Tweet
Our resident expert Stephen Rigden, pictured below, answers your queries.
From Norman Martin:
‘Hi I have a problem with my breeze/Bullen ancestry. What I know:
Alfred Breeze Married Mary Ann Bullen at the Chapel of Pulham St. Mary Magdelen Norfolk on 9 October 1842. The bride’s father is given on the wedding certificate as Benjamin Bullen. His occupation is organ builder. The couple are both listed as living in Pulham St. Mary Magdelen at the time of the marriage. Witnesses were John Gowing and Maria Cann, who are both given as being of full age.
In the 1841 census, Alfred is living with his father William in Long Row Gissing Norfolk. His age is given as 19. I cannot be at all certain of Mary Ann Bullen. In 1841 there is a Mary Ann Bullen living in Hempnall with a Benjamin Bullen who is listed as a watch maker. Mary Ann is 22 and Benjamin is 37, barely old enough to be her father.
In the 1851 census, Alfred and Mary Ann are together living in Pulham St Mary Magdelen. Alfred’s age is given as 27, making his date of birth 1824. The census gives his place of birth as Aslacton Norfolk. Mary Ann’s age is given as 32, making her date of birth as 1819. She is listed as being born in Pulham St Mary Magdelen.
I believe that Alfred’s age is incorrect in the 1851 census as he was baptised on 28 September 1823 with his brother Louis and his sister Caroline. My problem is that I cannot find a birth registration for Mary Ann Bullen with a father named Benjamin. The only birth I can find in Pulham in that period for Mary Ann Bullen is a daughter of Joseph Bullen who was also a watch maker but is referred to as an organ builder in the 1851 census. Mary Ann’s birth date is 16 September 1817.
Joseph may well be the brother of Benjamin and in business together. There is still an example of a Bullen organ in a Norfolk Church, I believe. I would be grateful for any help in resolving Mary Ann.’
Stephen says:
‘Dear Norman
I have taken a look at the problematic situation described in your email. My opinion is that Mary Ann was the daughter of Joseph Bullen and that Benjamin Bullen was her brother.
A key document is the 1841 census, in particular, a census return for Pulham St Mary Magdalen with the following reference: series HO107, piece 758, book 25, folio 23, page 38. This shows Joseph Bullen, organ builder, as head of household with his wife Sophia and inferred children, including Benjamin. Ages are rounded, as is usual with the 1841 census, e.g., Joseph is recorded as 45 (which means aged 45 to 49 years) and Benjamin is 20 (i.e., aged 20 to 24 years = born circa 1817-1821). In 1841 Benjamin is a handicraftsman. Mary Ann is not in the family home.
I believe that the Mary Ann Bullen living with watchmaker Benjamin in 1841, if relevant at all, is part of something other than the usual parent and children nuclear household. The ages have not been rounded down: Benjamin 37, Mary Ann 22 and eldest minor John 8. Were Mary Ann the mother of John, she would have had to have had him aged 14. Were Mary Ann the daughter of Benjamin, then he would have had to have had her aged 15. Neither scenario is likely. It is true that this Mary Ann could be the second wife of this Benjamin, but we know this Benjamin is not the Benjamin who is the son of organ builder Joseph and we also know the true Mary Ann marries Alfred Breeze in the following year.
One possible explanation could be that this is indeed your Mary Ann unmarried and living with an uncle of the same name as her brother, i.e., watchmaker Benjamin would then be Joseph’s brother. Equally, however, this census return could refer to a completely unrelated family group. I would need to undertake further research to decide.
If Mary Ann was of full age at her 1842 marriage, she would have been at least 21 years of age, i.e., born before 1821. Her recorded age of 32 on the 1851 census would indicate a date of birth circa 1818/19. Assuming that you have done a thorough search of baptism records for Pulham parish, I would, therefore, accept your 1817 entry for Mary Ann as the correct one. Note that this would make her a year or two older than Benjamin, who was born circa 1819/20 according to the 1851 census. This would also suggest why she is not with the family in 1841.
If the above scenario is correct, then Joseph was the father of Mary Ann, while Benjamin was acting in loco parentis at the 1842 marriage of Mary Ann, or there was simply a clerical error at registration and his name was recorded instead of Joseph’s. I hope this helps a little.’
If you’d like to send your question to our experts, please register or opt to receive newsletters in My Account. Unfortunately our experts only have time to answer a few queries each month. If yours wasn’t answered this time, you could be lucky next month!
More...
Please note: This post has originated from a news feed from an external website.
