The Starmer Family, Mavis Enderby & Candlesby, Lincs

[wulliam]

A yellow-belly mystery for you!

1841 Census: Candlesby
John Starmer, 30, Ag lab
Susannah Starmer, 30
Thomas Starmer, 20 Ag lab
Charlotte Starmer, 20
Eliza Starmer, 2

John & Susannah married 25 Dec 1839, fathers being Thomas Starmer & Thomas Loughton
Thomas & Charlotte married 2Q 1841, fathers ? & ?

Here they both are in 1851:

1851 Census: Candlesby
John Starmer, head, 42, AgLab, Mavis Enderby
Susanna Starmer, wife, 45, Thetford
Eliza Starmer, daur, 12, Candlesby
John G Starmer, son, 8, Scholar, Candlesby
Anna Maria Starmer, daur, 6, Candlesby
Thos Wm Starmer, son, 4, Candlesby

1851 Census: Mavis Enderby
Thomas Starmer, 36, game keeper, Mavis Enderby
Charlotte Starmer, 36, Hagworthingham
Mary Ann Starmer, 7, Mavis Enderby
Charles Story(?) Starmer, 5, Mavis Enderby
Moses Starmer, 3, Mavis Enderby
Maria Starmer, 5mo, Mavis Enderby

My first thought was that John & Thomas were brothers; perhaps cousins. Both Mavis Enderby & Candlesby had populations of around 200 at the time...not a lot of room for duplicate names. And Starmer is a relatively rare name. Candlesby & Mavis Enderby are less than 6 miles apart.

John is my direct ancestor; Thomas belongs to another researcher I'm in touch with.

Going back a generation John had parents and siblings as follows:

Thomas Starmer m. Elizabeth Dawson Oct 1807 at Mavis Enderby. Children:
John bap 1808 Mavis Enderby
Hannah bap 1810 Mavis Enderby
Eliza bap 1812 Mavis Enderby
Maria bap 1821 Mavis Enderby note the gap between Eliza & Maria
William bap 1824 Mavis Enderby
Jane bap 1828 Mavis Enderby

But, according to the IGI (extracted records) there was a family:

John Starmer & wife Elizabeth had children:
Thomas bap 1814 Mavis Enderby could this be Thomas?
Samuel bap 1817 Mavis Enderby
George bap 1819 Mavis Enderby

I know that I need to get the marriage certificate for Thomas & Charlotte to discover who his father was...but why the perfect gap in Thomas & Elizabeth's family matching with the children in John & Elizabeth's family?!

Any thoughts appreciated!

[Phoenix]

I would not only get the marriage certificate, I would be looking at occupations and abode on baptisms, all the burials in the village and anything else I could lay my hands on. Vicars are not above being forgetful or slipshod, parishioners may have had more than one name. As the wife's name remains the same, my gut feeling is that you have a single family, but you need more information to be sure of this.

[Little Nell]

It's also possible the baptism register had Jno for John which was misread as Thos for Thomas, or the other way round, ie Thos misread as Jno.

[wulliam]

Thanks for your thoughts, Phoenix & Nell. Unfortunately the fiche that I can easily borrow go up to typically 1813!! But I shall keep searching!

Any other thoughts??

BTW, I'm amazed at Google - just searched for Thomas Starmer Elizabeth Dawson and this thread was top of the list!

[Phoenix]

If the fiche go up to 1813, then you ought to have marriages for Thomas and John, as well as baptisms for Thomas and John 20 or so years earlier. Are there any wills? Poor law records? Manorial records? Land tax assesments? Monumental inscriptions?

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

Burials that might be relevant

John STARMER Date 5 May 1891 Aged 83 Place Candlesby Description St Benedict

John STARMER Date 7 Nov 1860 Aged 74 Place Mavis Enderby Description St Michael

Susan STARMER Date 17 Jan 1876 Aged 70 Place Candlesby Description St Benedict

[wulliam]

Phoenix, thanks for your thoughts!
John was baptised 1808, John c1814 - I have the first baptism but not the second. The marriages were post 1837 - and the marriage certificate for Thomas & Charlotte does need to be bought.
I've searched through all the poor law indices that I can get from Lincs FHS - a substantial number...and there is nothing for the family. I can't find any wills despite checking the index on the Lincs RO site.
I don't know anything about finding manorial records or land tax assessments.
Glen (see below) has provided an interesting burial record - I suspect that this is a brother of Thomas senior who married Elizabeth Dawson in 1807.

Glen, thanks for those burials. I had the 1st and 3rd - they are John & Susanna who married in 1839. But the middle one is very interesting...

John STARMER Date 7 Nov 1860 Aged 74 Place Mavis Enderby Description St Michael

It's getting complex with all these Thomas's & John's. I'll post again when I get my thoughts straight!

[wulliam]

A little more detail for you to peruse...

My fellow-researcher and possible relation has now purchased a certificate, the result of which means:

1841 Census: Candlesby
John Starmer, 30, Ag lab
Susannah Starmer, 30
Thomas Starmer, 20 Ag lab
Charlotte Starmer, 20
Eliza Starmer, 2 [Eliza was John's daughter from his first marriage]


John & Susannah married 25 Dec 1839, fathers Thomas Starmer & Thomas Loughton.
Thomas & Charlotte married 6 May 1841, fathers Thomas Starmer & William Baldock.

