Category Archives: Family History

Removal Orders and Child-Stealing Chimney Sweeps: How Newspapers Demolished a Brick Wall – Part 2

Posted on August 13, 2015 | 4 comments

In a blog post last month I mentioned that newspapers have offered up some promising articles which may relate to my 5x great grandfather, chimney sweep Stephen Burnett.[1] This all follows on from a newspaper report of a removal order challenge in 1830 which revealed his name and the fact that he plied his trade in the early 1770s in the Stockton-on-Tees area of County Durham.  Details of this removal order leading to my discovery of his identity are in Part 1, posted in July 2015.

Covering the period 1776-1780, these latest newspaper extracts all offer further research clues for Stephen Burnett which I will follow up once I can arrange a visit to Durham Record Office.

The initial two articles are in the “General Hue and Cry” section of the “Newcastle Courant” in August 1776.[2]  A reward of one guinea is offered for the apprehension of Margaret Brown and Stephen Burnett. She is described as a 22-23 year old, middle-sized, good-looking woman with a scar on her forehead apparently caused by a burn or scald. She frequently travelled the country in the company of a chimney sweep named Stephen Burnett. The notice states Stephen rescued Margaret from the Constable of Stockton-on-Tees. At the time of her escape she was wearing a flowered cotton gown, a black cotton coat, a black beaver hat and a striped petticoat. Margaret is accused of imposing on the unwary by telling fortunes. The name, trade and operational area of her co-accused correspond with that of my 5x great grandfather Stephen Burnett and perhaps provide another indication of character.

The next mention of Stephen is in two editions of the “Newcastle Chronicle” in March 1778. The 21 March 1778 edition has a cryptic paragraph which states:

“Last week one Burnett, a strolling chimney-sweeper, was detected at Stockton with a boy about 12 years old, who had been stolen from his parents at Newcastle some time ago. What a pity it is that peace officers do not exert their authority in examining and bringing to justice all such delinquents”

The following week the newspaper followed up the story.[3] They learned the original article was aimed at Stephen Burnett, a chimney sweep from Bishopwearmouth, near Sunderland. He also rented, and occasionally resided at, a house in Stockton.

Taking offence at the allegations, the slur on his character and the “opprobrious epitaph of delinquent” Stephen also placed an advert in the same paper. He strongly refuted this slanderous paragraph designed to prejudice his character. He stated that he could produce testimonials that he and his boys had the honour of being employed be some of the greatest personages in the North East. He offered a reward of one guinea to anyone who discovered those responsible for writing and sending the libellous article. This was no small sum of money, equivalent to the buying power of six days craftsmen wages in the building trade.[4]

During this period the issue of the plight of children employed as sweeps was starting to gain traction. The advert and reward demonstrate the strength of Stephen’s feelings about the allegations. He went on the offensive to publicly deny them in an attempt to clear any associated stain on his name and reputation which might impact on his business and possibly his ability to recruit climbing boys in future.

One slight concern to me is the statement contained within the advert that no other person named Burnett employed as a chimney sweep had been in Stockton for upwards of six years past. My 5x great grandfather was there as a chimney sweep at the start of the 1770s with his illegitimate son Robert being born on the road to Darlington at a place called Long Newton in around 1771. But the similarities in name which is by no means common, the location and occupation all seem to point to there being a family connection even if it is not the same man. And at the end of the day the date question-mark is only marginal, the dates are not set in stone and are open to interpretation. I do believe this, in all probability, to be my ancestor.

The final snippet is from the “Newcastle Courant” of 25 March 1780 with an advert posted by Stephen Burnett, Sunderland chimney sweep, seeking the whereabouts of two boys he had hired as chimney sweepers. The lads had deserted from their servitude on Sunday 12 March 1780. The first, Peter Evens, was aged around 15 years old and had been hired for a year; the younger of the two absconders, William Wilson, was Stephen’s bound servant (ie apprentice).  Aged around 12, he measured 4ft tall. William’s height is indicative that small, under-nourished children were ideally suited to climbing the narrow chimney flues.[5]  Stephen once again offered a one guinea reward and all reasonable expenses for the runaways’ apprehension, and also offered a warning of prosecution to anyone else who employed the lads.

An eighteenth century drawing of some chimney sweeps. They were seen as one of the earliest cases of occupational cancer, as observed in 1770 by Percival Pott. Source: National Cancer Institute from Wikimedia Commons: https://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2106

An eighteenth century drawing of some chimney sweeps. They were seen as one of the earliest cases of occupational cancer, as observed in 1770 by Percival Pott. Source: National Cancer Institute from Wikimedia Commons: https://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2106

I must admit to a certain amount of discomfort that my 5x great grandfather was a master sweep and was also implicated in stealing children for those ends. Parish authorities apprenticed poor children to chimney sweeps as climbing boys; impoverished parents sold their children to master sweeps even into the nineteenth century. But there are also tales of chimney sweeps stealing children.  One of the most well-known surrounds the son, or in some versions nephew, of Elizabeth Montagu.[6]  He was kidnapped, feared dead, only to return to the home of Elizabeth some years later in the employ of a sweep engaged to clean the chimneys. Thereafter, until her death in 1800, she hosted a breakfast annually on 1 May for young chimney sweeps.

Another philanthropist with a concern for chimney sweeps was London merchant Jonas Hanway. From the 1760s onwards he was an early campaigner in the efforts to improve the working lot of sweeps’ apprentices. As a result of his crusade the 1788 Chimney Sweep Act was passed specifying a minimum age of eight for apprentice sweeps. This, however, was not enforced with children, boys as well as girls, as young as four continuing to be engaged in the business.

The cruelty of masters to their climbing boys was notorious. Physical punishment was widespread. Tales of small children being forced to climb chimneys by sticking pins into their feet or lighting straw behind them were commonplace. The children led a brutal existence, working in filthy, dark, frightening, dangerous conditions by day, with no guarantee of washing facilities after, and sleeping on sacks of soot by night.

In 1817 a House of Commons Report on boy chimney sweeps looking at their conditions between 1788 and 1817 found that:

“It is in evidence that they are stolen from their parents, and inveigled out of workhouses; that in order to conquer the natural repugnance of the infants to ascend the narrow and dangerous chimneys, to clean which their labour is required, blows are used; that  pins are forced into their feet by the boy that follows them up the chimney, in order to compel them to ascend it; and that lighted straw has been applied for that purpose; that the children are subject to sores and bruises, and wounds and burns on their thighs, knees and elbows”;

And:

“…. a sweep might be shut up in a flue for six hours and expected to carry bags of soot weighing up to 30lbs. Many suffered ‘deformity of the spine, legs and arms’ or contracted testicular cancer”[7]

So the thought that an ancestor of mine was involved in this business is the most disquieting thing I have found in my family history research to date.  As a result of this, the words of William Blake’s poem, written around the time Stephen was operating, have taken on greater meaning.

“When my mother died I was very young,
And my father sold me while yet my tongue
Could scarcely cry weep weep weep weep.
So your chimneys I sweep and in soot I sleep.”[8]

Sources:

[1] These were discovered via FindMyPast and the British Newspaper Archive. As the OCR for FindMyPast newspapers is not the most accurate, I did the Stephen Burnett search on the British Newspaper Archive site too. Although I am not a subscriber, you can identify the paper and page number and then go back to FindMyPast armed with the newspaper details to check it out.
[2] 17 and 24 August 1776
[3] “Newcastle Chronicle” 28 March 1778
[4] Using The National Archives Currency Converter, 1780/2005 buying power comparison
[5] A check on FindMyPast and Ancestry.co.uk TNA IR1 series  of Apprentice Duty Registers 1709-1811 reveals no mention of Stephen Burnett. The Duty was a levy on apprentice premiums, but this levy was exempt for masters taking on charity and Poor Law apprentices.
[6] The veracity of the tale is open to question http://onelondonone.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/mrs-montagu-and-chimney-sweeps.html
[7] Report from the Committee of the honourable the House of Commons on the Employment of Boys in Sweeping of Chimneys – 1817
[8] “The Chimney-Sweeper” – William Blake, “Songs of Innocence” 1789

Copyright

© Jane Roberts and PastToPresentGenealogy, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jane Roberts and PastToPresentGenealogy with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

4 Comments

Posted in Ancestry, Bishopwearmouth, Chimney Sweep, Durham, Family History, Genealogy, Stockton-on-Tees

Tagged , , , , , ,

Genetic Genealogy: it’s all in the Hill (DNA) – Part 3, No Silver Bullet

Posted on July 23, 2015 | Leave a comment

This is the third in my series of posts about my genetic genealogy journey. I ended my last post at the waiting game phase, all kits on their way. Things have progressed and I thought it helpful to provide an update.

I have included the information below of the various test stages to give some indication as to the variability of posting/processing times:

Test Type Posted Arrived Lab Processing Starts Anticipated Result Date Result Arrived
Ancestry autosomal (mum) 27 June 3 July 7 July 6-8 weeks 13 July
Ancestry autosomal (dad) 27 June 15 July 18 July 6-8 weeks
FTDNA Family Finder (me) 29 June 11 July including lab processing stage 5-19 August
FTDNA Y-DNA 37 (dad) 29 June 13 July including lab processing stage 23 Sept – 7 October
FTDNA mtFull Sequence 29 June 13 July including lab processing stage 26 August – 9 September

There is a lengthy delay in the anticipated result date of the FTDNA Y-DNA test. Hopefully this is a good sign, due to its popularity and hence the number of testers.

