Unconfigured Ad Widget

**margaretmarch** · 03-09-10, 11:37

Can you give the references for the various censuses you have found please?

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 11:48

1881 http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...348&recoff=1+2

1881: Source Citation: Class: RG11; Piece: 4486; Folio: 110; Page: 19; GSU roll: 1342074.

1891 http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...ki1891&indiv=1

1891: Source Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 3670; Folio 45; Page 22; GSU roll: 6098780.

1901 http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...ki1901&indiv=1

1901: Source Citation: Class: RG13; Piece: 4189; Folio: 116; Page: 18.

Thanks Margaret - the surname tends to vary - his birth is under Shirwood, 1881 Shearwood!

**margaretmarch** · 03-09-10, 12:20

Thanks. As you say very odd. My first reaction would be to say it should read sister in law but I can't find a marriage right off for George Bramham to and Amelia Clark. It has been said on here before though that if a relationship doesn't neatly fall into a certain category people used the nearest one, so it maybe that they are half siblings.
I think you need to track George back a bit and see what he's up to. For his wife Amelia I see she was born in Leeds rather than Middlesex like Jane so it looks unlikely they would be sisters - but you never know.
Off out just now but will pick up the thread when I get back.
Margaret

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 12:22

Thanks Margaret - notice how Mary Jane's middle child is born in Middlesex though?!

It is very odd.

**margaretmarch** · 03-09-10, 14:10

Originally posted by Just Mandy View Post

Thanks Margaret - notice how Mary Jane's middle child is born in Middlesex though?!

It is very odd.

I can understand that, as women often went back to their families to give birth, albeit in this case quite a distance from Leeds to Middlesex.

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 14:13

Yes I can understand it too - but why go back for one birth - and not all?

I don't think anyone else is having much luck unravelling it - or its such a big tangle it's unmanageable!

**margaretmarch** · 03-09-10, 14:28

Well it certainly will take a bit of unravelling and it may all be a matter of a mistranscription!!
There is possibly a family link but it might we quite a way off the branch

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 14:46

A family link with you?! LOL

**margaretmarch** · 03-09-10, 15:54

No, that's not what I meant

LOL
I was thinking about Mary Jane being related to George Bramham - although I do have the name Sherwood in my husband's tree so you never know!?!

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 15:59

Ohhh sorry - all these twigs about and here's me, wrong end of totally wrong stick!

I'd be interested to hear your family link theory - if that's what it is you have.

And are you sure your hubby has Sherwoods? or Shirwoods? or Shearwoods? They are anything they want to be!

**Christine in Herts** · 03-09-10, 16:21

Hi, Mandy

I was going to try to help, but there are a couple of impediments...
The first is trivial - but I really do find it much easier to read requests like this when the surnames are picked out in upper-case.
The second is that, now that I don't have a current Ancestry sub, an Ancestry link to a census (or any other such page) isn't much use; the census reference is something I could use on FMP.

I could find the 1875 marriage at St Barnabas, Holbeck on the Yorks BMD site, but couldn't get anything on Frederick's death. And I can't see the births there, either - presumably the relevant area hasn't been transcribed yet.

Christine

**Just Mandy** · 03-09-10, 16:55

Thanks for your response Christine. I'm afraid I haven't got time to address those things at the moment due to a personal family crisis I need to attend to - but I will sort it out when I get back later on - unless some kind person would like to come to my rescue.

**Christine in Herts** · 03-09-10, 17:00

Don't worry, Mandy.

I have a combination of commitments and ongoing family things (not actual crises, in that they are ongoing rather than sudden) which will keep me occupied for the next little while, so there's no rush!

Christine

**JayG** · 03-09-10, 18:43

I think Amelia's maiden name was Hague.

She first married Thomas Booth in 1863 as Pamelia Hague.

Amelia Booth married George Bramham in 1880.

George Bramham's wife is a Wakefield born Elizabeth on the 1881 census.

Can't spot a connect to those families & London at the mo!

**JayG** · 03-09-10, 18:47

Forgot to say i'm not convinced Elizabeth Davies Sherwood is Mary Jane's daughter.

There's something strange with the way the household has been written in 1881.

**JayG** · 03-09-10, 19:05

Think Mary Jane Sherwood remarried in 1899.

Marriages Dec 1899
Holwell Henry Hunslet 9b 538
Sherwood Mary Jane Hunslet 9b 538

1901 a Jane Holwell aged 60 (ten years older than she should be) born London is a servant in Holbeck, she appears to be married but its abit unclear.

47 year old Henry Howell, down as married is living in Hunslet with his daughter.

This looks like a good match for her death & matches her aged on the 1881 census.

Deaths Mar 1920
HOLWELL Mary J 71 Hunslet 9b 762

**JayG** · 03-09-10, 19:10

From a free search on the 1911 census site a Mary Jane Holwell aged 70 is showing in Hunslet district, in an institution not a household tho.

**Darksecretz** · 03-09-10, 19:51

ooh Jay that does look promising, I know we havent really found her in 1901 as she doesnt seem to use the 'mary' name at all, (we only found this out cos we got JR Shirwoods birth cert!)

**Darksecretz** · 03-09-10, 20:47

from yorks bmd (my new friend) :D they married at St. Jude/potteryfield

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Announcement

Have certs - and still can't see the Sherwoods for the trees :)

Have certs - and still can't see the Sherwoods for the trees :)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment