Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where have I gone wrong?

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

    Where have I gone wrong?

    In the 1891 census we find Mark 26 & Sarah 25 Edwards with their daughters Beatrice 1 and Mabel 2m. GRO gives the MMS of both children as Hyman. A search for the birth of Sarah Hyman yields Q2 1865 Clutton 5c 706. A search of the 1871 census shows Henry 30 & Ann 29 Hyman parents of Sarah 6. The GRO gives a MMS for Sarah as Hurford. All events are in the same area. So far so good. I think that Sarah's mother must be Ann Hurford. However the only marriage of Henry Hyman that fits time & place is to Ann Latchem in Q1 1861.

    So, where have I gone wrong?

    #2
    Maybe she was married before? Her name on marriage would be her widowed surname but the mmn for subsequent children would be her original maiden name.
    Anne

    Comment


      #3
      Scrap this! Just realised the groom is John not Henry. Was searching on surnames. Apologies.

      Could Ann have been a pet name for Susannah? Does this transcription fit any of your known facts?
      Somerset Marriage Index
      John
      Male
      Harford
      1845
      Susannah Mitchard
      Latcham
      Radstock
      Anglican
      Somerset
      England
      Parish records
      33
      Full
      bachelor
      Radstock
      Coal Miner
      07 Apr 1845
      Full
      spinster
      Radstock
      John Harford
      Labourer
      Thomas Latcham
      Coal Miner
      John Hambleton
      Jane Latcham
      Somerset Archives

      Comment


        #4
        The other children on the census seem to have a mixture of Latcham or Herford as the mmn, so I wonder if this birth in Clutton is the key:

        LATCHAM, ANN HARFORD (no mmn) GRO Reference: 1842 M Quarter in CLUTTON Volume 11 Page 114




        Comment


          #5
          Everything points to Ann Latchem also being known as Hurford (with variations on the spelling of both). Maybe her parents were one of each and not married? Or is Henry somehow enjoying two women?

          1871:
          RELATION TO HEAD_________ NAME ______________AGE___________ MMS from GRO
          Head______________________ Henry Hyman _________30
          Wife _______________________Ann Hyman ___________29 ______________(None)
          Son _______________________John Hyman ___________9______________ Latchem
          Daughter ___________________Sarah Hyman__________ 6 ______________Hurford
          Daughter ___________________Elizabeth Hyman _______4 ______________Latchem
          Son _______________________Jesiah Hyman _________3 _______________Latchem
          Daughter ___________________Amelia Hyman _________2 ______________Herford
          Son _______________________James Hyman _________________________Herford

          (Sorry about formatting. Tried tabs and spaces but neither work)

          Comment


            #6
            If the wife Ann is indexed on the GRO index with no mmn, the it is likely she was illegitimate or born before her parents' marriage. In these cases it is quite common to see this variation in the children's indexing because the mother has likely always been known by her mother's surname or the surname of her father/stepfather.
            Anne

            Comment


              #7
              Agree with Ann and the likelihood is, the father, Mr X’s surname woukd have been Harford. A lot of illegitimate babies ended up with the father’s surname as a middle name.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by teasie View Post
                The other children on the census seem to have a mixture of Latcham or Herford as the mmn, so I wonder if this birth in Clutton is the key:

                LATCHAM, ANN HARFORD (no mmn) GRO Reference: 1842 M Quarter in CLUTTON Volume 11 Page 114

                Looks like the answer

                I have one like that on DHs side that kept swapping during their childhood, and parents were married, although she did stick to her mothers name afterwards. I did wonder whether at one time some cultures/communities had been known to do that way back.
                Last edited by cbcarolyn; 12-10-20, 08:15.
                Carolyn
                Family Tree site

                Researching: Luggs, Freeman - Cornwall; Dayman, Hobbs, Heard - Devon; Wilson, Miles - Northants; Brett, Everett, Clark, Allum - Herts/Essex
                Also interested in Proctor, Woodruff

                Comment


                  #9
                  So it looks like either Ann's maiden name was Latchem (et al) and Sarah's father was Hurford (et al) or vice versa. The only flaw in this is that I cannot find a feasible Ann under any of the variations in 1851. She was born and married in or near Radstock so it seems unlikely that she was elsewhere in 1851. If she was I probably cannot identify her.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I can't see them in 1851 either, but it looks like John Harford & Susannah Latchem had a son named William John in 1845, and in 1861 he is a boarder at North Street, North Petherton with a family named Speed.

                    His baptism was 21 Sep 1845 at Radstock. John Harford was a coal miner.

                    ADDED: Looking at the baptism image, it appears to say "the husband is transported"

                    Comment


                      #11
                      John's convict record in Van Diemen's Land:

                      EDIT: I cant seem to upload the URL, but it was 1845 and is on LINC (Libraries Tasmania)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by teasie View Post
                        I can't see them in 1851 either, but it looks like John Harford & Susannah Latchem had a son named William John in 1845, and in 1861 he is a boarder at North Street, North Petherton with a family named Speed.

                        His baptism was 21 Sep 1845 at Radstock. John Harford was a coal miner.

                        ADDED: Looking at the baptism image, it appears to say "the husband is transported"
                        That John and Susannah are likely the couple whose marriage I posted in #3

                        Comment


                          #13
                          John Harford Born 1821. Place of birth north petherton.

                          https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/life?id=cin69263


                          Seeing if this will work:

                          http://www.foundersandsurvivors.org/.../chain/ai30208

                          Medical journal for his ship - Page 21 - 23 description of the voyage. very interesting :L0


                          UK, Royal Navy Medical Journals, 1817-1856
                          P
                          Pestonjee Bomanjee
                          1845 01 Sep - 1846 12 Jan
                          Last edited by Katarzyna; 12-10-20, 12:43.
                          Kat
                          https://www.pinterest.co.uk/katarzyna1234/my-own-cards/

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It looks like he left for Melbourne in 1853 after his conditional pardon. There is a death in 1894 in Victoria John Harford aged 73. The indexes give no family details and the death notices say he was a colonist of 56 years so I can't be certain its him, but it looks a fairly good candidate.

                            Other notices include the marriage of his daughter Annie, so it looks like he is the John Harford who married Mary Elward (or Aylward) in 1858

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Fantastic work. Easily the most interesting character in this tree (which I am doing for a friend.)

                              It looks as if Ann was born c1842 so a few years before her parents married, which is shortly before he was transported. Perhaps not so surprising that Sarah was in two minds about her mother's maiden name.

                              Thanks to all who contributed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X