Another piece of the puzzle

Of course, I’m referring to the puzzle of Walter Newby’s parentage. If you remember, I did find his mother Sarah Jane Newby, and his father Thomas Wallinger, but I had still spectacularly failed to find Walter himself on the 1911 census.

Now, I know that the census record itself isn’t the goal so much as finding detail to piece together Walter’s life, but I did feel quite strongly in this case that the census was really the only reliable source that would tell me something about Walter’s childhood and what happened to both him and his mother following his father’s death when he was just a year old.  

Given that I couldn’t find either of them under the names Newby or Wallinger anywhere on the census, or by tracing their families. I then began various searches to identify children of roughly the right age, called Walter, with mothers called Sarah also of roughly the right age. And yesterday (on my birthday no less), after lots of fruitless attempts, I finally struck what I hope is gold!

Walter Barker is aged six, giving him a birth year of 1905, which ties in nicely with a September 1904 birthdate – in April 1911 when the census he would indeed have been aged six. He was born in Wakefield, which is a strong match for his birthplace of Snapethorpe. His mother Sarah Barker is 34, meaning she was born roughly around 1877, which is a match, and her birthplace is given as Kellington, which is also a direct match.

Her husband Henry Barker, is aged 38 (b. around 1873). He works as a ‘cowman’ on a farm and the family live in Hemsworth, which is roughly halfway between Wakefield and Doncaster.  Yet Henry was born in ‘Ardsley, Wakefield’, which is to the north of the city, on the way to Leeds.

Sarah Barker claims to have been married to her husband Henry for eleven years, and they have three other children – Tom, aged nine, Charles, aged eight, and Albert aged three. Of course, none of this makes much sense in the context of what I know about Sarah Jane and Walter – Sarah Jane certainly can’t have been married for eleven years, because she was still Newby on the birth certificate of Walter in 1904.

However, this is where it gets interesting: The census states that Tom and Charles Barker were born in Blackpool – where we know that Sarah Jane and Thomas Wallinger were living in 1901, and where it would seem Thomas died in 1905.

So, here’s the theory: Walter was not Sarah Jane and Thomas’s first child – I had assumed he was. But I know they were living together from 1901 and Sarah Jane could potentially have been having children from the mid to late 1890s, so there was no reason to think that she/they hadn’t had other children. Tom (named for his father?) and Charles were born while the couple were living in Blackpool in 1902/03. By late 1904 they had returned to Yorkshire, where Walter was born. Following Thomas’s death in late 1905, Sarah, effectively widowed, met Henry Barker, giving birth to their first child Albert in 1908. (The census indicates only four children, all accounted for).

Alternatively, Tom and/or Charles were the children of Henry Barker from a previous marriage. Henry was in Blackpool, with his children, and it was here that he and Sarah Jane met following the death of her husband

On his marriage certificate, perhaps Walter took his own surname and combined the names of his father and stepfather to ‘invent’ a fictional Thomas Henry Newby? (This still doesn’t explain where the ‘market gardener’ came from, as it doesn’t really describe either father figure, though both were in farming at one time or another.)

Now to test the theories.

An initial search for relevant marriages shows a Sarah Jane Newby marrying a Henry Barker in Dewsbury... in 1922.

Dewsbury would make sense. Walter Newby marries Margaret Thompson in Chickenley just 7 years later, and the parish record describes him as ‘of this parish’, so he was living in the Chickenley area, which is in Dewsbury registration district, by 1929.

Did Sarah Jane and Henry not marry until 1922? If not, why not? Money? Or was Henry married already? (It reminds me of Mabel Hall, who couldn’t marry George Jones until later life when her estranged husband William Hayward (AKA Hedgcock) died. ) If so, why did they lie on the census? Sarah Jane and Thomas never lied about their marital status, so why would she do so now with Henry?

The next step is to order this marriage certificate and see if I can confirm that this is indeed my Sarah Jane, based on her father’s name and occupation and any marriage witnesses. It should also shed some light on Henry’s circumstances, whether he was previously married, etc. I also intend to search for potential births for Tom and Charles in Blackpool, and also Albert’s birth in Badsworth (not far from Hemsworth) and see what names their births were registered under.

I have quite a strong instinct that I’m on the right lines here, so fingers crossed!

L x

The Newby mystery solved!

On Friday I finally received a birth certificate for Walter Newby.

I had ordered this certificate, registered Q4 1904 in Wakefield, on the basis that it was close enough to match the birth on the marriage certificate (circa 1905); it was in my home registration district (while I had no evidence that Walter was born there, he had married nearby and certainly died in Wakefield, so I had no evidence that he wasn’t born there either); and it seemed to be the only birth of a Walter Newby that I couldn’t account for.