But the thing I found must perplexing was the difference in timescales for mum and dad’s Ancestry tests. These were both posted the same day from England to Dublin. The results for mum’s test came through significantly ahead of schedule, in fact even before dad’s vial of spit got there.

I really did suspect his was lost in the post but, when I asked, Ancestry said it allows 20 working days before a test is designated such.

More amazingly the FTDNA tests posted a couple of days after dad’s Ancestry one, and destined for Texas, arrived before his Ancestry test.

But dad’s test did finally reach its destination. So the moral of the story, which seems to be the DNA theme,  is do not give up hope and do not assume tests posted on the same day will arrive at roughly the same time! And one final thing to watch out for, there can be a delay between the test actions being annotated on the site and the email notification reaching you.

Mum’s Ancestry results came in on 13 July, a mere 17 days after posting. I have now had a quick preliminary look at them and these are my initial findings.

First thing to say is the site is easy to navigate and a pleasing mix of charts, tables and expandable “?” Boxes. It is all very intuitive and clear.

In terms of ethnicity there are no surprises. My mum has an English mother and Irish father. Her ethnicity results show 63% Great Britain, 34% Ireland. Of the four trace regions, Ancestry state “it is possible that these regions appear by chance and are not actually part of your genetic ethnicity”. So on this basis I am not claiming any tentative Armada, possibly false in any case, ancestry.

Mum's Ancestry DNA Test Ethnicity Breakdown

Mum’s Ancestry DNA Test Ethnicity Breakdown

The results correspond with all my research to date (going back to the early 17th century on mum’s maternal line). It is good to have general confirmation of my research. But this is more an interesting coffee-table talking point rather than anything more substantive.

Then onto the meaty stuff – the DNA matches. The upfront view is mum has 44 4th cousins or closer and one shared ancestor hint. The latter is like the Ancestry tree shaky leaves.

I excitedly went to the “View all DNA matches” button and immediately felt overwhelmed, but thrilled, to see 57 pages of them, with around 50 entries per page. These are split into relationship ranges and confidence levels. The 4th cousin box refers to possible 4th – 6th cousins range and this is the first batch of matches listed in mum’s case, as this is the closest identified relationship.

Mum naturally has a significantly larger distant cousin category, with a possible range of 5th– 8th cousins. This is the remaining 56 and a bit pages.

Ancestry assign the following “confidence” ratings to the matches: “Extremely High”, “Very High”, “High”, “Good” and “Moderate”.

At this point it may be worth mentioning that ISOGG has a useful piece explaining the Ancestry confidence scores and their realism. It may be that the percentages for sharing a common ancestor are set too high[1]. There is also the caveat that the “AncestryDNA database is 99% American, and it is not yet known if these ranges will apply in the same way to other populations”.

Enthused I spent an afternoon ploughing through the first page of matches, only to become increasingly frustrated. This page included all 44 4th cousin matches. Six of these had “extremely high” confidence markings and the remainder “very high”. There were also two “very high” and four “high” distant cousins on this page.

Clicking onto the individual matches brings you to the next level. There is a “Pedigree and Surnames” tab which identifies all the surnames associated with the match’s tree. Helpfully shared surnames are pinpointed at the start, so this cuts out trawling through a whole list of surnames to pick out the ones in common. There is also the tree section on the right hand side of the page.

A second tab entitled “maps and locations” has a summary column as well as a map with coloured indicators identifying your family tree locations (blue) and those of the DNA match (mustard). Any shared locations are immediately recognisable, as the pointer for these is green.

A word of caution though – the maps are not entirely accurate. I uploaded my tree via a Family Historian GEDCOM file. The Ancestry programme has some fundamental discrepancies because my descriptors do not accord exactly with the Ancestry format. For example some of my Yorkshire ancestors are placed in the Isle of Man, Kent and the North East. I have corrected this.

Of less importance, but useful to know, is that if a vague location descriptor is attached, such as England or Ireland, the pointer will appear in the middle of the country. Or some may have assigned a county level rather than place-specific location. For example I have seen several matches with County Mayo as a location, (including a couple on my tree), but no further detail as to where in Mayo. So do not take the pointers at face value.

Worth using is the “Note” box. I am entering brief details about the DNA match’s tree and any obvious connections. It is also helping me keep track of the reviewed matches.

Example of Ancestry DNA relationship/confidence levels and my notes

Example of Ancestry DNA relationship/confidence levels and my notes

However my initial enthusiasm soon evaporated as it began to feel more like an exercise in futility. Of the 44 4th cousin matches six have private trees, although some of these do have public trees elsewhere on Ancestry; 11 have no tree; and five have less than ten people in their tree. Possibly some of these are individuals trying to find their DNA roots. Though this means straightaway a significant proportion are rendered relatively meaningless for my DNA purposes, at least for the immediate future.

When I first embarked on this journey I did wonder about linking my hitherto private tree to the test. I have for several years steered clear of putting my tree in the public domain, for privacy/copying reasons, having had my fingers burned years ago when I had a public Genes Reunited tree. It was a horrid experience and that copied information is still out there on a website.  It is not something I ever wish to repeat. So I get perfectly why some trees are private. Others may, for personal family sensitivities, decide against a public tree. It is after all an individual decision.

However in the end I decided to do a reduced, skeleton-form tree specifically for DNA test purposes. My reasoning for doing this is  having a private tree might cause people to by-pass me; it might be of assistance to other potential matches and facilitate contact in the interest of a shared goal; it could eliminate protracted fishing-questions; and it hopefully will  minimise the risk of wholesale copying, my big fear.

Anyway, back to the DNA results. Of the remainder of mum’s matches with trees of more than ten individuals, a couple are of peripheral interest and I may in due course make contact. At least though there is something concrete to base any contact with the tree-owners on. For the other matches on this first page there is no obvious connection.

I will go through the remaining 56 pages of matches over the coming months. But I will prioritise my search focusing first on those with larger, accessible trees.  I will also make more judicious use of the location/surname search filters as this will indicate common data  even in private trees, although in the latter cases just at the top level. And hopefully, as I become more familiar with what the site has to offer, my frustration will decrease.

And I have not entirely given up hope. My mum’s shared ancestor hint is a distant cousin match with a “good” confidence rating. This appears on page four of the matches. There is a tree attached. And, from this, the match is at 6th cousin level. It does not break down any brick walls for me, but it is a start.

So, in summary, I am finding that genetic genealogy is no silver bullet to break through brick walls. It is more of a long game and another tool in the genealogy box. Hopefully DNA match success rates for me will improve as more and more people, especially from England and Ireland[2], sign up. I am even considering doing the test myself.

But the bottom line is you are still reliant on people linking a meaningful tree to their DNA test; or those with private trees responding to messages; and those trees being accurate. 

Sources:

[1] http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent
[2] Only available here at the start of 2015 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2015/01/29/ancestrydna-now-available-in-the-united-kingdom-and-ireland/

Leave a comment

Posted in Ancestry, AncestryDNA, DNA, Family History, FamilyTreeDNA, Genealogy, Genetic Genealogy

Tagged , , , , , ,

My County Mayo Family and the National Library of Ireland Catholic Parish Registers Website

Posted on July 15, 2015 | 7 comments

8 July saw the launch of the National Library of Ireland’s (NLI) Catholic Parish Registers website[1].  As with any new launch patience was important in the early hours.  Heavy traffic did slow the system down initially. However, I eventually managed to connect with the website that evening.

I have now spent a few very satisfying hours looking for the records for my County Mayo ancestors.  These are my early thoughts.

  • Obvious really, but you do need to have an idea where your ancestors were from, and from there the Catholic parish. This does not necessarily correspond to the Civil Parish. It also pays to be aware of adjacent parishes and also any parish boundary changes. The NLI Parish Registers website provides a helpful link[2] to help identify the appropriate parish and there are other websites and books[3] which perform similar functions.  In cases where you are unsure of the location of your ancestors Griffiths Valuation and surname distribution patterns[4] may provide clues. But if like me you have ancestors called Murphy, the use of these can be limited. Fortunately I know the area of East Mayo from which most of my ancestors hailed although a couple are proving elusive.
  • There are limitations in terms of date coverage. The registers start from the 1740s/50s in some areas of Ireland and generally end in around 1880, although there are some exceptions to this cut-off point. Registers in County Mayo tend to start later. The County Mayo parishes I am interested in illustrate this. Kilbeagh baptisms range from 1855-1881, marriages 1845-1866 and a different marriage set on a separate film for 1855-1881; Kilmovee has 1854-1881 and 1855-1881 (not the same entries) baptisms, with marriages 1824-1848 and 1854-1880; Knock baptisms range from 1868-1881 and marriages from 1875-1881. So not a great deal of coverage in terms of years to follow a family generationally, and the baptisms and marriages timeframes do not correspond exactly. Relating this to one branch of my family, my grandpa, John Callaghan, was born in 1895 in Carrowbeg near Kilkelly, County Mayo. His parents Michael Callaghan and Mary Murphy were married in 1883 and his eldest sibling was born in 1884. None of these events fall within the dates of the Kilmovee registers. I can follow his mother’s family (she was born in around 1856), from Sonvolaun, in the Kilmovee registers. But his father was born in around 1848 and possibly came from Shanveghera Townland (Knock), for which there is no coverage for the relevant period. So the registers have been of limited help here[5].
  • There are 56 parishes across Ireland which are not covered – fortunately this does not affect the parishes of my ancestors which all feature to some extent, although maybe perhaps not for the years I would want. Ballycroy in County Mayo is an example where there is no coverage.
  • The registers cover mainly baptisms and marriages. So if you are seeking burials you are probably going to be out of luck. This is the case for all the known Catholic parishes of my ancestors. In my quick scan of County Mayo I only found Kilfian, Killasser and Kilmoremoy (which also falls into Sligo) had burials.
  • Christian names are in Latin. Can be a bit daunting at first but there are websites which help with this.[6]
  • The names in the registers are not searchable by keyword. So it is old-fashioned page by page trawl through the scanned microfilmed document, although you can narrow the date parameters if necessary. To be honest I love looking through the complete register. It gives me more of a feel for the community in which my ancestors lived. I also have an indication as to surname spelling variations. It also means I am not reliant on someone else and their possible omissions and errors in transcribing or indexing. You can fast track the process if you have Ancestry[7] access using their “Ireland, Selection of Catholic Baptisms 1742-1881”,   “Ireland, Selection of Catholic Marriages and Banns 1742-1884” and “Ireland, Selection of Catholic Parish Deaths 1756-1881”. Be warned though the Latin name issue can create problems if you do use this method. A search for my paternal great grandfather Patrick Cassidy under is Anglicised name does not come up on this Ancestry search. But he can be found under “Patritius Cassidy.” So consider wildcard searches. 
    National Library of Ireland, Catholic Parish of Kilbeagh Baptisms 1 Jan 1855-16 Jan 1881, Microfilm 04224 / 17 - 5 April 1868 Patrick Cassidy baptism

