife Mary and family in
Tir Isaf, Llansamlet, Neath, Glamorganshire, Wales

That family were still in LLamsamlet in 1861, according to census. Thomas was again recorded as a haulier. Rees was a common surname in those parts and I suspect there were lots of hauliers too bearing in mind the ports and docks and coalmines to the north east of Neath & Swansea.

Jay

[Old Supporter]

Hello Janet,
Sorry it has taken so long to reply.

I take your point that it is very difficult to find any verification that Thomas was born in Monmouthshire. I base my thoughts on it from what I was told by my elder brother. He died 3 weeks ago aged 87, and had carried out extensive research many years ago. He actually spent time down in South Wales trying to find church records etc. Although I was not interested in Family History at the time, and do not have access to his records, I remember him saying that our father was born in London, and our Grandfather was born in Wales before moving to Gloucester and Swindon. He also said that all other members of the family earlier were all born in Wales.

Also in Ancestry Family Trees, there are 2 trees from totally different family names, where they had relatives who married someone fron my family, they also traced the line back to Thomas and Ann being born in Wales.

As Thomas was not at home on the night of he 1851 census, if he were aliv, he should have been recorded as being somewhere else, like one of their children. But there is no record of him at all.

Thomas and Ann were certainly married before the 1837 civil registration started, as their eldest son, Isaac, was born about 1834.

Of course Wales is notoriously difficult to explore as so many names were the same.

Thanks for your reply

Arthur

[Christine in Herts]

Have you allowed for the fact that RHYS is another version of the same name?

[Old Supporter]

Hi Christine,

Yes thanks, I am aware of the varients for the Rees Name.

I do start to doubt the Thomas Rees who is given as born in Birmingham though. I wonder if there was some sort of a mix up. In the 1871 census it shows this Thomas and Ann living with a Sarah Rees, listed as a daughter in law, plus her 3 daughters. That would mean tat this Sarah would be married to a son of Thomas and Ann. So far I have not found this connection.

Arthur

[Olde Crone Holden]

Daughter in law could also be what we now call stepdaughter.

OC

[Old Supporter]

Hi OC,

I'll have a look into that.

Arthur