The birth was registered in December. Here is the information as it appeared on the certificate:

Name: Walter Newby

Date of birth: 20 September 1904

Where born: Snapethorpe Farm, Lupset

Father’s name and occupation: Thomas Wallinger

Mother’s name and occupation: Sarah Jane Newby, Housekeeper Domestic
(at Snapethorpe Farm, Lupset, as the informant section went on to show)

As I had long suspected, it seems Walter was illegitimate!

Interestingly, this means that had Sarah Jane married Thomas Wallinger (the writing is quite legible, despite having been crossed out), my surname would have been Wallinger rather than Newby, which I find quite strange. Though at least it is an interesting surname!

Of course, now it was time to investigate Walter’s story. There were quite a few Sarah Jane Newbys and Thomas Wallingers, so it did take a bit of searching and unravelling before I could get the full picture, and there are still lots of things to learn, but here goes.

Sarah Jane Newby was born in in around 1877 in Kellington, Yorkshire (which is to the east of Pontefract, out towards Goole). Her parents were Henry Newby and Elizabeth Lockwood, both of whom were also local. Henry worked as a farm labour in his younger days, before working in a malthouse. Sarah Jane was the fifth of ten known children.

Thomas Wallinger was born in Hanslope, Buckinghamshire, some thirty-three years before Sarah Jane. In 1876, around the time that Sarah Jane was born, Thomas married Charlotte Johnson, of Carlton le Selby, Yorkshire, less than ten miles from Sarah Jane’s place of birth.

How Thomas and Charlotte met is something of a mystery, but I can say that Thomas is not in his home town of Hanslope on the 1861 census, and instead is possibly lodging with a family in Treeton, a village now on the outskirts of Sheffield – in Yorkshire, but still well over thirty miles from Carlton. This is unproven as yet, though.

By 1901 both Thomas and his wife Charlotte are in Blackpool, running boarding houses – but apparently separately. Charlotte is alone in her household other than a servant, Alice Held, also born in Yorkshire.

And in the 1901 household of Thomas Wallinger is none other than Sarah Jane Newby and her younger sister Dinah. The relationships in this 1901 household have been mangled. Thomas is listed as ‘head’, Sarah Jane as ‘sister’ and Dinah as ‘servant’. Sarah Jane does give her occupation as housekeeper, however. It was only when I found this particular record that I could start to unravel both of their family backgrounds further.

By 1904, of course, Sarah Jane is back in Yorkshire, living about 15 miles from her home town at Snapethorpe Farm. A Thomas Wallinger appears to have died in Q2 1905 in the district of Fylde, Lancashire – so I thought he was probably still living in Blackpool.

However, when I googled Snapethorpe Farm out of curiosity, it came up with something from the London Gazette of 17 February 1905, namely a list of ‘First meetings and public examinations’ of debtors. Thomas Wallinger, Farmer, of Snapethorpe Farm, Wakefield was due in court on Mar 2 1905.

So perhaps Thomas and Sarah Jane both returned to Blackpool in spring of 1905, and then Thomas died. But what happened to Sarah Jane and Walter? And where on earth were Sarah Jane and Walter in 1911? I still can’t find anything on the census.

This story leaves a lot of unanswered questions, but it’s certainly a start! Hopefully more will be revealed as I investigate my exciting new Newby, Lockwood and Wallinger lines further...

L x

Where’s Wally?

If you happen to have seen my Twitter feed towards the end of last week, you might have detected a scuffle of excitement as I once again turned my attention to the saga that is my great grandfather Walter Newby and his father, the mysterious Thomas Henry. (If you want to catch up on the story so far, the easiest way is probably to scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Newby tag, which should bring you all the related posts!)

Previously I had focused on finding Walter on the 1911 census, because I know that he should be aged about five at this point, and he must be alive somewhere. However, I can’t find him, either with his father or without!

Having had absolutely no luck with the son, I turned my attention to the father. My knowledge about Thomas Henry Newby is limited: He was a market gardener, and he was dead by the time Walter married in 1929. Of course, this means that I can’t even be sure that Thomas Henry was alive in 1911. But, I thought, perhaps I can find a Thomas Henry with a son of the right age who has been badly mistranscribed, explaining why my searches haven’t found him.

And, after a lot of searching, using various wildcards, I came up with something: Thomas Henry Norbury, nursery and seedsman.