    National Library of Ireland, Catholic Parish of Kilbeagh Baptisms 1 Jan 1855-16 Jan 1881, Microfilm 04224 / 17 – 5 April 1868 Patrick Cassidy baptism

  • I love the fact that for baptisms mother’s maiden names and sponsors (godparents) are included in the registers. These can provide further family connection pointers.
  • One of the Kilbeagh Marriage Registers[8] provided an “impedimenta” column providing additional information such as degrees of relationship, so again useful follow up clues.
  • Finally it does help to know the history behind the records to explain why things are the way they are. In this respect I find “Irish Church Records” edited by James G Ryan a useful, clear-written reference.

Yes, in common with other similar projects there are some pages where writing is faint and difficult to read. One page I looked at in Kilbeagh[9] had what looked like a leaf, but was probably a giant ink-splodge, obliterating part of the page.  Not great if that is the page you are interested in.

But I am overjoyed that such a fantastic, free genealogy resource is now available for those with Irish Catholic ancestry. And the site is one to which I shall return frequently as I try to find out more about my County Mayo roots, including my pre-famine Gavan and Knavesy (and its numerous variants)[10] ancestors, for whom I have still to identify origins.

Finally, to date the identified County Mayo surnames relevant to my direct-line ancestry are:

  • Cassidy
  • Loftus
  • Barrett
  • Maye
  • Callaghan
  • Murphy
  • Horaho
  • Gavan
  • Knavesy

Sources:

National Library of Ireland Catholic Parish Registers: http://www.nli.ie/en/parish-register.aspx and http://registers.nli.ie/

[1]http://registers.nli.ie/
[2] http://www.swilson.info/ – love the soundex search
[3] The Irish Times website http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/placenames/   and “Tracing your Irish Ancestors” – John Grenham
[4] See the Irish Times website surname distribution feature http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/surname/
[5] Some time ago there was a fantastic East Mayo website which had transcripts of the parish registers from parishes within the area, including the later Kilmovee baptisms and marriages. This has long since gone. But it was a great help with my early Kilmovee searches. Thank goodness for the Internet Archive Wayback Machine!
[6] I use http://www.from-ireland.net/irish-names/latin-names-in-english/ and http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint7.htm   and http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~oel/latingivennames.html For a general guide to Latin words in Irish Catholic Parish Registers I use http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.com/latin-irish-parish-registers.html
[7] http://home.ancestry.co.uk/
[8] Kilbeagh Marriages Microfilm 04224 / 16
[9] Kilbeagh Marriages March 1859 Microfilm 04224 / 15
[10] Includes Knafesy, Kneafsey, Kneafsy, Nacey, Nasey, Neacy, Neafsey and Neasy to name but a few

7 Comments

Posted in Ancestry, Catholic, County Mayo, Family History, Genealogy, Ireland, National Library of Ireland, Parish Registers

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Removal Orders and Child-Stealing Chimney Sweeps: How Newspapers Demolished a Brick Wall – Part 1

Posted on July 10, 2015 | 6 comments

In my post about Bigamy in Batley I introduced my 4x great grandparents Robert Burnett and Ann Jackson. Due to Robert’s job as a tinner/brazier, the Burnett family moved frequently in the early days of their marriage. They finally settled in Drighlington in the early 1800s, presumably once Robert had earned sufficient money to establish his own business. Their first children were born in the Halifax area (1794 and 1798) and Flockton (1796). But for a while the origins of the couple remained a puzzle to me.

Robert died before the 1841 census[1]. Ann’s entry in that census indicated Yorkshire roots. She died in 1848, so there were no further clues. From death certificates it appears Robert was born in around 1771 and Ann in 1772.  I suspected Ann’s maiden name was Jackson. This theory was based on the fact that two of her sons, John and James, had children named Jackson Burnett and Ann Jackson Burnett. Their wives had no apparent link to this surname.  The only likely marriage I could find between a Robert Burnett and Ann Jackson took place on 7 January 1793 at Kendal, Westmorland[2].

After that I drew a blank. There the mystery lay for quite some time, until FindMyPast began rolling out their British Newspaper collection.  Playing about with names I was trying to find out any information about their son, Stephen Burnett, and his wife’s possible bigamous marriage. A search for him fetched the following extract from the West Riding Easter Sessions as reported in the Leeds Intelligencer of 29 April 1830:

“….She proved that when about 22 years of age, she lived some time in a slate of concubinage a man named Stephen Burnett, who was a chimney sweeper at Stockton….”

By this time Stephen, Robert and Ann’s son, had died. Neither was Durham associated with my family history research. But the name piqued my interest.

The article turned out to be a newspaper report of a case heard in Pontefract in which All Saints Parish, Newcastle upon Tyne was appealing against an order for the removal of a pauper Jane Burnett, widow of John Burnett, and her four children from Drighlington to All Saints. John Burnett, who was one of Robert and Ann’s sons, died in June 1829.

Under the complex Poor Law rules of settlement everyone “belonged” to a parish and this parish and its ratepayers were responsible for supporting them if the need arose. In larger parishes of the north the financial burden was the responsibility of the smaller township unit. This issue of settlement was a complex and contentious one, the number of inter-parish disputes and court cases a testimony to this. Generally your settlement parish was that of your father but this could be superseded by a number of other factors. For example a woman took the settlement parish of her husband on marriage. If illegitimate your settlement was the place you were born, but this changed from 1743/4 when you took the settlement parish of your mother regardless of your birthplace. There were other permutations too including being a parish ratepayer, renting a property in the parish assessed at £10 pa or more, serving an apprenticeship, or being hired to work in the parish for 12 months; but all in all the rules were a veritable minefield.

In the case of Jane Burnett and her children the Officials responsible for the Poor Law in Drighlington township were trying to prove their rightful settlement for this family was Newcastle All Saints. They were seeking to ship them off to an area of the country the family in all probability had never visited, in order to save Drighlington poor rate payers the expense of providing parish relief for them. And All Saints Newcastle similarly did not want the burden of costs falling to their ratepayers, possibly for many years to come as the children were all under ten years of age.

All Saints Church Newcastle upon Tyne - Blue Plaque All Saints Church Newcastle upon Tyne, Blue Plaque

In the course of the case Mr Maude, acting for Drighlington, called forward Ann Burnett, wife of Robert. She affirmed that her maiden settlement was Newcastle All Saints where members of her family had received frequent parish relief. Ann had also given birth to an illegitimate child in the workhouse there.

So this appeared to be the very thin grounds for the wish to send the family to this Parish: the fact that Newcastle All Saints was the Parish of John’s mother. However from Parish Registers John was born in wedlock so to my mind should, in the absence of other superseding reasons, have taken the settlement of his father Robert.

All Saints Church, Newcastle upon Tyne All Saints Church, Newcastle upon Tyne

In turn Mr Blackburn, acting for All Saints, called Charlotte Burnett the 82 year-old grandmother of the deceased. The report contains no mention of Charlotte Burnett’s maiden name, unless that too was Burnett, or her origins. She now lived in Carlisle with her daughter, Mrs McGregor.

In her testimony she stated that when she was around 22 years old she had lived for some time in a state of “concubinage” with a man named Stephen Burnett, a Stockton chimney sweep. Going one day with his apprentices to sweep chimneys in Darlington, she went into labour and gave birth to Robert[3], the father of the deceased, at a place called Long Newton.  Darlington is just over 11 miles from Stockton-on-Tees, with Long Newton a shade over four miles into the journey, so a fair trek in circa 1771 for a heavily pregnant woman. And I am baffled as to why she was making the journey in the first place; she could hardly be sweeping chimneys!

It was therefore claimed that, being born illegitimate, Robert’s place of settlement was Long Newton. And because his son John had gained no other settlement elsewhere the decision was made that he too belonged to Long Newton, as did his widow and children. The court therefore decided that Jane and her children should be removed forthwith to that Parish.

There is some doubt about whether the order was ever carried out. If it was, it only lasted for a short period. Jane Burnett remarried on 27 September 1832 at Leeds Parish Church. The Parish Register entry states that she lived in Armley Parish. The 1841 census shows she was living once more in Drighlington with her children by John, new husband Jeremiah Newell and their children.

