Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

relationships and occupation

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

  • relationships and occupation

    This census return has been bugging me for a few years:
    The McDonough household in 113

    Head of house Peter was widowed (I have the 1847 death reg of his wife Rose nee Leydon) and there is a 1844 familysearch bp for younger daughter Rose)
    Lodger Catherine (widowed)
    2 sons
    1 daughter
    1 lodger

    1) Whose sons (and daughter) are they? Peter's or Catherine's?
    2) Nothing is impossible, but potter seems an unusual occupation for an 18 yr old Irish immigrant. I'd welcome opinions as to what his job might have been.

    I do have ideas about both queries, but would love to have input and suggestions from some of you. It won't yet help me prove or disprove my theory, but might help to either dissuade me from simple wishful thinking or to give me ideas on how else I can go about firming up my thoughts.

    Jay
    Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 18-06-18, 17:05.
    Janet in Yorkshire



    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

  • #2
    Re the potter Janet.
    from Wiki:
    "In 1762 the Maling pottery was founded in Sunderland by French Huguenots, but transferred to Newcastle in 1817. A factory was built in the Ouseburn area of the city. The factory was rebuilt twice, finally occupying a 14-acre (57,000 m2) site that was claimed to be the biggest pottery in the world and which had its own railway station. The pottery pioneered use of machines in making potteries as opposed to hand production. In the 1890s the company went up-market and employed in-house designers. The period up to the Second World War was the most profitable with a constant stream of new designs being introduced. However, after the war, production gradually declined and the company closed in 1963."

    It looks from the way they were enumerated that Catherine's children were listed beneath her - she was a widow and a lodger not a spouse.

    Edit:
    Do you have Catherine on 1841?
    Last edited by Katarzyna; 18-06-18, 17:18.
    Kat

    My avatar is my mother 1921 - 2012

    Comment


    • #3
      Could Catherine be Peter's SIL?
      Kat

      My avatar is my mother 1921 - 2012

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for responding Kat.
        I didn't know about the pottery being in Newcastle - always knew it as a Sunderland thing;)
        Catherine could well have been Peter's sister in law.
        No, I don't have her in 1841.

        Jay
        Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 18-06-18, 18:17.
        Janet in Yorkshire



        Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

        Comment


        • #6
          Thanks for looking, Val.
          It could be her, but if so, what took her to Newcastle by 1851 and what happened to all those children?

          I wondered if "potter" Michael of 1851 might have been a porter, as in carrying sacks of goods around.

          I am clutching at straws and am willing Catherine and Michael to be my ancestors!

          Jay
          Janet in Yorkshire



          Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

          Comment


          • #7
            That family were still in Macclesfield in 1851, so not her

            Jay
            Janet in Yorkshire



            Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

            Comment


            • #8
              Peter and daughter Rose were still at Coburgh Stairs in 1861. Also present were Margaret and a Thomas, but no Catherine.

              Rose married in 1864 and in 1871 Peter lived in Newcastle with Rose and her family. He died in 1879.

              Jay
              Janet in Yorkshire



              Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

              Comment


              • #9
                Janet. I cannot see your census line as not being a subscriber to Ancestry (gave it up years ago and changed to FMP) it won’t let me in.
                However, I don’t there is anything wrong is identifying as a potter at 18 would be unusual, in those days he may have started working at a very early age and also, he may just work in a pottery. Can that person be followed up in the next census to try and prove his occupation?
                Last edited by grumpy; 19-06-18, 00:40.
                Whoever said Seek and Ye shall find was not a genealogist.

                David

                Comment


                • #10
                  Thank you for your interest David.
                  Unfortunately, I have been unable to find definitively either that Catherine or Michael in later census returns. Only head of house Peter and his daughter Rose, both of whom I've tracked in 1861 and 1871 census records. (#8)

                  The first proven record I have of MY Michael is 1861 census when he worked as a labourer at a patent manure works on the riverside. Hence my query about "potter" - I had wondered if it could have been "porter," spoken in a strong Irish brogue?? His first known child was born in Newcastle in January 1860 and by 1863 he had moved his family north of the city to the coalfields, where he worked in the mines. In 1871 his mother Catherine was in his household and when she died in 1880 it was at Michael's house and he registered the death.

