Marriages at Bedminster: part 2

After the Marriage Act came into force in 1754, it seemed that irregular and clandestine marriage practices may have ended in Bedminster. In part 1 we saw an immediate shift in the nature of marriages recorded in the parish register and Emanuel COLLINS had left the Duke of Marlborough public house, so perhaps the new legislation was having the desired effect.

But then, we find that the Parish Register Abstract for the Hundred of Hartcliffe and Bedminster in 1811 – available via Google Books – notes that the number of marriages proportionate to population size elsewhere in Somerset at this time would mean we might expect 35 or 36 marriages per year at Bedminster, but that the average number taking place there each year at this time is 139. The footnote says that: “this receives full explanation from the remarks of the Clergymen of the northern part of Somersetshire, most of whom complain of the practice of clandestine marriages at Bedminster.”

Were any other parishes similarly singled out in 1811? There is, in fact, a similar footnote to the Parish Register Abstract for the City of Bristol and the Hundred of Barton Regis, noting that 611 marriages per year would be expected, but on average of 888 were taking place, referring again concerns raised by: “the Clergymen near Bristol, most of whom complain of the practice of Clandestine Marriage at Bristol and Bedminster”.

It is also noted in 1811 that: “the proportion of Marriages in Middlesex is rendered very high by the practice of Clandestine Marriage, which is easily accomplished in London” with a corresponding lower than expected number of marriages in Hertfordshire and a reference to clergy who: “complain of the practice of Clandestine Marriage at Maidstone”. These, however, are the only other references to clandestine marriage that I can find in the 1811 Parochial Register Abstracts, so whilst there were doubtless similar practices occurring elsewhere, it was only in Bristol, Bedminster, Middlesex and Maidstone that it was deemed statistically interesting and worthy of comment at this time.

What was it about Bedminster, in particular, that made it a popular destination for couples who wished to marry clandestinely?

EXPANSION AND REPUTATION

Bedminster’s population had begun to increase rapidly in the early nineteenth century. The population was recorded as 3,278 in 1801 and had grown to 4,577 by 1811. Ten years later, in 1821, it was 7,979 and, by 1831, there were 13,130 people living in Bedminster. This level of population growth would have perhaps made it difficult to check and verify claims of residence in the parish, particularly if the parties concerned were not regularly attending the Anglican church. There were various non-conformist options for worship – if not, yet, for marriage – so the vicar might not be familiar with a couple who held non-conformist beliefs in a larger parish, especially one with a population that was changing and expanding.

Between 1804 and 1809 the New Cut was constructed, diverting the course of the river Avon in the vicinity of Bedminster. On its completion, according to John Latimer in The Annals of Bristol in the Nineteenth Century (1887): “a thousand of the labourers who had been employed on the works were entertained to dinner in a field opposite Mardyke”. Subsequently, in part due to the “excessive supply of liquor”, a brawl broke out between Irish and English labourers “who had always been on bad terms”. (The site of this event – Spike Island – will be known to some readers as the present-day location of Bristol Archives). This adds an additional dynamic to the parish demographics at the time. Hundreds of men, not usually ‘of this parish’, coming to the local area may well have resulted in some relationships between these labourers and local women. This might also mean that, between census years, the local population swelled yet further; perhaps by 1811 it was, in fact, a little less than the immediately preceding years.

One also wonders if, perhaps, Bedminster’s reputation from earlier times as a parish in which clandestine marriages could take place had been passed down through generations in some of the Somerset villages. Perhaps some of those marrying in 1806 had a grandparent who was married by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough in years gone by! There is also, of course, the matter of proximity to the villages of North Somerset. Bedminster was still part of Somerset at this time; it would not officially become a suburb of Bristol until 1831, but the sprawl created by population growth meant that in many respects it was already essentially part of the city. This meant that for many Somerset villagers it was the closest parish large enough for it to be plausible that they were not previously known to the officiating minister.