 OK, so he doesn’t appear to have a son of the right age. But he is located in Clayton West, which is local, roughly ten miles from where Walter later marries. Though I don’t have any evidence to suggest that Walter was definitely born locally to where he later lived, nor do I have any reason to believe that he wasn’t. (It does give rise to questions about the assumptions one should make during a genealogical investigation...)

Now, Thomas Henry Norbury and his wife, Eleanor, have four living children in 1911 and one who has died. They have three children living with them on the census, none of which are Walter. I located them on the 1901 census, and there they have a fourth child. However, this could be the one who has died. Thus, possibly, Walter could be the elusive fifth?

One problem regarding this family is in fact that Eleanor is a little old to have a six-year-old son in 1911. But perhaps she isn’t his mother ... ? And of couse there’s the slightly bigger problem – where the heck is Walter in 1911?!

Of course, the Norburys could be a red herring, but with nothing else to go on, I reckon they’re worth investigating further. I’ll keep you posted...

L x

Catching Crabbs and Jessups

Abandoning any pretence that I’m not researching while I’m supposed to be indexing, I’ve recently been looking into the parents of Mary Ann Jessup, who married Charles John Buswell in Kensington, London in 1876. I have ordered this marriage certificate in order to confirm that I definitely have the right people (as I know who Charles John’s father was and occupation for both him and his father, this should be enough to confirm I have the correct groom).  

I’m pretty confident though. I can’t find any other plausible alternative marriages for Charles and the marriage date makes sense in that their eldest child is born in 1877 (although in Tredegar, South Wales – definitely no marriages there though!) Furthermore, Mary Ann consistently claims she is from Camberwell in Surrey on all of the censuses following their marriage, and I have found a Mary Jessup of the right age born in Camberwell, so all three facts link up neatly enough, with no other obvious possibilities presenting themselves. Following the Newby debacle I’m still being a cautious though, and I really need the marriage certificate to confirm it.

However, while I’m awaiting confirmation, I couldn’t resist looking into Mary Ann’s parentage. According to the 1861 census her father is Charles Jessup, born in Stepney in about 1820, and her mother is Mary born about 1827 in the tiny village of Beercrocombe in Somerset. They have six children born between 1852 and 1868, Mary Ann being the second, born in 1856. Charles gives his occupation as a ‘traveller in flowers’ – which I suppose might explain how he came to meet his wife in the depths of the Somerset countryside.

So far so straightforward. However, a problem emerged when it became apparent that I couldn’t find a marriage record, nor anything conclusive on who the families of either Charles or Mary were despite pretty exhaustive searches. I could find no trace of either of them prior to 1861. It seemed that without the elusive marriage record, I had no chance of progressing. I was working on the premise that the marriage likely took place around about 1851/52, close to the birth of the eldest child, Elizabeth, but with no results forthcoming I spread my net a lot wider. Still no luck.

Instead, I turned my attention to Mary’s siblings. I was able to find baptism certificates for the younger ones, including the very youngest, Henry C. Jessup, which, it turned out, stood for Caswell. With Sarah Caswell, born 1811/12 Somerset, and Clement Caswell, born 1852 Somerset, as house guests on later censuses, I was tentatively proposing that Mary was also a Caswell, and this was a sister or sister-in-law and her son staying with them, but still nothing was forthcoming to prove it. (It also struck me that Caswell is not too far away from Buswell, and wondered briefly whether there was in fact some sort of connection, but I’ve concluded it’s highly unlikely. My Buswells are firmly rooted in Oxfordshire, and I know of no Somerset connections.)

I decided, out of interest, to Google Henry Caswell Jessup, as it is the kind of unusual name that can reveal relevant results very quickly. I instantly turned up several messages left on genealogy message boards back in 2000/2001 by someone named Peter, who appeared to be grappling with the same family and having exactly the same problems as I was. Attempts to contact him have failed, with the two email addresses I found no longer valid. (Peter, if you’re out there and still researching, please do get in touch!)

Peter’s posts, however, provided me with an invaluable piece of information – Mary’s maiden name. Peter had ordered birth certificates for some of their children (possibly all, I don’t know), on which Mary gave her maiden name as Crabb, not Caswell. Caswell, he said, had become a family middle name, but he didn’t know what the connection between Mary and her Somerset guests was, and was trying to find out more about them as well.

So, I now knew that I was looking for Mary Crabb from a tiny Somerset village – sounds easy? Peter’s messages said he had identified a few possible Mary Crabbs, but nothing to connect any of them with the wife of Charles Jessup. I went through the marriage records again, but turned up nothing.

