PDA

View Full Version : 1851 or 1861



colin edmundson
10-11-10, 12:35
Could somebody help me find a Mary Secker bn 1844/45 in Thornhill/ Whitley W yorks
in the 1851 - 1861 census I know she married in 1864. but other than that I dont seem to be having any luck, a variation of the the name could be sacker? any help would be
welcome

Jen~Ealogy
10-11-10, 13:08
Hi Colin, looked on 1851 so far and the closest I could get was the following family, which may or may not be correct........

1851 HO107/2325 F396 P16 Address or district Whitley
Civil Whitley Lower
Eccles. Whitley Lower
Reg dist. Dewsbury
Sub reg. Soothill
Vessell 1a

Head William Secker 56 1795 Mirfield Hand Loom Weaver
Wife Ann 53 1798 Kirkheaton
Dau Sarah 21 1830 Whitley Factory Girl Woollen
Dau Mary A 17 1834 Whitley " " "
Son Charles 16 1835 Whitley " boy "
Dau Emma 12 1839 Whitley " Girl "
Son Benjamin 10 1841 Whitley Coal Miner
Grandson Henry 1 1850 Whitley
Grandson George Nk 1851 Whitley

colin edmundson
10-11-10, 13:37
Thanks jen but this Mary Secker is about 10 yrs out.I know she married a James Armitage in 1864, and lived in Mirfield after her marrage. but before that she she does not appear. I suppose if i got her marrage certificate that could give her parents,

Jen~Ealogy
10-11-10, 14:18
Yes that might be the way you will have to go Colin.

Christine in Herts
10-11-10, 17:24
Thanks jen but this Mary Secker is about 10 yrs out.I know she married a James Armitage in 1864, and lived in Mirfield after her marrage. but before that she she does not appear. I suppose if i got her marrage certificate that could give her parents,

I'd think that buying the marriage certificate is your only safe route. You can't even cheat and get a parish register copy, because the YorksBMD site doesn't seem to have done any Dewsbury-area transcriptions yet. Certificates are pricey at £9.25 each, but that's better than chasing down a wrong route just because you "knew" something and didn't get it checked against to the documentation. Many of us have made that mistake to a greater or lesser extent.

When you're looking in 1861, don't forget to check which "pieces" were irrevocably water-damaged. I notice that some of the 1851 folios are damaged, too, even if they are (partly) legible.

Christine

JonnyB
11-11-10, 10:45
Hi
Possible this marriage is on the Record Search pilot site, but Mary has been mistranscribed?
24 December 1864 Thornhill
James Armitage, 20, Single, father John Armitage
+
Mary Lecker, 20, Single, no father given

colin edmundson
11-11-10, 11:10
Thanks Jonny
I will look into that? As I said earlier the name could be mistranscribed in the census.