I wonder whether I can now assume that the 1841 census with John & Susanna with Thomas & Charlotte is showing us two brothers.

Surely they must be closely related? And they both have a father Thomas. And surely they can't be first cousins as that would mean their fathers would be two Thomas's who were brothers!!

What do you think? I have sent for everything I can from Lincs Archives but they're predicting a 10 week wait:(

Thanks for continuing to follow this thread!

[Phoenix]

It is looking increasingly as if the parish register is wrong. Do you know what happened to Samuel and George? If they gave their father as Thomas too on any marriage certificate, that would be pretty conclusive.

[Granny Lynne]

William
I would agree they are probably brothers.
Can you get the Parish Records to check their births?

[wulliam]

Copies of the parish records are one thing I'm waiting for - I've asked for a copy of every Starmer baptised in Mavis Enderby between 1813 and 1820...thankfully it's an uncommon name. I'm hoping that a transcriber has got it wrong and that the father was Thomas all the way through...we'll see!

Thanks for your continued thoughts!

[Phoenix]

Sometimes, unfortunately, it is the vicar who is at fault. I have an ancestor whose mother is noted as Mary. It is only when said mother is informant for her granddaughter's death that I have proof that mother's name is Sarah. And I have a few John/William dilemmas where I am fairly sure it was a careless vicar, rather than two men.

[beccavblack]

Are you aware that Thomas and Charlotte emigrated to USA after 1851, they ended up living in Webster, Dodge, Nebraska. Children Sarah 1841, Mary Ann, 1843, Charles Story 1844, Moses 1848, Maria 1850, Henry 1853, Roseann 1856. Thomas & Charlotte are to be found in the US 1880 census living in Webster, Dodge, Nebraska aged 68 & 60, he is a farmer. I know you said that you were in touch with an ancestor of Thomas, so you probably know this. I am also a Starmer from Lincolnshire, my great grandfather was John Starmer born 1851 in Haven Bank near Boston, his father was Sampson Starmer. From what I have worked out all the Starmers in Lincolnshire seem to be descended from a couple in Willoughby cum Sloothby at the beginning of the 18th century. My g-grandfather moved to Liverpool when the Lincolnshire & Sheffield Railway merged with the Cheshire Lines.
Becca

[wstarmer]

A quick reply: Thanks for the information. Yes I am interested in the Starmer lineage from Lincolnshire. I have a copy of the marriage certificate for Thomas and Charlotte Baldock (Lottie) , as well as some photos after they emigrated to Nebraska and some history after they arrived. My paternal lineage is Thomas->Thomas->Henry->Warford T.->Fritz H. Earlier information for Thomas's father and Charlotte's ancestry is difficult to come by and your note that "Starmers in Lincolnshire seem to be descended from a couple in Willoughby cum Sloothby at the beginning of the 18th century" is new and interesting to me.

[wulliam]

It's a pleasant surprise to see an old thread of mine resurrected!

Becca, I'm also fascinated by what you say:

From what I have worked out all the Starmers in Lincolnshire seem to be descended from a couple in Willoughby cum Sloothby at the beginning of the 18th century.

I wonder whether you could provide details of this couple and their children? - it could prove very enlightening!

[wstarmer]

wulliam,

According to the following link the father of ... Thomas Starmer (i.e., the one married to Charlotte Baldock) was "John Thomas Starmer" married to Elizabeth? Does this help solve the mystery you were working on? He be could be either John or Thomas in the records.

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=linda9201&id=I9757

[Agger]

I am descended from the same root as beccavblack. I have a suggested tree back to 1665 in Willoughby cum Sloothby when Samuelis Starmer married Elizabetha Skuppum. According to that tree, Thomas b 20 Nov 1814 is son of John b 13 Mar 1796 at Hundleby who was the brother of Thomas b 1790 at Hundleby. This Thomas married Elizabeth Dawson in 1807. So Wulliam's John and Thomas from 1851 Census are cousins. I am descended from Samuel, younger brother of John and Thomas from Hundleby.

[wulliam]

Hi Agger,

this sounds very interesting. Does the suggested tree provide any evidence (baptism records and suchlike) or does it just state dates and relationships as facts?
Looking forward to hearing more!

William

[Agger]

Wulliam,

The Tree was not compiled by me and is just a series of dates, hence use of the term "suggested". When I am able to, I will visit Lincoln to check the records out for myself. I suspect that there is a link somewhere to the Northamptonshire Starmers, where the name is relatively common, even today. Incidentally, although pure supposition, Samuelis' bride's surname is spelled Skuppum, whereas there is a place in Norway, where surnames were not in common use at the time, called Skoppum. The bride's family may have originated from there but..... who knows!

Agger

[wulliam]

Hi Agger, that's fair enough!
I reckon that John and Thomas were one and the same - 'John Thomas'...but I haven't managed to prove it - it just seems the likeliest way to fit all the facts I have together.