So even though I have been unable to trace records of the case in West Yorkshire Archives, due to the contentious nature of the operation of the Poor Law in that period and the newspaper report of the ensuing court case I have a wealth of information, including names and locations, which I am in the process of following up.

From initial searches on FreeReg and a visit to Tyne and Wear Archives it appears that John Jackson, mariner, married Elizabeth Hay at All Saints on 20 April 1772. Ann was baptised on 22 August 1773; daughters Amelia and Jane appear in the church baptismal register on 4 November 1787 at the ages of six and two respectively. 1787 was during the transition period between the demolition of the old church building and the erection of a new one – the old church was last used in a service in August 1786, and the new church completed ten years later. Various Jacksons feature frequently in the return of clothes given to the poor. Sadly the poor house admission/discharge register does not cover the period for the birth Ann Jackson’s illegitimate child. However the bastardy bonds include an entry on 27 May 1788 for an Ann Jackson. Jas Atkinson, Shoemaker, appears to be the putative father and house carpenters Gilbert Dodds and Wm [Reid?] are named as those charged with paying bonds of indemnity. However further research is needed so another visit to Tyne and Wear Archives beckons.

That is not the end though. Newspaper searches have produced some further articles which potentially relate to my 5x great grandfather Stephen Burnett, father of Robert. I will return to these in Part 2.

Sources:

[1] GRO Death Certificate date 31 July 1837
[2] “England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJV1-NYQ : accessed 5 July 2015), Robert Burnett and Ann Jackson, 07 Jan 1793; citing Kendal, Westmoreland, England, reference yrs 1700-1795; FHL microfilm 97,376.
[3] Giving an estimated birth year for Robert of around 1770-1771

6 Comments

Posted in Ancestry, Chimney Sweep, Drighlington, Durham, Family History, Genealogy, Newcastle upon Tyne, Poor Law, Tyne and Wear, Yorkshire

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Genetic Genealogy: it’s all in the Hill (DNA) – Part 2, “Operation Spit and Swab”

Posted on June 30, 2015 | 2 comments

Last month I wrote about my decision to embark on a genetic genealogy journey.  This included a FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA) Y-DNA 37 and mitochondrial “Full Sequence” test for dad; a FTDNA Family Finder autosomal test for me; and an autosomal test for both mum and dad with Ancestry.co.uk.

The test kits from both companies arrived speedily. The Ancestry kits ordered on 19 June arrived on 23 June; the FTDNA kits ordered on 17 June arrived on 26 June.

It was now time to commence what I described as “Operation Spit and Swab.”

I decided it would be too much to inflict both tests on the same day for my dad. So the Ancestry tests were undertaken on the evening of 26 June, as dad was home from the nursing home for the weekend.  Timing was key. You are advised not to eat, drink, smoke or chew gum for 30 minutes before taking this test. So I had to work round dad’s tablet regime.

Ancestry DNA Test Instructions

Ancestry DNA Test Instructions

The test itself involved spitting into a small tube. Although the kit explains it amounts to less than ¼ teaspoon, I was a little concerned it may prove problematic as my parents are elderly and dad is not in the best of health.  I also think they were both a little daunted initially because the tube looks to be deeper than it actually is. In reality dad had no difficulty. And, although mum took longer, I suspect this owed something to the fact she had just emerged from a hot bath.

Tests completed and activated online, they were posted (return postage included) on 27 June and I now await the results. The processing time according to the Ancestry.co.uk website is 6-8 weeks. I’m now at the obsessive site stalking stage, tracking the progress of the little vials of spit. Mum’s arrived on 3 July 2015, although I was temporarily thrown  by the American date format of 07/03/2015! Dad’s is still somewhere in the post.

I have also linked the tests to my Ancestry Family Tree. This is proving to be the most time-consuming activity, because I realised that my Ancestry (private) tree is so old; and I have a backlog of data to input into my Family Historian package so it is not simply a case of uploading a GEDCOM file. I also wonder if it is worth linking the tests to my full family tree or whether I should just create a specific direct (public) ancestor tree for the purposes of the DNA tests.

28 June was the date set for the swab element of “Operation Spit and Swab”. The advice it it is best to conduct this test first thing in the morning before brushing teeth, eating, drinking or putting in dentures, (fortunately the latter was not a consideration for either of us).  It meant getting to my parent’s house as soon as dad woke up on Sunday morning, an early start on a non-work day for me.

FTDNA instructions

FTDNA instructions

The test involves two 30-60 second swab scrapings, one for swab for each cheek. These swabs are then inserted into separate vials.

Dad, who has undergone the Ancestry and FTDNA tests, said they were equally simple to do. The most difficult element  for me was planning the optimum time.

Both dad and my swab kits were posted on 29 June. Postage is not included from England[1] with FTDNA, so this cost £3.50 per kit.

Projected timescales for the autosomal test is similar to Ancestry.co.uk. However a FTNDA website update indicates that, as of 24 June, turnaround times for mtDNA tests are subject to delay (now anticipated to be 7 to 9 weeks); the Y-DNA tests have a slightly longer delay (11 to 13 weeks). So it pays to keep checking the website for any changes.

Once again I found setting up surnames and most distant ancestor details on the FTDNA website to be more labour-intensive than the tests.

Now it’s a case of an anxious waiting game. I will provide a further update once the results start arriving. But this could be quite some time away.

 Sources:

[1] Postage is prepaid for US customers

2 Comments

Posted in Ancestry, DNA, Family History, Genealogy, Genetic Genealogy

Tagged , , , ,

Bigamy in Batley? 

Posted on June 30, 2015 | Leave a comment

This is the curious tale of Stephen Burnett, the brother of my 3x great grandmother, and his wife Abigail Hirst.

Stephen was the son of Robert Burnett and his wife Ann Jackson. The Burnetts moved frequently in the early days of their marriage, probably as a result of Robert’s trade. He was a tinner/brazier.  Many young tinsmiths took to the road as pedlars or tinkers in an effort to save enough money to open a shop in town. Stephen’s baptism is recorded in the Flockton Register for St Michael and All Angels Church, Thornhill on 5 June 1796.[1]  The family eventually settled in Drighlington, where Robert opened his business.

Stephen did not follow the family trade.  By the time he married Abigail Hirst on 24 December 1815 at All Saints, Batley Parish Church, following banns[2], he worked as a miner. Abigail was the daughter of John and Susannah Hirst[3]. All Saints Church, Batley 2

During this period, Batley was not the normal location for marriages for Drighlington folk.  The town fell within the remit of Birstall Parish, and the normal venue for such occasions was St Peter’s Church in Birstall.

However, within a short time of their marriage, there appears to have followed a strange turn of events. On 14 November 1816, with Abigail pregnant, it seems that Stephen travelled to Leeds to enlist as a Private in the Army, joining the 51st Foot Regiment[4], the forerunner of the King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.  Claiming to be 17 years of age he enlisted for life[5].

In the meantime Abigail, now living in Adwalton, gave birth to a son, Thomas, on 5 April 1817. The baptism took place at St Peter’s Birstall on 1 June[6]. Oddly, Stephen’s profession is described as a collier, no mention of the Army.

Stephen may have been in Yorkshire in January 1821 because a Stephen Burnett acted as a witness at the marriage of John Burnett at St Peter’s Birstall.  John was another of the children of Robert and Ann Burnett. The only question mark is that Robert’s father was also called Stephen, and to date I have not traced his death.

However, whatever the circumstances, Stephen was clearly estranged from his wife.  On 30 May 1825 in Batley Parish Church, the same location as her earlier nuptials, Abigail undertook what in effect appears to be a bigamous marriage to William Gallaway[7]. There is no marital status indicated for either party in the Parish Register.

It is a distinct possibility that Abigail was pregnant and this forced the issue. It appears she and William may have had a son, Joseph, born in Adwalton in around 1825. No baptism has been traced to confirm the parentage of Joseph. But he features in the 1841 and 1851 censuses with the family[8].

In this period there was a seven years’ absence defence for bigamy.  If a spouse had not been heard of for seven years and there was no indication as to whether they were still alive, in such circumstances the abandoned partner was free to re-marry.  A variation of this was if the spouse had been absent and overseas for seven years.[9]  If the spouse subsequently reappeared, the second marriage, although not bigamous, would be declared void.

However, if it was Stephen that visited home only four years earlier in 1821 this would cast serious doubt about the application of the seven year rule. An appearance at a family wedding would hardly go unnoticed. Neither could the overseas absence claim apply as, although Stephen enlisted in 1816, his Regiment was home-based until spring 1821.

Within months of Abigail’s “marriage” to William events took an unanticipated twist. In November 1825, after eight years’ Army service, Stephen was discharged to pension. He was suffering from an illness described as “organic disease of the thorax”, which he contracted in Falmouth in 1818. This was now serious enough to render him unfit for further military service.

His discharge papers describe his conduct as good. They state he was born in Flockton. They describe him as 5’6” tall, with brown hair, grey eyes and fair complexion. They also give his trade, a collier. It appears he immediately returned home to Drighlington, where he was again a witness at a family wedding – this time for his sister Mary in December that year.[10]

One cannot begin to imagine the consternation caused to William and Abigail when news of Stephen’s return reached them. Now at the very least their “marriage” would be declared void; at its worse the ignominy of a trial and the threat of transportation if convicted hovered over them if the truth came to light.