I found a very useful list of households in the tiny parishes of Beercrocombe and nearby by North Curry for 1851, 1861 and 1871, which to me only had one possible set of parents for Mary Crabb: Thomas Crabb b. 1789 and Sarah Crabb b. 1794. The household had children ranging from 38 to 17, which fits Mary’s age perfectly. However, there is nothing to say that Mary’s parents couldn’t have died or even left Beercrocombe – after all, Thomas Crabb was apparently born in Beercrocombe and probably he had siblings. Her parents having left with Mary in tow or died forcing her into work might explain why she isn’t there in 1851 prior to her marriage.

I widened my search terms for both of them and stopped looking exclusively at the marriage records, in the hope that another document might give me the clue I needed. One of the records that came up was an 1851 census record for Caleb Jessup. He was married to a woman called Jane. Right age and right place of birth. This rung a small-but-persistent bell in my head. On one of the baptisms there had been what I had thought was a mis-transcription of Charles as Caleb. I remembered that I had looked at it and to me it read Carle*, with a bit of a squiggle on the end that could have been almost anything. But what if they had got it right and it was Caleb?

I opened the census record to see Caleb’s occupation: ‘Travelling salesman’. Not too far from ‘traveller in flowers’, and I’d seen ‘travelling salesman’ on some of the baptism records of his children as well. A search for further documents relating to Caleb only threw up two: his marriage in 1848 to Jane Booth. This helpfully gave me his parents’ names: William and Ann; and the 1841 census, on which he is living with his parents and what appear to be siblings Julia and Alfred. There was no sign of either Caleb or Jane on later censuses, nor could I find a death for Caleb anywhere that would rule out the possibility that he and Charles were one and the same.

So, I can’t currently prove that Caleb and Charles are, or are not, the same person. But how likely is it? We all know that name changes are not unheard of, and they are one good explanation for a brick wall like this.  I can’t currently see an obvious explanation for this one though…

As Charles/Caleb is in his thirties when he first appears with his young family in 1861, and his wife is younger than him by about seven years, it’s not impossible that he had a previous marriage, and had been widowed. I note that following the birth of his eldest daughter Elizabeth in 1852 there is a four-year gap, before Mary Ann is born in 1856. Perhaps Elizabeth was daughter by his first wife Jane? If Charles is the same man as Caleb living with Jane in 1851, then it certainly seems more likely that she is Jane’s daughter than Mary’s. Conveniently, as yet I’ve failed to identify a promising birth record for Elizabeth to check this theory out! It would help to identify a possible death record for Jane that ties in as well.

If I’m correct in this, then this puts Charles and Mary’s likely marriage date at 1853–1856. Mary would be about twenty-six at that point. Given the lack of Jessup–Crabb marriages, however, I’m contemplating a couple of other possibilities.

Firstly, perhaps Mary had also been previously married. At twenty-six, she could feasibly have been married before. In fact, there’s equally the possibility that Elizabeth was her daughter from a previous marriage as well. If Mary married Charles under her married name, that would explain why the marriage hasn’t been immediately apparent. It might be possible to work through all of the possibilities and rule them out to identify her, but that would be an arduous task

The other possibility is that they didn’t actually marry. Not impossible, particularly if one or both of them was already married – perhaps one or both weren’t widowed/widower but had simply left their previous partner. This will be even harder to prove.

I probably need to get hold of as many original records for this family as possible in order to check out sneaky name changing etc! I think that Elizabeth’s records are probably the key to unlocking this mystery, with the Caswells in supporting roles. I’m still not 100% convinced that Caleb is Charles, but it’s the best lead I have for now…

L x

U is for Unknown

For the letter U I give you my ‘Unknowns’.

These are, technically, the people for whom some or all of their name is listed as Unknown within my index up to my 5x great grandparents, which is the point to which I consistently have ‘placeholders’ set up (i.e. an index number is created for them even though I don’t have a name etc. for the individual yet).  This includes women who I only know their married name, and thus I have a Christian name for them but no surname yet.

There 157 unknowns in my direct line tree up to this point – quite a few then! Most of these occur in the 5x GG generation. I don’t know the names of 105 out of my 128 5x great grandparents). On the other hand, my earliest one occurs at the 2x GG generation (the mother of Walter Newby).

H ere I give you a quick list of some of my key Unknowns. If anybody can fill in the gaps, or suggest a way forward, please do!

1. The maiden name of James Green’s wife Esther

The Green family are to be found in the Forest of Green area of Gloucester. The issue is muddled somewhat by the existence of two James Green’s married to women named Esther, one of who is Esther Barlow. However, for various reasons, I’m reasonably sure that I am looking for the other Esther, for whom I can’t find a maiden name...