                  I have no evidence that he was in England before 1860, but have been unable to find any records of use, either Irish or English, to help me with my search. It took me almost 30 years to track down the burial record of Catherine and to then obtain her death certificate!! As usual with many of the Irish immigrants, no definitive place of birth given, other than Ireland and once Galway, and age varies quite a bit, from census to census.
                  I believe Michael's wife's sister and her husband had their first known child in Newcastle in 1855. (No marriage found either England or Ireland for Michael or for his wife's sister.)

                  Jay
                  Janet in Yorkshire



                  Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    If I am able to put in my tuppence worth I will, however the fact that your day is our night means that most of the time queries have been answered prior to me seeing them on the forum. If you could supply a surname I could follow up.

                    Cheers
                    Whoever said Seek and Ye shall find was not a genealogist.

                    David

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by grumpy View Post
                      Janet. I cannot see your census line as not being a subscriber to Ancestry (gave it up years ago and changed to FMP) it won’t let me in.
                      However, I don’t there is anything wrong is identifying as a potter at 18 would be unusual, in those days he may have started working at a very early age and also, he may just work in a pottery. Can that person be followed up in the next census to try and prove his occupation?
                      There are lots of different occupations in a pottery, my pottery workers in Glasgow had various titles but only one seems to have actually made the pots!!

                      "James was a pottery worker, as were his parents, David and Elizabeth, and his two brothers, Alexander and David. David senior is listed as a journey man potter in 1861, and a transferrer or printer on pottery on other census returns. Elizabeth was also a transferrer. David junior was a muffel [sic] boy in 1881 and Alexander was a bowl maker."
                      http://www.familytree.lewcock.net/in...atetic-potters


                      3 pages here of occupations: http://www.thepotteries.org/jobs/index.htm
                      Caroline
                      Caroline's Family History Pages
                      Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Sorry David - the surname was in the opening post. McDonough in 1851 - in 1861 census Peter & Rose were recorded as McDough.
                        (Other variants for my branch of the tribe were McDonna, McDonnough, McDonagh, sometimes its Mac rather than Mc, sometimes lower case D, sometimes plain Donough, Donner and variants, one line morphing into Donnick in the early 1900s.)

                        Pleasing that a couple of posters thought (like me) that Thomas, Michael and Mary were the children of Catherine (a lodger) rather than of Peter, head of house.

                        Whilst I'm grateful for any help or suggestions, please don't anyone go busting a gut on this lot. It's been by far the most difficult of my direct lines to research. I got back to my Michael and his wife in 1861 census in Newcastle on Tyne very quickly, about 30 years ago. I've managed to find out a lot of information about their many descendants and also those of Michael's wife's sister and husband. It's pre 1861 that's the problem; Michael's mother was Catherine, widow of John, and the family claimed to be from Galway, but no indication whether that meant city or whole county. Their origins are this rash which erupts from time to time and then I have to keep scratching away and I make my head ache in the process.

                        Jay
                        Janet in Yorkshire



                        Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Thank you, Caroline. Potter just struck me as odd, because I can find no other family connection with the pottery business, other than this one census entry. The potter, whoever he was, seems to have branched out into some other occupation by 1861 and no signs of any possible siblings having followed him into that trade.

                          Jay
                          Janet in Yorkshire



                          Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            I do think it very possible that the occupation should read 'porter', given strange accents and census ennumerator errors. Perhaps he misheard or just couldn't read the writing (or his own writing if he had to do it for them). On the other hand for all the above reasons he could be a pottery worker. Sorry, no help at all!! LOL
                            Anne

                            Comment


                            • #16
                              Thanks Anne. It would have had to have been written for them as they were unable to read and write. I think they probably also lacked calculating skills. But they managed to raise all their babies to adulthood, so it wasn't all bad!;D

                              Jay
                              Janet in Yorkshire



                              Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X