They were spared the ordeal.  An ill man, shortly after his return Stephen died aged 30.  His burial took place at St Paul’s, Drighlington on 4 July 1826[11].

This still left William and Abigail in a tricky situation. Now a widow she was free to marry and this is the course of action she took to legitimise her union with William. Swiftly after Stephen’s death, Abigail and William married at a different parish church, that of St James, Tong, on 1 October 1826[12]. The entry in the register now states Abigail is a widow.  And was it an accident or deliberate that William’s surname had subtly changed to Galloway?

Tong Parish Church

Tong Parish Church

To conclude the strange tale of Stephen and Abigail, their son Thomas survived to adulthood. In the 1841 census he is living in Tong with Abigail’s parents. He married Betty Webster on 6 March 1843 and the register entry names his father as Stephen Burnett, miner[13]. Thomas’ address at the time of his marriage is given as Farnley.  After initially living in Tong, Farnley appears to be where Abigail and William settled sometime between 1839 and 1841[14]. In addition to Joseph the couple had at least six other children. The youngest child was named “Hirst,” a reference to Abigail’s maiden name[15].

There are a number of question marks over the theory behind the story. These include the baptismal entry for Stephen and Abigail’s son Thomas, and the possible reappearance of Stephen in 1821 for John’s wedding. Another apparent discrepancy is Stephen’s signature. Stephen could sign his name. Because of this we have four samples signatures taken from marriage registers and his Army papers.

The entries in the various parish registers are fairly consistent. The signature on his Discharge Papers is not identical, being just his initial rather than full Christian name. But the rest of the signature is not out of step.

So is the Stephen Burnett in the Army the Drighlington Stephen Burnett? I suspect it is, as the mystery which surrounds Abigail and William Galloway’s two marriages coupled with the timing of Stephen’s Army discharge and death seem to point to something being amiss.

Sources:

  • Ancestry.co.uk: Parish Register of St Michael’s, Thornhill
  • Ancestry.co.uk: Parish Register of St Peter’s, Birstall
  • National Army Museum – History of the 51st Regiment of Foot http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/51st-2nd-yorkshire-west-riding-or-kings-own-light-infantry-regiment
  • Find My Past: WO97 Royal Hospital Chelsea: Soldiers Service Documents
  • Ancestry.co.uk: Parish Register of Batley All Saints
  • Find My Past: 1841 and 1851 Census
  • Anestry.co.uk: Parish Register of St Peter’s, Leeds
  • Ancestry.co.uk: Parish Register of St James’, Tong
  • Ancestry.co.uk: Parish Register of Leeds St Peter’s Parish Church
  • Find My Past GRO BMD Records – Baptisms
  • “Marriage Law for Genealogists: the definitive guide” – Rebecca Probert
  • “Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?” – Rebecca Probert

[1] Thornhill St Michael’s Parish – Flockton Register
[2] Note the marriage was by banns and not by licence. So even if the parties were underage at the time of their marriage, it would not have subsequently be declared invalid
[3] Her baptism is recorded in the Parish Register of St Peter’s Birstall on 7 October 1798. At the time her parents lived in Drighlington, although there is sometimes some overlap in records between Drighlington and the neighbouring village of Adwalton. The 1851 census records Abigail as being born in Adwalton.[4] http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/51st-2nd-yorkshire-west-riding-or-kings-own-light-infantry-regiment
[5] Find My Past, British Army Service Records: WO97 Chelsea Pensioners British  Army Service Records 1760-1913, Box 645, Box Record 95 – Discharge papers
[6] St Peter’s Parish Church Birstall Parish Register – Baptisms. Ancestry.co.uk transcript indicates 17 June for baptismal date, but this appears to be an error
[7] Batley All Saints Parish Register – Marriages, under the name Abigal Burnet
[8] This is supposition. In the 1841 census, when no family relationships were given, Joseph is recorded in the Farnley home of William and Abigail, age 16.  In the 1851 he is described as “son”. But that could equally refer to being the son of just William as it could to being the son of both William and Abigail.
[9] “Marriage Law for Genealogists” and “Divorce, Bigamist, Bereaved?” – Rebecca Probert
[10] Mary Burnett is my 3x Great Grandmother. Her marriage to William Clough is recorded in the St Peter’s Parish Church Birstall Parish Register – Marriages[11] St Paul’s Church, Drighlington – Burials
[12] St James’ Parish Church, Tong Parish Register – Marriages. The place did have family associations, as by the time of the 1841 census, Abigail’s parents lived here.
[13] Leeds St Peter’s Parish Church Parish Register – Marriages
[14] Given the birth places of their children according to the 1851 census, and the fact that by 1841 they were living in Farnley
[15] Hurst according to the 1851 census, but Hirst in the GRO entry and 1841 census,

Leave a comment

Posted in Ancestry, Batley, Bigamy, Drighlington, Family History, Tong, Yorkshire

Tagged , , , , , ,

Yorkshire Family History Fair – a Celebration of Family History from Yorkshire and Beyond

Posted on June 28, 2015 | 2 comments

27 June 2015 marked the 20th year of the Yorkshire Family History Fair. I last went about ten years ago so I decided it was high time I returned.

I booked my ticket in advance which worked out very cost effective given the “Buy One Get One Free” offer:  £4.50 for both my husband and I to attend.  Not bad for an event at York Racecourse. I reckon it worked out cheaper than back in 2005 (always a plus point for a Yorkshire lass).

The event did not appear to be as large in terms of exhibitors as when I visited all those years ago.  I seem to recall that back then it was spread over more floor space and included some of the big national players.  And, in a marked difference from the family exhibition I attended earlier this year, there was none of the big genealogical DNA testing push, such a heavy feature of “Who Do You Think You Are? Live”.

As the title suggests the emphasis of the Yorkshire Family History Fair is very much based around predominantly, but not exclusively, Yorkshire Family History Societies and Yorkshire-based family history organisations.   Many of these had individual tables unlike at “Who Do You Think You Are? Live” where there was a Yorkshire Group of FHS’s umbrella table.  The various Archives in Yorkshire were also represented, such as East Riding Archives, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Borthwick Institute for Archives and the North Yorkshire Record Office.

A View of a Very Busy Ground Floor

A View of a Very Busy Ground Floor

But you would be wrong in thinking the Fair was purely limited to County of Yorkshire exhibitors.  Family History Societies from across the North of England and as far afield as Huntingdonshire, Clwyd and Aberdeen and North East Scotland were there, as well as nationwide organisations such as The Genealogist and S&N Genealogy Supplies (event sponsors), Society of Genealogists and Guild of One Name Studies.

I was particularly pleased to see Shropshire Family History Society there, given my latest research project.[1]   They were so helpful I even ended up signing up as a member!

In common with other similar events there were a series of free talks throughout the day including:

  • “Looking For Tommy”– Tracing a Military Ancestor”;
  • “Breaking Down Your Brick Walls Using Unique Tools and Data” and
  • “Recording, Reporting and Preserving Your Family History”.
Looking for Tommy talk

“Looking for Tommy” Talk

I especially enjoyed the former talk and have taken away some new hints and techniques for using The Genealogist’s Military Records Series to further my search into my military ancestors.

The event was well attended.  At one point in the afternoon the card machine did not work to take payment for one of my many purchases, presumably down to the numbers of people present, and not my enthusiastic spending spree.  Luckily my husband was on hand with cash (and he has forgotten to ask me to pay him back).

York Family History Fair Purchases

Yorkshire Family History Fair Purchases

It was fantastic to get such in-depth advice and information from all the various exhibitors.  I would recommend the event equally for beginners and the more experienced researcher particularly because of the local knowledge and expertise of the many Family History Societies.

And the added bonus was the location at The Knavesmire.  On such a beautiful June day, probably one of the nicest this summer, we nipped out for a stroll around and were treated to an impromptu, whistle-stop tour of the immaculately kept, flower-filled racecourse.  We even learned they have their own floriculture unit to grow the seeds and seedlings.

Parade Ring, York Racecourse

Parade Ring, York Racecourse

Many thanks to all those involved in organising the Fair and those many volunteers working on the various tables. I will definitely not leave it so long before my next return.

Sources:
http://www.yorkshirefamilyhistoryfair.com/

[1] See my blog post entitled “Shropshire, Staffordshire, Shrouds and Shoes”

2 Comments

Posted in Family History, Genealogy, Yorkshire

Tagged , ,

Genetic Genealogy: it’s all in the (Hill) DNA – Part 1

Posted on June 23, 2015 | Leave a comment

I have finally succumbed to the lure of genetic genealogy.  DNA testing was heavily pushed at Birmingham’s “Who Do You Think You Are? Live” earlier this year. Up until that point it was not an issue I had really given a second thought to and I did resist the hard sell on the day.

To be perfectly honest I viewed it as an “Emperor’s new clothes” type of subject and to a certain extent I still remain very sceptical about what it can offer for my tree.

Also I am more of a humanities than pure science bent so, although there is some cross-over, I found the science behind the whole DNA package a bit overwhelming.  Therefore if you are interested in that side of it you will be disappointed in my genetic genealogy adventure. This will be more about my personal genealogical DNA journey of discovery and what, if anything, it will add to my traditional family history research.

The Birmingham experience did sow the seed of interest in the field so I guess the hard sell worked to a slower, less impulsive time-frame.  Since my return I have tried to broaden my education around the subject.  I wanted to find out as much as possible before deciding whether or not to take the big leap, not to mention part with my hard-earned cash.  That is just my personality – cautious, wanting to weigh up all the options before I commit, undertaking a risk/benefit analysis type of approach.