2. The family of Mary Ann Lumb, wife of Henry Hampshire

Mary Ann was born in 1830 in Flockton (Lepton?), and married Henry Hampshire in 1848. Unfortunately Lumb is quite a common name so I haven’t succeeded in identifying the family yet.

3. The parents of Phoebe Ann Hollyloke/Hollyboke/Hollyoke

Phoebe Ann was born in 1822. Her mother is called Sarah, but who was her father, and what is her mother’s maiden name?  

4. The mother of Mary Ann Birchall

Mary Ann’s father is John Birchall, musician, but he appears to have brought up Mary Ann (b. abt 1835) alone and as far as I can tell she is his only child, so no other children to work from and no further info on his family from which to identify his marriage...

5. The ancestry Richard Winter (b. 1834) and wife Sarah née Winter (b. 1839)

I haven’t yet been able to find out anything concrete about their parentage, and I’m intrigued as to whether there’s a pre-existing family relationship here...

Of course, there are 152 more, but these are just a selection of my ‘mysteries’. Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated, as always!

L x

On the Newby conundrum

I interrupt this alphabet to bring you an update on the Newby conundrum (see: On the father of Walter Newby) I spent a bit of time this weekend attempting to track down Thomas Henry Newby and son Walter.

If you remember, my plan was as follows:

1. Identify probable deaths for Thomas Henry Newby ­– probably pre-1911, since there’s no sign on the census.

2. Find him on the 1901 census – with a bit of luck he’s already married!

3. From this, identify a likely birth for Walter based on location

4. Order birth certificate to find mother’s name.

5. Tie it all together by accounting for them on 1911 census.

So, I tried this and had absolutely no luck, falling at the first hurdle. It proved almost impossible to find a likely death – most seemed either far too old or far too young. So then I changed tack. Long story short, I tried a LOT of other searches: variations on Newby, variations on first names, other surnames where the rest of the info matched, possible children living in institutions/with single mothers/with other family...

I went down a few dead ends and was on the verge of giving up when I came up with a new plan: Search for other Newby children with the same father – Thomas Henry Newby, market gardener.

This threw up just one real possibility: Thomas Newby, born 1861. He lived with his wife Eliza Hawkesford in Tanshelf, Pontefract and worked as a gardener. The couple had two children Harriet Newby (b. 1889) and Stanley Newby (b. 1899). I was able to expand this family somewhat and establish that Thomas was the son of Thomas Prince Newby, born 1812 in Pontefract and his second wife Sarah A. (maiden name unknown). However, I found the family in 1911 and there was no sign of Walter, nor does it seem likely that Walter was born to Thomas and his wife, as the 1911 census tells us that they had five children, of whom only two are still living – Harriet and Stanley. I could only find the baptisms of these two living children to the couple, and nothing at all for Walter. Nor could I find a likely birth for Walter in the Pontefract area.

There is however a 1904 birth of Walter in Wakefield, which I had thought might possibly be the right one for my ancestor, though it is earlier than the birth given on the marriage certificate (late 1905–early 1906), and doesn’t tally with the death record I have identified (but not yet ordered, so unconfirmed). It is possible that Walter’s birth was recorded in Wakefield but not likely – Tanshelf births should have been registered at Pontefract, but perhaps he was not born in Tanshelf? I certainly can’t find another Walter Newby in the Wakefield area to whom it could be relevant, so I can’t discount it that way.

The other problem with the link between Thomas Newby of Tanshelf and Thomas Henry Newby father of Walter, is the absence of the second Christian name, Henry, in any of the records for the former so far. However, I haven’t managed to find a baptism record, which I think should show the full given name even if it was subsequently dropped by Thomas on other records. On the other hand, I have found a brother of Thomas Newby (another child of Thomas Prince, that is) who has the middle name Henry, so I’m not sure how likely it is that the same middle name has been reused within the family.

Also,  nowhere does Thomas of Tanshelf use the words market gardener to describe himself, always just gardener (and on one occasion simply ‘labourer’). This doesn’t so much imply someone growing and selling their own produce as someone employed to take care of gardens – a fundamental difference. However, I do need to check the occupation codes for the 1911 census to confirm this.

On the plus side, I know that Thomas of Tanshelf is dead before 1929, when Walter marries and declares his father Thomas Henry deceased. Thomas seems to be living on the marriage of his daughter in 1911 but dead by the marriage of his son in 1915. However, I haven’t yet found the death record (it’s on my to-do list).