River Avon (New Cut) from Bedminster Bridge, Bristol
cc-by-sa/2.0 – © Jaggery – geograph.org.uk/p/3792128

CONSIDERING THE CLERGY

The volume of marriages recorded in the parish register at Bedminster is such that it would take quite some time to review the entire decade preceding 1811, so I have focused on just one year – 1806 – in an attempt to see if any unusual patterns can be established. In this year there were 166 marriages recorded in the parish register at St. John’s. Of the 332 people who were married at Bedminster in 1806, all except two are recorded as being “of this parish”. The exceptions are two grooms – both of whom were married by licence – and one of whom happens to be the local curate, William EDWARDS, whose home parish was St. Mary Redcliffe.

William EDWARDS was the officiating minister for nearly three-quarters (73%) of marriages at Bedminster in 1806. There are nine other clergymen recorded, some of whom only officiated at one or two weddings that year. The next after William EDWARDS, in terms of volume, was Powell Samuel CRICHE who officiated at 13 weddings in 1806, including that of William EDWARDS himself.

As his marriage in 1806 might suggest, William EDWARDS was a relatively young curate. According to the Clergy Database, he was educated at Balliol College, Oxford and had been ordained in 1796, serving previously as a curate at Bristol Christ Church until 1803. It is likely that the day-to-day running of the church was very much left in his hands for much of the time in 1806. The incumbent, Benjamin SPRY, had been vicar of Bedminster since 1775 and died on 29 October 1806; he conducted no marriage ceremonies that year. Whilst Benjamin SPRY might have been familiar with local families, William EDWARDS had only been there for three years, apparently lived in St. Mary Redcliffe parish – based on the parish register entry for his own marriage – and would not have known parishioners quite so well, particularly having arrived at a time when population growth was already underway.

‘OF THIS PARISH’ – OR NOT …

As noted above, 330 (99.4%) of the consenting parties to marriages at Bedminster in 1806 were said to be ‘of this parish’. This seems very unlikely to be correct, but can be difficult to prove. Incomers to Bedminster in the preceding years would not have been baptised there but might legitimately be considered ‘of this parish’ at the time of their marriage. Couples may have resided in the parish for a short time before moving elsewhere. Many of the couples have common names – or names that you might not consider common until you look for them in Somerset – and cannot easily be identified with absolute certainty. Some, however, can be found relatively easily and a possible back story established that might explain the decision to marry away from their home parish.

Thomas TRIPP and Martha STEVENS, for example, married at Bedminster on 3 November 1806. There appears to be nothing to associate this couple with the parish of Bedminster apart from their marriage taking place there. It seems that Thomas was baptised in Shipham, Somerset in 1786, as were the couple’s children from 1807 onwards. His parents were baptised and buried in Shipham; they married in nearby Winscombe. Martha’s birthplace is recorded as Shipham on the 1851 census and Wells on the 1861 census; she may be the Martha STEPHENS whose baptism took place at East Harptree on 3 February 1790. If that is the case, her date of birth is also recorded in the parish register – 31 January 1790 – which would make her only 16 years old when they were married in 1806. This, perhaps, might be one reason for a marriage to take place in clandestine circumstances if her parents did not approve, as parental consent was required for the marriage of a minor to take place. It is also of note that the witnesses were not family members; they were William ROOM and Martha CLOUD …

WHO WERE THE WITNESSES?

Witnesses can sometimes be a helpful clue when evaluating marriage records and it may be useful to research how a witness could be connected to the consenting parties, however many parishes will also have certain names that crop up time and again as witnesses to marriages. Without looking at other marriages around the time of that of your ancestors, this may lead an unwary family historian astray, searching in vain for a connection between the couple and a witness when nothing of the sort exists.