As a first step I looked at the “International  Society of Genetic Genealogy” Website and Wiki page[1].  I read a number of informative blogs.[2]  Kerry Farmer’s book “DNA for Genealogists” gives a brief but information-packed overview of the subject, including details about the major providers. Finally I looked at the websites of the various suppliers.

My uncle died last summer, the man who got me into family history in the first place.  I realised as I read the various books and blogs on the subject that with him went my last obvious chance to undertake a Y-chromosome test for my maternal grandfather’s line.  This is one of my Irish lines, ironically the one I have had the most trouble with.

There was also the dawning recognition over the past few months that my parents will not be around for ever.  I may not have many more months and years to mull over a decision. A few years down the line I do not want the regret of not doing it when I had the chance. So for me the decision about going for testing is not around what I want to get out of it in the short-term, its more about seizing the opportunity whilst I still have it.  Wrapped up in this is an element of lodging DNA for future reference, so it is there as tests develop.Family Tree DNA

Once the decision to go for it crystallised in my mind, I had to choose which testing company to go with.  Size of database was a major factor, and within that the interest of those undertaking tests for the genealogy angle.  I am not particularly bothered about any health screening element so that swayed me against going with a company offering those services – maybe I am wrong but I had the perception that those undertaking such tests may be less interested in the genealogy element.

Linked to database size I also considered potential future growth and geographical areas covered.  Type of test offered played a part.  Finally I also have an inherent curiosity and wanted to see what each of the tests offered in terms of results.

Decision made and time to approach by parents. Dad’s initial response was to ask why I wanted to waste my money.  However he agreed to it.  Initially I intended ordering only a Y-DNA 37 test for him.  But after consideration I also decided to go for a mitochondrial “Full Sequence” test.   Not wanting to be left out I have gone for the Family Finder autosomal test for me.  I placed my order with Family Tree DNA[3] on 17 June and am now eagerly awaiting the arrival of said kits.

Mum was interested too.  So on 19 June I ordered an autosomal DNA test for her.  However I decided to go with a different company, to see how the experience compared.  I’ve placed this order with AncestryDNA[4].  At the same time I decided to order an autosomal test for dad too, though I have yet to tell him.  I only hope all the spitting and swabbing does not cause him to regret his decision to say “yes”!

Amazingly, as I’ve been writing this post the Ancestry testing kits have arrived. Astonishingly quick delivery time as it is only 23 June. Now to pass these on to my parents – and let the fun begin!

Ancestry test kits

 

[1] http://www.isogg.org/ and http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Wiki_Welcome_Page[2] For example http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/
[3] https://www.familytreedna.com/
[4] http://dna.ancestry.co.uk/

Leave a comment

Posted in Ancestry, DNA, Family History, Genetic Genealogy

Tagged , , ,

The Battle of Bellewaarde, 16 June 1915: A Batley woman’s efforts to discover her Royal Scots Fusilier husband’s fate

Posted on June 12, 2015 | Leave a comment

This blog posting is the story of two people: Michael Rourke and his wife Margaret Duffy. Michael died during World War 1.  The story is as much about him as it is about his wife and the extraordinary efforts she made to discover his fate.

Both were parishioners of Batley St Mary’s RC Church, ordinary working class Yorkshire folk, with the County Mayo background typical of the parish.  Margaret did not have the money and contacts of some who found themselves in similar desperate positions during the war.  But she had persistence, ingenuity and determination.  Her story is the story of many other families up and down the country trying to find out what had happened to missing husbands, fathers and sons.

Michael and Margaret do not have any link to my family. This work is based on research I did for my charity booklet about the men named on the Batley St Mary’s War Memorial.

Michael was born in West Town, Dewsbury in 1877. He was the eldest child of Irish-born parents, Patrick and Bridget Groark (neé Mullany) who married in 1876.

At this point it is worth mentioning the complexity of certain Irish surnames which, even in the late 19th/early 20th century, continued to have various versions.  Groark was one of these, and the family can be found using a number of variants including Groark, Rourke and even Groak. I have referred to Michael as “Rourke” throughout, as this was then name he used when enlisting in the Army in the 1890s, and indeed the family seemed to use this version initially.  But by around 1900, at the time of the birth of their youngest child Agnes, the family were transitioning from Rourke to Groark, and this version became the commonly used one as the 20th century progressed.

Michael was one of ten children. His siblings included Mary Ann (1879), James (born in 1881 but who died the following year), Maggie (1883), Lizzie (1887), James (1889), Henry (1892), Francis (1894), Nellie (1896) and Agnes (1900).

Initially the family lived in the Dewsbury RC parish of St Paulinus.  In 1881 they resided on Ingham Road, Dewsbury with Patrick described as a cart driver.   By 1889, as is shown in the baptism for their second son bearing the name James, the family had moved to neighbouring Batley.  James was their first child to be baptised in St Mary’s parish.

In 1891 they were recorded as living at North Street, Cross Bank, one of many streets of houses in the vicinity of St Mary’s church; then in Wooller Houses, in nearby Carlinghow in 1901.  By 1911 they were back in North Street.  During this period Patrick worked in agriculture as a farm labourer, and the 1911 census gave more detail specifying that he was a cowman.  Bridget worked in the woollen industry in 1881 as a weaver and in the following census as a rag sorter.

13-year-old Michael is recorded in the 1891 census as working as a coal miner.  In April 1897 he enlisted in the Militia with the 3rd Battalion, The King’s Own (Yorkshire Light Infantry).  As mentioned earlier his attestation papers were under the name “Rourke” and indicate that he was employed as a hurrier at Critchley’s colliery. It is in this name that all his military records can be found.

“Hurrier” was the Yorkshire term for the person who moved the coal tubs from the coal face where it had been hewed to the shaft at the pit bottom. They might be known as a waggoner in some parts of the country, a drawer in Lancashire, a putter in Northumberland or a haulage-man in Scotland.  Hurriers in this period were usually youths as this was one of the early stages in a normal career progression pattern through underground pit roles.

The same attestation papers also provide a physical description. Michael was 5’3” and 104lbs, fresh complexioned with light grey eyes and dark hair.  However within a week of signing up, he purchased his discharge for £1.

In July 1897, still employed by Critchley’s  but this time as a collier, he changed his mind and re-enlisted  in the Militia serving once more with the 3rd KOYLI for just over 12 months before transferring to the Regular Army with the Royal Scots Fusiliers in July 1898.  His Regular Army attestation papers describe him as 5’3¾” and 111lbs, fresh complexioned with light grey eyes and brown hair.  He had a small, round scar over the outer end of his right brow and a scar on the back of his right middle finger.

However a pattern was emerging as, yet again, Michael had a change of heart and in November 1898 was discharged on payment of £10, half of which was refunded in May 1899. He returned once more to work for his former employer at Critchley’s colliery.

The reason for the refund is not mentioned. But the probable cause is because, true to his previous form, Michael had once again signed Militia attestation papers in January 1899 with the 3rd KOYLI and by April 1899 was back with the Royal Scots Fusiliers[1]. The 1901 census shows him at home with his family, but his occupation is a soldier.

I have not tracked Michael’s life in the next 10 years, but according to newspaper reports he did serve in South Africa in the 2nd Boer War.

By 1911, Michael had returned home to Batley. Weeks prior to the 1911 census Michael’s mother Bridget died.  She was buried in Batley Cemetery at the beginning of March.  Michael was now once more out of the Army and living with his family.   He had changed career totally and now worked in the woollen industry as a mill hand willier[2].  This was his occupation immediately before the war at Messers Chas Robinson and Company’s mill.

On 7 June 1913 Michael married at St Mary of the Angels Church. His bride was Margaret Haley (neé Duffy), a widow with three children.

Margaret was born on 11 December 1876, the daughter of County Mayo-born coal miner Patrick Duffy and his wife Mary (neé Regan). The Duffy’s have two other younger daughters recorded in censuses – Mary and Catherine.  A fourth daughter, Bridget, died infancy. The family lived in Birstall[3] with Margaret, when reaching working age, being employed in the local woollen industry as a weaver.

Margaret married general labourer John William Haley in late 1899 and the couple settled in Whitwood, Castleford.  The marriage was short for John died in 1903, age 34. At the time Margaret had two children, Thomas (1900) and Patrick (1902). She was also heavily pregnant.  She returned home to Birstall and her family.  Daughter Margaret Kathleen was born in late 1903. By 1911 Margaret and her three children were residing with her widowed father in the town, but she moved to Batley after her marriage.

According to the baptismal register at St Mary’s, Michael and Margaret’s only child, a son named Michael, was born on 11 April 1914. The family lived at North Street, Cross Bank and this was the family address when war was declared.

Michael and his three brothers all joined the Army.  Michael was immediately called up as a National Reservist, going out to France with the 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots Fusiliers in early September 1914[4]. James enlisted with the York and Lancaster Regiment; whilst Henry and Francis served with The King’s Own (Yorkshire Light Infantry).

Michael Rourke

Pte Michael Rourke, 6093, 1st Bn Royal Scots Fusiliers

In early November 1914 Margaret received an official communication from the Infantry Record Office at Hamilton informing her that her husband had been admitted to hospital at Port-le-Grand, suffering from bronchitis.  She had not received a letter from him since the middle of October and was naturally very anxious about his condition, although the communiqué did give her  some small measure of reassurance that any news about his health would be immediately passed on to her.  Shortly afterwards, that same month, he was invalided home with rheumatism.  After a spell in England he returned to the Front for a second time.

