Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confused.......

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

  • Confused.......

    I have James Manl(e)y. born 1811/ (according to 1841 cens).
    Devon.

    I have him on the 1841, but cannot find him thro searching the 1851, I did a trawl of the place and have found them in 1851, but I cannot find him from searching the normal way. I know he and his family are there. just can't find them in the search.

    any ideas??

    in 1851 he gives his age as 36 so would be 1815 and born at hemyock devon. This is the page... - Ancestry.co.uk

    thanks
    Julie
    They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

    .......I find dead people

  • #2
    Not sure I know what you are asking. The page is very faint, so he probably has been mistranscribed in the index.
    ~ with love from Little Nell~
    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

    Comment


    • #3
      Transcribed as
      Janes Warley born c1815, Hemyock, Devon.

      HO107; Piece: 1888; Folio: 403; Page: 15
      Elaine







      Comment


      • #4
        1851 they are transcribed as Warley
        Jess

        Comment


        • #5
          After looking at the page you linked to I searched Ancestry with no names, Devon, Uffculme, piece number 1888 and page number 15 and found James and family indexed as WARLEY :D

          PS my name is Manley but I'm part of the London lot, 3xgt grandparents married 1811 in Islington and no links to Devon yet found.
          Judith passed away in October 2018

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks Elaine,

            I was looking and found the sample 1851 cens, and used Matthew to find it and on there they are transcribed as MANLY.. right, now I have them I will submit their correct names! lol...

            This family are a pain, this is his second marriage and then she dies too before the 1871 cens I think it was, but he is a devil to pin down... James that is!,

            Do you think a marriage cert from 1846 will state whether he was a widower?

            and I will order one of the later childrens B/cert to confim MMN which I know should be Talbot, (If indeed this is his second marriage) but I think it is...

            bet your not as confused as me!........
            Julie
            They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

            .......I find dead people

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JudithM View Post
              After looking at the page you linked to I searched Ancestry with no names, Devon, Uffculme, piece number 1888 and page number 15 and found James and family indexed as WARLEY :D

              PS my name is Manley but I'm part of the London lot, 3xgt grandparents married 1811 in Islington and no links to Devon yet found.
              I tried allsorts Judith... it was the sample 1851 that got me though, as they are transcribed as MANLY. so presumed that they would be the same in the full 1851. (boy, how wrong was I?)

              I do have Manley's in London, but this is 1915 ish, when they came from Sidbury, Devon. (as their dad was in the army).
              Julie
              They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

              .......I find dead people

              Comment


              • #8
                The marriage cert should state he is a widower. Marriage condition as far as I know hasn't changed since 1837 in that unmarried folk are described as bachelor/spinster or single, widows and widowers described as widowers.

                Later on of course, there's an increasing number of divorced folk.
                ~ with love from Little Nell~
                Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                Comment


                • #9
                  mmm thats what I thought, Honor (1st wife, is definately dead though) well, she would be now wouldnt she?...lol.

                  well, I think that this puzzle is slowly unravelling itself to me, but it is still confusing... as the wives die inbetween the census, so wasnt sure whether he did re-marry or not, (but its looking morelike he did now).

                  and will have to find his death too.... but I think that is in 1897, have to do abit of checking on that.
                  Julie
                  They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                  .......I find dead people

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    now I'm getting in a muddle again.... does anyone think this is right?

                    1841.
                    James/Honor Manly.
                    John 1832.
                    Mary 1834.
                    James 1836.
                    Elizabeth 1839.
                    Jane 1842.

                    Honor Dies 1843, James Re-marries Maria Talbot in 1846.

                    1851.
                    James/Maria Manley.
                    Elizabeth 1840.
                    Robert 1846.
                    Mary 1848.
                    Matthew 1849. (found him in 1861 living with his brother James, and his wife Jane)

                    TWO MARIA's dying in the right area, one in 1857 one in 1859.

                    1861.
                    James Widow.
                    Mary 1854.
                    William 1856.
                    Emily 1858.
                    Living with them also..
                    Thomas Graves 1840.
                    Elizabeth Graves (nee Manley) 1840.


                    do you think I have one family?? or two different families, I'm getting in a right ravel with it now.... heeeellllppppp!
                    Julie
                    They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                    .......I find dead people

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Are the 1841, 51 and 61 families living in the same area? Does Jame have the same occupation?
                      Can you find alternative families in the other censuses, if you do have two families instead of one?
                      ~ with love from Little Nell~
                      Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Nell,

                        they are all in Uffculme, Devon. James is an ag lab, so occ is consistant,

                        as for alternate families, Manley/Manly is a VERY common name in this neck of the woods.

                        I think that they are the same family, I suspect to be certain I should order some certs.

                        two children from the second marriage in diff census should do it, as well as the second marriage? (I will get Honors death cert as well,) as this just ties up loose ends.
                        Julie
                        They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                        .......I find dead people

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          YAY!!

                          certs have come, ordered 7, and they are consistant, with my findings.

                          Honors death cert, 1843. (1st wife).
                          James' marriage to Maria Talbot. 1846. (widow).
                          Robert son, from second marr. 1846. MMN talbot.
                          Mary, dau. on 1861 cens. 1853. MMN talbot.
                          Matthew's marriage. (son, from second marriage) 1871.

                          Frances Graves birth, (1841) confirming mother as Susan Graves, formally Middleton. (Honor's Sister).
                          and Frances marriage to Robert Lockyer. (1862) (witness's to Thomas Graves & Elizabeth Manley's Marriage).

                          both Frances' and Matthews marriage certs have them both as under age so would this mean that a parent was dead? or would their have to be consent? from the parent(s).

                          Guess there is an obvious answer, but I havent come across this on a cert before now.
                          Julie
                          They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                          .......I find dead people

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Julie

                            Its lovely when the certs arrive and actually confirm or illuminate a situation. So often they just throw another spanner in the works!

                            Pleased for you.
                            ~ with love from Little Nell~
                            Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If they are under 21 or described as 'minor' on a marriage cert then they would have had to have permission. This would not be shown on the cert though.

                              Anne

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                thanks Nell...

                                Anne,

                                both Frances and Matthew both state "under age" in the age boxes... the other respective spouses are of "full age".

                                I dont have them scanned into my puter so can't show you.
                                Julie
                                They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                                .......I find dead people

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  ok just scanned em..



                                  Julie
                                  They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                                  .......I find dead people

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Julie - the person writing the certificate/performing the marriage obviously knew their ages and would have known and expected the consent of the fathers. You just don't get to know that from the certificate!

                                    If they didn't have consent of their father(s) then they would either
                                    a) not have been allowed to marry or
                                    b) had to lie about their age so the official didn't know!!

                                    So in these cases what does it tell you? That the ones who are under age are definately under 21 (they would have had no reason to lie). It also tells you that the ones of full age SAID they were over 21 - could have been lying or could have been 85 for all you know from the cert!

                                    If their parents were dead then they would have had - until the age of 21 a 'guardian' who would have to give permission. I don't think they would have been allowed to marry otherwise.

                                    Anne

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Anne,

                                      yes thats true, it just puzzled me because I had never seen it before.

                                      frances was born 17th oct 1841, and married 8th oct 1862.

                                      Matthew born, 1850 ish (havent got his cert) and married 1871.

                                      oh well, I guess i'm abit nearer..
                                      Julie
                                      They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

                                      .......I find dead people

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X