Such is the case in Bedminster, where we find that 108 of the 166 marriages recorded in 1806 were witnessed by William ROOM. This can be explained by a note in the parish register stating “William Room was appointed Clerk or this parish on the fifteenth Day of April in the year 1782”. It is not uncommon to see the parish clerk acting as witness to a marriage in this period and – in Bedminster – there are three other regular witnesses throughout the year: Abraham ROOM (24 marriages), Benjamin ROOM (23 marriages) and Martha CLOUD (43 marriages). In fact, there are only 35 marriages at Bedminster in 1806 which are not witnessed by any of the ROOMS or Martha CLOUD; 69 marriages have two of these four recorded as the witnesses. The absence of friend or family members might sometimes – but not always – provide an indication that something was unusual about the circumstances of the marriage.

There are other people who act as witnesses for all of the weddings on a particular date. Thomas BRIGGS – who had presumably come to church with the intention to witness the marriage of John BRIGGS and Mary HAM on 26 May 1806 – witnessed three other weddings on the same day: Benjamin SPEARS and Judieth TILER; William HALL and Sarah THATCHER; and John SELLICK and Sarah POCOCK. Three marriages took place on 17 August 1806 – John OWENS witnessed the first two; the third was his own. John PEARCE and Sarah WILLIAMS witnessed three marriages on 27 October 1806 but do not appear as witnesses on any other dates that year. Multiple marriages on the same date were not uncommon in Bedminster. There are 10 days in 1806 where three marriages took place, one example – those witnessed by Thomas BRIGGS – of four marriages on the same day and, on 5 January 1806, there were five marriages at St. John’s.

The number of marriages on 5 January 1806 might, perhaps, be due to the continued observance of the old date of Christmas in Somerset villages at this time. Christmas Day was often a popular date to get married, yet in Bedminster in 1806 there is only one marriage recorded on 25 December. My 5 x great-grandfather, the parish clerk of Over Stowey in Somerset, apparently considered the old date of Christmas as an occasion to take a holiday. On 7 January 1806 the vicar of Over Stowey records in his diary – published as Paupers and Pig Killers – that “we walked to Chapel House to enquire after the Clerk but he was not at home. He has given himself a Holiday or two which he spends at the Publick House”. The following year, the clerk’s decision to give himself a holiday in early January is specifically attributed to “Old Christmas Day as he calls it”. It is quite possible that the traditions associated with the former date of Christmas might have contributed to Sunday 5 January 1806 being a popular choice of date to get married at Bedminster.

PROHIBITED DEGREES

One reason for a couple to marry away from their home parish would be that their relationship was one for which marriage was prohibited. This was the case for James CAPLE and Deborah CAPLE – allegedly ‘of this parish’ – who were married at Bedminster on 9 June 1806. Evidence suggests that this couple in fact came from the village of Blagdon in Somerset, where a marriage between Thomas CAPLE and Deborah FILER was recorded on 25 April 1791. Thomas CAPLE was buried at Blagdon on 29 December 1805, leaving his wife with several young children to care for. Conveniently, Thomas had an unmarried brother – James CAPLE – who was available to take on the duties of husband and father. Inconveniently, it was not at that time permitted to marry your deceased brother’s wife. When we consider that Bedminster is only around 12 miles from Blagdon – and perhaps had some reputation at this time as somewhere you could marry without many questions being asked – it would make sense that this couple might opt to marry in this nearby parish where they were not known to the clergy. Notably, the marriage is witnessed by James FILER alongside William ROOM the parish clerk, so it appears that a member of the bride’s family had accompanied them and, in the circumstances, it is difficult not to be sympathetic, despite the legal position.

A later example – cited by Polly Morris in the Journal of Sexuality – is the marriage (by banns) of Henry PLENTY to his daughter-in-law Eleanor PLENTY at Bedminster on 5 September 1814. A witness recalled going to Bedminster from their home parish of Chewton Mendip – “very early in the morning” on 5 September to celebrate their marriage and that they had “ever since lived and cohabited together as Man and Wife”. The marriage was dissolved in 1815 and they were ordered to separate. The parish register entry for this marriage at the Church of St. John the Baptist records a marriage by banns of Henry PLENTY and ‘Ann’ PLENTY on 5 September 1814 and states that both were ‘of this parish’ which was not, of course, correct.