In May 1915 a letter from him was published in the “Batley News”.  He said he was well and the weather very hot.  He also mentioned that the men got a bath and change of clothing when out of the trenches.  He also enclosed a copy of an address to his Battalion by his Brigade Commander, highly complementing them on their part in an action in which Michael participated.  This read:

“In order to cover the right flank of troops on our left, your battalion was ordered to take up a very bad and exposed position on a forward slope and sure enough on the morning after you were exposed to a very heavy shell fire, followed by an infantry attack by vastly superior numbers.  The Germans came pouring through, and it soon became obvious that your position was untenable, and we were ordered to take up a position further back. 

The Colonel, gallant soldier that he was, decided, and rightly to hold his ground, and the Royal Scots Fusiliers fought, and fought until the Germans absolutely surrounded and swarmed into the trenches.  I think it was perfectly splendid.  Mind you, it was not a case of “hands up” or any nonsense of that sort.  It was a fight to a finish.  What more do you want?  Why, even a German General came to the Colonel afterwards and congratulated him and said he could not understand how his men had held out so long.  You may well be proud to belong to such a regiment, and, I am proud to have you in my brigade. 

General Sir Smith Dorrien also praised the RSF for their fine work after Neuve Chappelle.  He visited them in billets and addressed them in terms of high praise.  “None but the best troops could do the work, and so I sent you, and you have done it”

 Michael’s last letter home was dated 14 June 1915.  By early July his family were becoming increasingly uneasy as to his wellbeing, but there was still no definite information.  The first disquieting news had arrived from a fellow-Batley soldier in late June. Pte C King of the 1st Northumberland Fusiliers wrote to Margaret on 21 June as follows:

“Mick and I were together on June 15th and promised that if anything happened to either of us on the 16th we would write to his home.  I hope you will not take this too seriously but live in hope; I went round his regiment and could not find any Mick.  Some of his pals told me he was wounded”.

Writing to Mr. A Baines of Upton Street, Cross Bank, Batley on 30 June Pte King wrote further about the fate of his friend:

“I am very sorry for Mrs Rourke.  His regiment was in the charge with us on the day I will never forget – the 16th of June.  I saw for myself that he was amongst the missing, but there is hope yet.  It was a bloody sight but a grand charge.  We had a lot of casualties and they lay all over.  My deepest sympathy goes to Mrs Rourke, for I am very much afraid that poor Mick is gone.  The Germans shelled us for 27½ hours after we made the charge and the men were blown to bits; it was hell”.

There then followed months of uncertainty interspersed with inconclusive, sometimes conflicting, information, as Margaret desperately tried to find any information as to what had become of Michael.

Around the same time as she received news from Pte King, she also received information that her husband had been wounded and taken into a Chelsea Hospital.  She asked the Record Office for information but they told her that her husband’s name had not yet appeared on any casualty list, and no report had been received that he had been admitted to any hospital.

But Margaret did not give up this line of inquiry; instead, using her church contacts, she followed it up by contacting Father F Kerr McClement of St Mary’s, Cadogan Street, Chelsea[5] to see if he could be of assistance.  Unfortunately he was unable to provide any positive news, writing to her:

“I am sorry you have had so much anxiety as to your husband and I have done my best to find his whereabouts.  He is not in St Mark’s College, Chelsea (which is generally known as Chelsea Hospital) nor in St Georges Hyde Park Corner, Victoria, Tite Street, or in any of the private hospitals visited by us”.  

On Saturday 17 July, Mrs Rourke finally received a communication from the War Office stating that they were sorry to inform her that her husband had been missing since the 16 June. At the time he was serving with the 1st Battalion’s “A” Company.

Margaret’s next recorded steps were to contact two organisations with expertise in tracing the whereabouts of missing soldiers – the British Red Cross and Order of St John Inquiry Department for Wounded and Missing Men.  The former organisation responded with the following news:

“Pte Pilgrim, of this regiment (the Royal Scots Fusiliers), who is now in No 2 Canadian General Hospital, Le Treport, tells us that there are two men named Rourke in his regiment.  The man whom he knows something about is a slim man, slightly built dark, with a moustache, about 38 years of age.  This man was wounded at Hooge on June 16th, and could not be brought in, as the Germans had retaken trenches which they had lost.  We do not know if this refers to the man for whom you are inquiring; perhaps from the description you could tell us if it is so.  But you must remember that it is not at all certain from this report what happened to Pte Rourke.  We hope to obtain more information which will make the matter clearer.”

The description given matched Michael’s. The records of the International Committee of the Red Cross do show that Margaret made enquiries about Michael, but sadly only the card noting this and Margaret’s address exist.

As more and more news filtered through, it appeared that Michael had taken part in an attack at Hooge where the Allies captured four lines of German trenches.  The Germans counter-attacked re-capturing the last two trenches.  Michael lay wounded in the third line of trenches, but so severe was the action that when the retreat came and the Germans re-captured that line, his comrades were unable to take their wounded colleagues back with them.

Margaret still did not give up, continuing to write to authorities in an attempt to establish any firm news of her husband’s fate, clinging to the hope that if not lying injured in an Allied hospital, perhaps he was being held as a prisoner of war.  With this in mind her next step was to write to the King of Spain.

Spain was a neutral country and King Alfonso XIII contributed a great deal to improving the treatment of prisoners throughout the conflict.  At his own expense he maintained a staff of 40 who helped him serve as an intermediary between prisoners and their families, using the Spanish diplomatic network in his endeavours.  In response to her plea for assistance she received the following reply:

“Palacio Real de Madrid,
October 30 1915

Madam, – I am ordered by His Majesty the King, my august sovereign, to answer your letter petitioning His Majesty to cause enquiries to be made in Berlin with regard to Mr Michael Rourke, you husband.  Although His Majesty’s Embassy in Berlin is charged only with the interests of France and Russia, His Majesty being desirous nevertheless of demonstrating his interests in British subjects, has graciously acceded to your request, and has commanded the Spanish Ambassador in Berlin to communicate with Great Britain’s representative there – the United States Ambassador – in order that in conjunction with the latter the necessary investigations may be made.  His Majesty earnestly hopes that these enquiries may be the means of procuring satisfactory information for you – E de Swire”.

Satisfactory information sadly was not forthcoming and Margaret continued in her quest.

Many other women were also tirelessly pursuing word about their missing menfolk, with advertisements for information appearing in newspapers.  It was in one of the Sunday papers that Margaret saw an advert from Elizabeth Morton from Chesterfield seeking news about her husband Lance Corpl Thomas Morton, 1st Royal Scots Fusiliers, reported missing on 16 June 1915 at Hooge.   Noting that this soldier was in the same Battalion as her husband and had been missing since the same date, Margaret wrote to Mrs Morton expressing sympathy with her and pointing out that she was in the same predicament.

Mrs Morton had received a response to her advert from a Pte Harry Thomson of the 1st Royal Scots Fusiliers, who was in a military hospital in Newcastle on Tyne.  He communicated the news of her husband’s death.  Mrs Morton passed Pte Thomson’s address to Margaret in the hope that he would be able to shed some light as to the fate of Michael.  Margaret wrote to him and received the following response:

“I am sorry to tell you that your husband, Pte Michael Rourke, was killed on the 16th June 1915.  He was slightly wounded with myself and Lance Corporal Morton.  I wanted him to go back to the dressing station and get looked after there, but he would not hear of it.  He wanted to go on and have it out with the Germans as he called it.  We went on together for about 20 yards when he fell with a bullet through the head.  He never spoke after it.  We managed to get him and some more of our men back later on and bury them behind our firing line.  I am sorry to have to tell you the sad news Mrs. Rourke, but it is best to know the truth.  The regiment lost very heavily that morning. The Royal Scots Fusiliers did their work very well.  I am glad to say that I am keeping a little better.  This is the second time I have been wounded.  I hope you are keeping well, yourself and all your family.  Anything also that you want to know about “Mick”, as we used to call him, I shall be pleased to tell you if I can.  I must close now as the doctor is on the rounds”.

Margaret forwarded the letter onto the War Office.  Towards the end of May 1916, eleven months after initially being posted missing, she received a letter in reply which confirmed that her husband was dead.  The letter read:

“Madame, with reference enquiry concerning Pte Rourke 1st Royal Scots Fusiliers I am directed to inform you that no further news having been received relative to this soldier, who has been missing since the 16th June 1915, the Army Council have been regretfully constrained to conclude that he is dead and that his death took place on the 16th June 1915 or since.  I am to express the sympathy of the Army Council with the relatives of the deceased:-your obedient servant C.F. Waitherton[6]”.

Michael died in what was known as the Battle of Bellewaarde. His body was never identified.  According to the website[7] dedicated to remembering the Battle, more than 1,000 men lost their lives within a 12 hour period on 16 June 1915, in an area of approximately ½ mile square.

Menin Gate Inscription

Menin Gate Inscription

Michael is commemorated on the Ypres (Menin Gate) memorial, alongside the names of more than 54,000 other officers and men whose graves are not known. These include Lance Corporal Thomas Morton, husband of Elizabeth, with whom Margaret had corresponded during her search.

Of Michael’s other brothers only the youngest, Francis, survived the war.

From cemetery and BMD records it appears Margaret never remarried. There is a burial in Batley Cemetery in April 1957 for Margaret Groark, aged 80.