Family Tree Forum neither endorses nor is responsible for the views of the author or any other content.
From Norman Martin:
‘Hi I have a problem with my breeze/Bullen ancestry. What I know:
Alfred Breeze Married Mary Ann Bullen at the Chapel of Pulham St. Mary Magdelen Norfolk on 9 October 1842. The bride’s father is given on the wedding certificate as Benjamin Bullen. His occupation is organ builder. The couple are both listed as living in Pulham St. Mary Magdelen at the time of the marriage. Witnesses were John Gowing and Maria Cann, who are both given as being of full age.
In the 1841 census, Alfred is living with his father William in Long Row Gissing Norfolk. His age is given as 19. I cannot be at all certain of Mary Ann Bullen. In 1841 there is a Mary Ann Bullen living in Hempnall with a Benjamin Bullen who is listed as a watch maker. Mary Ann is 22 and Benjamin is 37, barely old enough to be her father.
In the 1851 census, Alfred and Mary Ann are together living in Pulham St Mary Magdelen. Alfred’s age is given as 27, making his date of birth 1824. The census gives his place of birth as Aslacton Norfolk. Mary Ann’s age is given as 32, making her date of birth as 1819. She is listed as being born in Pulham St Mary Magdelen.
I believe that Alfred’s age is incorrect in the 1851 census as he was baptised on 28 September 1823 with his brother Louis and his sister Caroline. My problem is that I cannot find a birth registration for Mary Ann Bullen with a father named Benjamin. The only birth I can find in Pulham in that period for Mary Ann Bullen is a daughter of Joseph Bullen who was also a watch maker but is referred to as an organ builder in the 1851 census. Mary Ann’s birth date is 16 September 1817.
Joseph may well be the brother of Benjamin and in business together. There is still an example of a Bullen organ in a Norfolk Church, I believe. I would be grateful for any help in resolving Mary Ann.’
Stephen says:
‘Dear Norman
I have taken a look at the problematic situation described in your email. My opinion is that Mary Ann was the daughter of Joseph Bullen and that Benjamin Bullen was her brother.
A key document is the 1841 census, in particular, a census return for Pulham St Mary Magdalen with the following reference: series HO107, piece 758, book 25, folio 23, page 38. This shows Joseph Bullen, organ builder, as head of household with his wife Sophia and inferred children, including Benjamin. Ages are rounded, as is usual with the 1841 census, e.g., Joseph is recorded as 45 (which means aged 45 to 49 years) and Benjamin is 20 (i.e., aged 20 to 24 years = born circa 1817-1821). In 1841 Benjamin is a handicraftsman. Mary Ann is not in the family home.
I believe that the Mary Ann Bullen living with watchmaker Benjamin in 1841, if relevant at all, is part of something other than the usual parent and children nuclear household. The ages have not been rounded down: Benjamin 37, Mary Ann 22 and eldest minor John 8. Were Mary Ann the mother of John, she would have had to have had him aged 14. Were Mary Ann the daughter of Benjamin, then he would have had to have had her aged 15. Neither scenario is likely. It is true that this Mary Ann could be the second wife of this Benjamin, but we know this Benjamin is not the Benjamin who is the son of organ builder Joseph and we also know the true Mary Ann marries Alfred Breeze in the following year.
One possible explanation could be that this is indeed your Mary Ann unmarried and living with an uncle of the same name as her brother, i.e., watchmaker Benjamin would then be Joseph’s brother. Equally, however, this census return could refer to a completely unrelated family group. I would need to undertake further research to decide.
If Mary Ann was of full age at her 1842 marriage, she would have been at least 21 years of age, i.e., born before 1821. Her recorded age of 32 on the 1851 census would indicate a date of birth circa 1818/19. Assuming that you have done a thorough search of baptism records for Pulham parish, I would, therefore, accept your 1817 entry for Mary Ann as the correct one. Note that this would make her a year or two older than Benjamin, who was born circa 1819/20 according to the 1851 census. This would also suggest why she is not with the family in 1841.
If the above scenario is correct, then Joseph was the father of Mary Ann, while Benjamin was acting in loco parentis at the 1842 marriage of Mary Ann, or there was simply a clerical error at registration and his name was recorded instead of Joseph’s. I hope this helps a little.’
If you’d like to send your question to our experts, please register or opt to receive newsletters in My Account. Unfortunately our experts only have time to answer a few queries each month. If yours wasn’t answered this time, you could be lucky next month!
More...
Please note: This post has originated from a news feed from an external website.
Family Tree Forum neither endorses nor is responsible for the views of the author or any other content.