The case of Henry and Eleanor PLENTY demonstrates that, when church authorities were made aware of these marriages, they might seek to have them dissolved in some circumstances, but the CAPLEs, by contrast, had returned home and appear to have lived as man and wife with no such interference. The more common scenario appears to be that married couples returned to their home parish (where the local vicar would most likely be aware of the circumstances) and subsequently lived together unimpeded. Perhaps this might indicate that the Somerset clergy, although disgruntled by these clandestine practices, may have been largely disinclined to disrupt matters further once a marriage had taken place; certainly there is evidence that they baptised the children of such unions.

LEGAL MATTERS

Parish registers underwent changes following The Parish Register Act 1812 which came into force in 1813. Would the spotlight this placed on the importance of accurate and consistent recording of baptisms, marriages and burials prompt the clergy in Bedminster to be more diligent in their marriage practices?

If the case of Henry PLENTY and Eleanor PLENTY is taken as an example, that would appear not to be the case, however Bedminster was not the only parish in (or adjacent to) the cities of Bristol and Bath where marriage practices were under scrutiny. The clergy of Somerset continued to be concerned about clandestine marriage practices and on 7 February 1816 Sir J. Cox HIPPISLEY presented a petition to the House of Commons on their behalf. The original petitions before 1834 were destroyed when the Palace of Westminster was ravaged by fire (more about that here), but luckily the Journals of the House of Commons provide a formal records of proceedings:

“A Petition of the several Persons whose names are thereunto subscribed, being of the Established Clergy of the Church of England, and residing in the county of Somerset, chiefly in the vicinity of the Cities of Bath and Bristol, was presented, and read; setting forth, That the provisions of the Statute 26. Geo. II. c. 33 for the better prevention of Clandestine Marriages, as far as they are applicable to the solemnization of marriages in consequence of the proclamation of Banns, have been found inadequate; and that, were it necessary to accompany their representation with a detail of facts have occurred within their immediate professional cognizance, it would present a most extended and painful series of violations of the Divine and Municipal Ordinances; and that to the wisdom of Parliament therefore the Petitioners confidently look up, in support of the letter and spirit of its enactments, consonant as they are to the instructions of the Divine and Moral Law; And praying the House to take the matter into consideration.”

There is some evidence, then, to suggest that some marriages taking place in Bedminster and – it is implied – some parishes of Bristol in the early nineteenth century were clandestine in nature. This is not quite the same as the irregular marriages being conducted by Emanuel COLLINS in the eighteenth century, but nonetheless there it appears these marriages were numerous enough to cause consternation amongst the local clergy.

Would things start to change, perhaps, when civil registration was introduced in 1837? Find out in part 3 of this story …

Irregular marriages at Bedminster: part 1 – Emanuel COLLINS, the Duke of Marlborough, banns and licences

Clandestine or irregular marriages in England prior to the 1753 Marriage Act (which came into force on 25 March 1754) are best known to have taken place in the area around the Fleet Prison in London. Marriages there were numerous and surviving records from series RG7 at The National Archives are available to view via Ancestry, Findmypast and The Genealogist.

For more on the history of irregular or clandestine marriages in England, with a particular focus on the records of marriages in the area of the Fleet Prison, I strongly recommend listening to this podcast recorded in 2013 by Audrey Collins for The National Archives. One of the points made in the podcast is that unusual marriage patterns elsewhere in the country might provide a clue to the presence of a vicar in the area at the time who might be conducting such marriages. One such vicar was the Reverend Emanuel COLLINS …

“A DISGRACE TO HIS CLOTH”

An article published in the Bristol Mercury on 28 January 1884 – available via The British Newspaper Archive or Findmypast -claims that Bedminster was at one time known as the Gretna Green of the west: “thanks to the then rector of the parish, the Rev. Emanuel Collins, A.M., mixing up the business of the world and the flesh with the care of souls and keeping a public house, known, we believe, as “the Marlborough,” at which he performed the marriage ceremony for the modest fee of “a crown a couple”.  These clandestine marriages became so flagrant here that they were as notorious as those of “Gretna Green” itself, and ancient records tell us that the abuse of the sacred ordinance at the Bedminster tavern was brought under Parliamentary notice when Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 was passed.”