I even surmised that perhaps Walter was the illegitimate son of Harriet Newby, later to be brought up by Thomas and wife as their own. However, I can’t find any evidence for this. If this was the case, where is Walter in 1911? With his father? If so, why doesn’t he remain there? Harriet marries a couple of months after the 1911 census, and I even went so far as to track down her husband to be and check his 1911 household for young Walter – no luck.

To be honest, my gut feeling is that Thomas Newby of Tanshelf isn’t Walter’s father. If he is, however, I strongly suspect that his wife Elizabeth is not Walter’s mother. Is Walter perhaps living elsewhere with his unmarried mother, under another name and unrecognised by his father? It’s one possibility, but it does feel a bit like I’m fitting my lack of info into a theory rather than a theory to the known facts, which is not ‘best practice’!

So what next?

I can of course continue to investigate Thomas of Tanshelf and family. If I can build up a fuller picture of the Tanshelf Newbys, this may turn up a possible candidate for Walter, perhaps living with extended family. On the other hand, I’m reluctant to spend too much time building up a picture of another set of irrelevant Newbys – I want to find the right one! Therefore I think I need to strongly focus on finding something to link Walter to this father before I start getting too involved in the tree.

As a first step, I may consider ordering the Wakefield birth record, just in case it does happen to shed some light on the matter. It might also be worth ordering the death certificate I’ve identified, to check that it is the correct one and thus confirm a more concrete age for Walter. Beyond that, I’m a bit stuck, unless I can track down a baptism for Walter, or indeed confirm that Thomas of Tanshelf was definitely Thomas Henry.

I mentioned the struggle on the phone to my mum, and she says she knows someone who may be able to help (apparently the Newbys are somehow distantly related to her hairdresser!) so when I’m back in Yorkshire this weekend I’m going to get this ladies details and give her a call. Hopefully she might be able to remember some more detail that my dad and his siblings don’t! I’m also going to take the opportunity to dig around in our photo albums and stuff, which I haven’t done in a long time.

I’m starting to think there’s something fishy going on here... who knows, maybe it will turn out that I’m not really a Newby after all!

L x

On the father of Walter Newby

Yesterday I finally began the task of creating the individual records to go with my index. It’s quite a slow process, as it involves pulling information from my Ancestry tree and elsewhere, checking it is complete and making it conform to the standards I’ve defined for recording (and tweaking these as I go along and find out what works and what doesn’t).  To try and myself progress a bit faster, I’ve banned myself from any further research until I’ve got a proper structure in place for recording things... in theory!

Walter Newby is my great-grandfather straight down the paternal line. As I was tackling his records, I noticed that I didn’t have a BMD birth record for him. My date of birth therefore was only based on his age in the 1911 census record and death record, both of which are notoriously vague. So, in the interests of making sure his file was ‘complete’, and thinking it would be fairly straightforward, I clicked on ‘search records’.

Within the first fw records appeared the parish record for his marriage, which I can only assume is a recent addition, as I’ve never come across it before when researching Walter or his wife Margaret. I can be absolutely certain that this is the correct record. However, it throws a spanner in the works because Walter’s father’s name is given as Thomas Henry Newby. Unfortunately, according to my research Walter’s father’s name is Bertie James Newby.

The first question that came to mind was should I ignore it for now and continue with my ‘no research’ policy? I could start a list of research leads as I work through my index, and then prioritise and follow-up at the end. This would be a top priority of course, being such a recent ancestor and impacting so heavily on my other research.

But what would be the point of me filling in all the details I have for Walter and his ancestors if they’re then all incorrect? On the other hand, I have always tended towards keeping a record of ‘incorrect’ info that I’ve discounted, as a) it forms a key part of my research process and b) it might be useful to someone else one day.

I decided that actually a little research would be a good idea here, because it is such a major stumbling block, and I didn’t feel that I could make a decision without more information.

First of all I started trying to work out why I had decided that Bertie James was Walter’s father. It quickly became apparent that there was no finite proof anywhere, and I had made quite a major assumption. However, I could see how I had done it.

I had made a decision about his birth year based on the BMD index entry for his death, which again I had only assumed was the right one. Realistically it is the only possibility, given that I know he died relatively young, before my father was born.  In the event, the newly discovered marriage record still supports a birth year of 1905/06, so I can still have confidence in this death record and that I had his birth year correct.