The Menin Gate

The Menin Gate

Sources:

Copyright

© Jane Roberts and PastToPresentGenealogy, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jane Roberts and PastToPresentGenealogy with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

[1] I have traced six sets of attestation papers for Michael.
[2] A wilier/willeyer was someone who fed the willeying machine  which was used to break down the rag and wool, thus separating and cleaning the fibres
[3] Birstall adjoins Batley. Up until 1905 when St Patrick’s parish was established in its own right, Birstall fell within the Catholic parish of St Mary’s, Batley.
[4] Service Number 6093
[5] One of the oldest Roman Catholic parishes in central London
[6]  This featured in two newspapers, the “Batley Reporter and Guardian” and the “Batley News”. The latter indicates the letter was signed C F Watherston.
[7] http://www.bellewaarde1915.co.uk/ Website includes extracts of the 1st Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers Unit War Diary.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ancestry, Batley, Battle of Bellewaarde, Birstall, Family History, Hooge, Menin Gate, Royal Scots Fusiliers, St Mary's RC Church, WW1

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Shropshire, Staffordshire, Shrouds and Shoes – Part 1

Posted on June 2, 2015 | 13 comments

This is, I hope, going to be an on-going record of my progress in researching a family tree from scratch. This recurring section of my blog will record my research highs, lows, successes and failures, brick walls and hopefully their demolition. I have no set timetable to complete this, so there may be gaps of several weeks between updates. But finally I aim to piece together the history of my husband’s family and write some individual stories. Part 1 describes the preliminary phase of my research.

This particular project is inspired by my mother-in-law. A few weeks ago she announced she had a family bible, complete with a record of a couple’s marriage and the births and deaths of their children.  There was also a series of non-conformist quarterly meeting cards. She was unclear exactly how they connected to her and  so she loaned me the impressively weighty Victorian tome to see if I could discover more.  Within days she added to this treasure, with the discovery of a totally unrelated bundle of documents containing assorted certificates, an apprentice indenture, baptism and burial documentation, and a will linking to various branches of her maternal and paternal line along with some others connected to my now deceased father-in-law’s family.

19th century family bible

19th century family bible

So a wealth of documents to get me started,  far more than other families I have researched.  I feel a bit like a kid in a sweet-shop – so many choices. But I am focussing on one branch at a time rather than adopting a scattergun approach. And I am being disciplined in recording my information sources, as well as any searches (both succesful and unsuccesful), far more so than when I started our researching my family tree. Hopefully this will save time as I progress.

With this in mind my first line of research is my mother-in-law’s paternal line, starting with her father William John Haynes. The reason for starting here is that his is the most complete set of documents in the parcel of papers, with his birth, marriage and death certificates along with various other papers chronicling the key stages of his life. The bible does not relate to this branch of the family.

William Haynes’ birth certificate states that he was born on 27 February 1904 at Elford Hill, Eccleshall, Staffordshire. He was the son of master wheelwright, Joseph Thomas Haynes and his wife Maria (neé Yates).   By the time of William’s marriage to Ada Eardley on 15 September 1929, William’s father was described as  a funeral undertaker. This information was a catalyst for a rather unusual memory for my mother-in-law. She recalled staying at her grandfather’s house and sleeping in a bedroom full of shrouds! According to GRO indexes he died in 1958, in his early 90’s.

A preliminary search revealed that J Haynes undertakers still exists at Eccleshall, with the website providing a brief resumé of the buisness.[1] So in my later research I intend exploring the life and business of Joseph Thomas Haynes.

However, based on the information provided by my mother-in-law, my first week or so’s research has centred around the 1841-1911 census returns and the odd foray into parish records. Using this combination of online sources I have constucted a basic skeleton of a family tree.  This is reproduced below.

Haynes Family Tree

Haynes Family Tree

The census search has proved fairly routine. No real difficulties tracking back to 1841. I used both the Ancestry and FindMyPast UK sites to do this. The only minor hurdle was finding William’s great grandfather, James Haynes, in the 1851 census. Although he was there in the 1841 census and then from 1861-1871, there was no trace of him in 1851. At this point I consulted on-line parish registers available for Shropshire on FindMyPast. Through the censuses I had located seven possible children[2] for James Haynes and his wife Ann. I then identified their baptisms in the Parish Registers for the parishes of Edgmond, Longford and Church Aston in Shopshire. This provided the breakthrough. The youngest children bore the surname “Haynes Parker” or “Parker Haynes”.  Only the youngest child George was born post-GRO registration. His baptism in 1838  is under the name Haynes-Parker, his GRO registration surname is Parker with Haynes being listed as a middle name.[3]  Eldest child, John, was baptised on 10 January 1824 at Edgmond Parish Church with the surname Parker and no mention of Haynes.  From this information it was now easy to locate James in the 1851 census – recorded under the name Parker not Haynes.

It also proved a breakthrough in locating James’ marriage. At the time of the 1851 census James’ mother-in-law Ann Hamlet resided with the James and Ann. The Parish Register of Stoke on Tern, Shropshire has a marriage on 31 March 1823 between James Parker and Ann Hamlet.  The Shropshire Parish Registers also provide a possible baptism for James in June 1797 at Lilleshall[4], illegitimate son of Ann Parker.

So if possible I would like to find out a little more about the reason behind this transistion of surname from Parker to Haynes, which took place during the late 1820’s to the early 1860s.

James’ son Joseph (1834) is the grandfather of William  Haynes. Born in around 1834 the Shropshire Parish Registers show that he was married by licence at Aston in Edgmond on 10 February 1859.  His bride was Mary Webb, daughter of William.  My husband says there is a family story that they are somehow connected to Captain Matthew Webb, the first recorded person to swim the English Channel. As yet, even despite this now shared surname, I have found no evidence to support the anecdote. My husband’s Webb Ancestry from the 1800’s appears to be Staffordshire based, with pre-1800s possibly Shropshire. A preliminary look at Captain Webb shows he was born in Shropshire in 1848. But it is something else to explore.

Of more immediate interest is an occupational connection between William Webb and the Haynes male line. They were all wheelwrights. By the turn of the 19th century the Haynes family  were diversifiying  adding building, joinery, carpentry and undertaking to their trade skill set.  In the late 1860’s they moved from Shropshire to Stone, Staffordshire to ply their trade and appear to have been extremely succesful at it. I had a quick look at the image archive on the Staffordshire Past-Track website[5] and was amazed to find images of  Haynes and Sons, Wheelwrights. This contains photographs of family events as well as ones of their business, including images of portable bandstands (one produced below)[6] manufactured by the family firm.  So again this is another aspect of the family history I intend exploring.

12 May 1910: Proclamation of the Accession of George V, Stone read from the portable bandstand in Granville Square. The portable band stand seen here was the first of its kind and was manufactured by Haynes and Sons, wheelwrights, of Station Road, Stone, and was purchased by Stone Urban District Council. See Copyright footnote at [6]

12 May 1910: Proclamation of the Accession of George V, Stone read from the portable bandstand in Granville Square. The portable band stand seen here was the first of its kind and was manufactured by Haynes and Sons, wheelwrights, of Station Road, Stone, and was purchased by Stone Urban District Council. See Copyright footnote at [6]

Finally I quickly looked at the family details of William’s mother Maria (neé Yates). Her father John was a shoemaker, born in around 1830 in Stone, Staffordshire. John’s wife Ann and all his children were engaged in this trade. I traced John back to the 1841 census, living in the household of bricklayer James Thornhill and Ann. Other household members included George Yates (14) and Joseph Yates (7). From GRO indexes it appears that James Thornhill married Ann in 1838.[7]  So this is a certificate I would like to obtain to see if Ann’s name was Yates and to find out her background to see how this fits in with John.

I think the most satisfying aspect of researching my mother-in-law’s tree is her sheer delight at each new discovery. Of late she has struggled with memory issues, but this research is rekindling long forgotten episodes in her life.  It is an absolute joy for all concerned when some new find triggers the recollection of something buried deep in the recesses of her mind; or, because she knows I am working on her tree, she suddenly recalls some other fact or story. For example she thought her family routes were in Staffordshire, but when I identified a significant Shropshire connection she recalled her parents visiting family in that county. So this process is proving fascinating for me and an interest for her.

My next steps will be to try to flesh out the tree further with online parish records and the ordering of BMD certificates (oh, for that certificate price reduction, but sadly this research cannot wait!). Then to try to fill in the details of the individuals, their occupations and the times and areas in which they lived. I will return to this portion of my blog later in the summer.

Sources:   

[1] http://www.robertnicholls.co.uk/our-history/7.html

[2] I say possible because of the omission of family relationship details on the 1841 census.

[3] GRO Ref: Q3 1838 PARKER  George Haynes Newport  Vol 18 Pg 124

[4] The 1851 and 1861 censuses record his birthplace as Lilleshall, 1871 Woodcote,

[5] Staffordshire Past-Track website:  http://www.staffspasttrack.og.uk/

[6] With thanks to Staffordshire Past-Track and Mr David Haynes for allowing me to use this image. Copyright is retained by David Haynes who has kindly made his collection available to Staffordshire Past-Track for non-commercial private study & educational use. Additional information about permitted uses of content and commercial enquiries is available via the Copyright statement Copyright Statement on Staffordshire Past-Track. Re-distribution of resources in any form is only permitted subject to strict adherence to the guidelines in the full Terms and Conditions statement.

[7] GRO Ref: Q3 1838 Stoke on Trent Vol 17 Page 147

13 Comments

Posted in Ancestry, Census, Church Aston, Eccleshall, Family History, Findmypast, Genealogy, Haynes, Longford, Parish Registers, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Stoke on Tern, Stone, undertaker, Wheelwright

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,