Another article, in the Bristol Mercury on 30 January 1892, notes that in F. Farley’s Journal on 27 July 1758 the sale by auction of the Duke of Marlborough public house at Bedminster – in the occupation of Emanuel COLLINS – was announced and notes that “Collins is reported to have made a shameless living by celebrating irregular marriages at his public-house. The Act rendering such unions illegal passed in 1754, and his abandonment of the tavern soon after lends support to the tradition. In 1762, Collins, who styled himself M. A. of Oxford, published some poetical effusions under the title of “Miscellanies,” in which the depravity of his mind is only too clearly revealed.”

Bristol Past and Present, published, in 1882, describes Emanuel COLLINS as “a low, obscene writer, a disgrace to his cloth ; kept a public house wherein he would marry people for a crown“, while John Chilcott’s 1826 work New Guide to Bristol, Clifton and the Hotwells claims that COLLINS was “a most turbulent and reprehensible character, but a severe satirist” and goes on to say he was educated at Bristol Grammar School, later keeping his own school at Shannon Court; his Miscellanies in Prose and Verse are said to be “caustic in the extreme.”

COLLINS was also known to the Bristol-born poet Robert Southey and references are made to him in The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey, edited by Charles Cuthbert Southey and published in 1849. Robert Southey described the Miscellanies as “in no respect creditable to the author, and, on the score of decency, highly discreditable to him.” Southey’s uncles had attended a school run by Emanuel COLLINS, “one of the strangest fellows that ever wore a cassock … clever and profligate” and Southey accuses him of “gross and scandalous misconduct”, saying that “he afterwards kept something so like an alehouse, that he got into a scrape with his superiors.”

Burke’s ‘A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the landed gentry of Great Britain and Ireland‘ (1849) describes Emanuel COLLINS as “a man of wit and humour, as well as considerable literary attainments“; there is no mention here of his apparent penchant for conducting clandestine marriages. Although the marriages that took place at the Duke of Marlborough may have been irregular or clandestine, they were still conducted by a vicar, even if he may have been one who – according to John R. Gillis in For Better, for Worse: Bristol Marriages, 1600 to the Present (1985, Oxford University Press, p. 94) – “further supplemented his income by providing cakes and ale.”

Whilst the late Victorian newspapers focus solely on COLLINS as being morally reprehensible, the earlier accounts of Chilcott, Southey and Burke suggest perhaps some grudging admiration of COLLINS’ intellect, despite his perceived moral short-comings and maybe provide a more balanced representation of his character. There are certainly numerous sources here which point the finger at Emanuel COLLINS for conducting irregular marriage ceremonies, however finding evidence for this is another matter …

THE PARISH REGISTER OF ST. JOHN’S, BEDMINSTER

St. John, Bedminster. Published by George Davey (Broad Street, Bristol) in c.1838. Image from the collections of Bristol Record Office / Public domain

Emanuel COLLINS, the eccentric, sharp-witted and morally questionable vicar who allegedly conducted marriage ceremonies at the Duke of Marlborough public house was not the vicar of the local parish. From 1744, the Prebendary of Bedminster and Redcliffe was Thomas BROUGHTON, whose literary contributions – unlike those of COLLINS – were sufficient to warrant an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. BROUGHTON’s achievements included writing librettos for Handel, contributing articles to Biographia Britannica and translating the work of Voltaire. It is unlikely that this scholarly vicar was unaware of COLLINS’ practices; perhaps the “mild, cheerful and liberal temper” and promotion of “Christian virtue at its most generous” attributed to him provided for some degree of tolerance for the irregular marriages taking place in his parish.