There are only four Walter Newbys of the right age on the 1911 census, and one living considerably closer than any of the other three to the area where I knew that he had married his wife Margaret (because I had found their BMD index entry for their marriage). Without claiming to have gone into a lot of detail, a quick scan of the other 1911 census entries and marriage / death index entries seems to account for the other Walters and imply that Walter son of Bertie James is the one who married Margaret Thompson. I intend to revisit this assumption more closely, and see if I can actually properly discount them.

The other 1911 census entries for Walter Newbys born in the period 1905–7 didn’t have Thomas Henry as a father either (or even anything close to it). Widening my net, I got one Walter George Newby with father Thomas b. 1900 and living in Lanelly, Camartheshire, Wales. However, he was quickly ruled out by the fact that he clearly married and died in the same area, which my Walter definitely did not. There were no other obvious candidates, nor could I easily see any likely births beyond those covered by the 1911 census.

So, I have a (probably) wrong family tree line, and no likely candidates for replacement. The possibilities are that Walter and Thomas Henry are there in 1911 and I just haven’t found them yet, that they’re not there for some reason but do exist, or that Thomas Henry is a red herring, and that Bertie James is Walter’s father. This second possibility doesn’t seem all that likely. Granted it does say that Walter’s father was deceased at the time of their marriage, but he would still have known his father’s name, surely? And if not, why make one up?

The next step, I think, is to order Walter and Margaret’s marriage certificate, and see if that can shed any more light on things. I’m putting the Newby line on hold until I can resolve this. After all, it’s not as if I don’t have plenty of other ancestors to be recording!

I'm taking this as a warning about making any kind of assumption in genealogical research – in my defence, I probably made this assumption a long time ago, when I was far more naive as a researcher. But, I have learnt the lesson now, and I will be applying it. I’ll be questioning everything as I carry on with my recording – here’s hoping my entire family tree doesn’t come tumbling down around my ears!

L x

On Elizabeth Robinson: An update

After I posted about my brick walls on Wednesday, I got a very useful suggestion from Niall McMahon on how I might be able to get over one of them:

Elizabeth Robinson was born in 1877 in North Yorkshire, and married Bertie James Newby in 1899. I found Elizabeth on the 1881 and 1891 censuses living with her grandmother Mary Ann Robinson. In my indexing I have tentatively assumed that Mary Ann is her paternal grandmother, on the basis of her surname, but I’ve as yet failed to trace her parents. Unfortunately Elizabeth Robinson and Mary Ann Robinson are rather too common as names to be able to make educated guesses to fill in the gaps. The next step surely has to be to order Elizabeth and Bertie’s marriage certificate and see what that can tell me.  

At Niall’s suggestion I looked up Elizabeth Robinson's grandmother Mary Ann on the 1861 and 1871 censuses, using the address from the 1881 census.

Unfortunately Newton-le-Willows (in the parish of Patrick Brompton, North Yorkshire, not the one on Merseyside) is so tiny that it doesn't appear to have even had street addresses – the census simply numbers the households, and they're different every time. Fortunately, it's so tiny that it only takes up about a dozen pages of census, so I was able to work my way through and find her quite quickly.

Mary Ann Robinson has two children on the 1861 census – Jane born 1854 and Thomas born 1856. In 1871 Jane is still at home with her mother, an unemployed domestic servant, but Thomas is not. Interestingly, Mary is listed as unmarried on the censuses, meaning that her children are most likely illegitimate.

As the children were born when Mary Ann was in her thirties, I now wonder whether she might have had other children before this who had died or left home by 1861. I trawled all ten pages of the 1851 census for the parish and they’re not there.

There is a possibility on the 1841 census: Mary Robinson aged 20, in the household of Thos Robinson aged 55 and John Robinson aged 25. They are her father and brother, presumably, though the 1842 census doesn’t give relationships. An alternative possiblity is that Mary is married to John and they are living with John’s father, though since Mary Ann is consistently listed as unmarried it seems unlikely.

I turned my attention to Mary Ann’s children, Jane and Thomas.

Having ruled out one possible 1881 census record for Jane, I can use this info to identify her birth with some certainty – registered first quarter of 1854.  

There are three possible marriages of a Jane Robinson within the registration district, Leyburn, all in 1874. To John Coglin in Q3; to Robert Wellock or Thomas Mawer/Mawes in Q4; or to John Clarke or Joseph Donkley, also in Q4. This is going to take some unravelling! However, as there aren’t any possible deaths between 1871 and 1881 in the Leyburn district, I can be reasonably confident that one of these marriages is her.

So, this then suggests that Elizabeth Robinson is more likely to be the daughter of Thomas. She was definitely born after Jane’s marriage, and so if she were Jane’s daughter she would have Jane’s married name, surely?

So then I start searching for Thomas, but this also throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

It appears that Thomas Robinson is married to a woman called Phyllis and living with her and their one-year-old son Thomas in 1881 in Newton-le-Willows. There is a possible marriage in the Leyburn district in 1880, but there are only three names on it, meaning one female name is missing – Phyllis?

By 1891 they have moved to Durham and their family is growing. They continue living together in the Durham area on the 1901 and 1911 censuses.

The 1911 census states that they had seven children altogether, three of whom have died. This in itself is incorrect as there are in fact eight known children. Mary, William Henry and baby Grace, still living on 1911 census, and Thomas, Arthur, Elizabeth and an older Grace, who are not present. Three of them, at least, can be assumed to be dead. Grace seems a likely possibility, as they have given a second child the same name.

This still doesn’t solve the mystery of Elizabeth’s parents, however. She could be Thomas’s daughter by a previous marriage – but why wouldn’t she be living with her step-mother and half siblings in that case? Or, she might be his illegitimate daughter – in which case what has happened to her mother? The other possibility is that Mary Ann Robinson did indeed have other children, and Elizabeth is the daughter of one of them. I think the only thing to do is to order as many of the relevant certificates as possible and see what emerges...

L x

Fearless Females 2012: My brick walls

Fearless Females: 31 Blogging Prompts to Celebrate Women's History Month

I like to differentiate between a brick wall and a small hurdle – quite often I’ve come to a halt because I know what I need to do to make the next step, but that involves ordering certificates. Unfortunately given the expense I can’t do that many at a time – I think I need to start a waiting list! So, here are some of my current female ‘hurdles’.  Where possible I’m sharing my thoughts on where to go next. If you have any suggestions, don’t hesitate to offer them!

Elizabeth Robinson was born in 1877 in North Yorkshire, and married Bertie James Newby in 1899. I found Elizabeth on the 1881 and 1891 censuses living with her grandmother Mary Ann Robinson. In my indexing I have tentatively assumed that Mary Ann is her paternal grandmother, on the basis of her surname, but I’ve as yet failed to trace her parents. Unfortunately Elizabeth Robinson and Mary Ann Robinson are rather too common as names to be able to make educated guesses to fill in the gaps. The next step surely has to be to order Elizabeth and Bertie’s marriage certificate and see what that can tell me.  

The mother of Mary Ann Birchall is proving equally untraceable. Mary Ann is born somewhere between 1833 and 1836 depending on which census record you believe. By the 1851 census she is living alone with her father John, so I assume her mother has died in the intervening years. Once again, John Birchall and Mary Ann Birchall are too common in Lancashire to easily identify, and the issue is complicated even more in this case because I am searching pre-1837. Without siblings to cross-reference, I am struggling a bit. I think the only way to progress will be to narrow down the area to search and then going to the parish records, and hoping that John Birchall’s profession as a professor of music crops up in either a christening or marriage record, though the Lancashire Online Parish Clerks and FamilySearch have thus far turned up nothing.

Amy Hall is the sister of my 2x great-grandmother Mabel. Amy was born in 1880, but I’ve been unable to trace her beyond the 1891 census. There is a possible census entry for her in 1901, but the name given is Emma rather than Amy, and as yet I haven’t been able to eliminate possible Emma Halls for this record. Also, there is the possibility that she might have married already and thus I don’t know what name to search for. Though she continues to perform under her maiden name, so did her sister Mona after her marriage. I know Amy is alive until 1922, because her name appears on an obituary tribute to her father – unfortunately it is only her first name! I have managed to trace her career quite fully, as I explained in yesterday’s Shining Star post. But despite having a pretty good idea where she was located in both 1901 and 1911 at the time of the censuses, I still can’t find her, or indeed any of the people she was touring with at the time, using the search function. This means that my only way forward is to browse the entire census for the area and try to pinpoint them that way. Hopefully I’ll then be able to verify whether she was married or had any children, to help me trace her life further.

The last one is a slightly different brick wall. My mum’s first name is Ceredwyn, and she was always told that she was named after an aunt of her father’s. Thus far I’ve had no luck identifying who this might be. Despite living in Wales, most of my ancestors tend to have rather English names, and where the 1911 census tells you whether they spoke English, Welsh or both, my ancestors are overwhelmingly English-only speakers with very English names. This might have something to do with the fact that quite a lot of them actually hailed from over the border in the Forest of Dean. However, I have still got a few Hancock and Webb brothers for whom I haven’t identified a spouse yet, so I my mum’s namesake might turn up eventually!

L x