To what extent were the marriage recorded in the parish register during this period entirely valid and legal? Polly Morris, in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, gives the example of Margaret HOBBS and her older half-brother, John HOBBS, who lived together at Hemington after the death of their father, Richard, in 1747 in a paper discussing marriage within the prohibited degrees in Somerset. They were cited to Wells Court in 1754 and accused of committing “adultery, incontinence, or fornication” and admitted to having had a ‘bastard’ child, with Margaret subsequently required to perform penance at Hemington. The churchwardens subsequently instigated an incest cause against the couple, who were alleged to have married at Bedminster in July 1751, but no proof of the marriage was provided and the case did not proceed. There is a marriage (by licence) for John HOBBES and Margret HOBBES documented in the parish register at Bedminster on 30 October 1752 which seems likely to be a record of the event in question, albeit a year or so after the alleged date. This can be found in the ‘Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812’ record set on Ancestry.

The parish register for St. John records whether marriages were by licence or by banns and this reveals something quite interesting. From January 1749/50 to December 1753 there were 181 marriages recorded in the parish register; 44 by banns and 137 by licence. From January 1755 to December 1758 there were just 85 marriages recorded; 64 by banns and 21 by licence.

So we see that either side of the year in which the Marriage Act was enacted, there is a marked difference in both the number of marriages in the parish and the split between marriages by licence and marriages by banns. That this can be attributed to the Marriage Act becomes even clearer when we consider marriages in 1754. Prior to the Act coming into force on 25 March 1754, there were 23 marriages in Bedminster; 4 by banns and 19 by licence. For the remaining nine months of the year, after the Act was in force, there were only 15 marriages recorded in the parish register; 12 by banns and 3 by licence.

The parish register also records the officiating minister at each marriage during this period. COLLINS’ name, perhaps unsurprisingly, does not feature, but there are also very few entries for marriages conducted by BROUGHTON. The majority of the marriages for this period attributed to the curates Samuel GILES or Humphrey Brent COOPEY.

THE PARISH REGISTER OF ST. MARY, REDCLIFFE

St. Mary, Redcliffe. Created before 1850s.  Image from the collection of Bristol Record Office / Public domain

Until 1852, St. Mary, Redcliffe was a daughter church of St. John, Bedminster and shared the same clergy. Consulting the marriage register there shows that BROUGHTON did not concern himself with conducting marriages there very often either, leaving the majority once again to the curates.

From January 1749/50 to December 1753 there were 233 marriages recorded in the parish register at St. Mary, Redcliffe, however of these 146 were by banns and only 87 by licence. From January 1755 to December 1758 there were 143 marriages recorded; 96 by banns and 47 by licence.

So although the daughter church sees a similar reduction in the total number of marriages recorded after the Marriage Act, the split between marriages by banns and marriages by licence remains quite constant. In 1754 there were 13 marriages prior to the Act coming into force; 11 by banns and 2 by licence. For the remainder of that year there were 17 marriages, of which 12 were by banns and 5 by licence.

If we compare the 48 month period from January 1749/50 to December 1753 with the 48 month period from January 1755 to December 1758 for both parishes in terms of percentage split between banns and licences, it is evident that, while the daughter church St. Mary, Redcliffe remains fairly consistent, there is a remarkable shift at St. John, Bedminster.

St. Mary Redcliffe records marriages with 62.7% banns / 37.3% licences in the pre Marriage Act period, compared with 67.1% banns / 32.9% licences in the post Marriage Act period.

St. John, Bedminster, by contrast, has 24.3% banns / 75.7% licences in the pre Marriage Act period, compared with 75.3% banns / 24.7% licences in the post Marriage Act period.

WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS?

These two churches were the responsibility of the same clergy. St. Mary, Redcliffe is in central Bristol; the church recently featured in the first episode of series 3 of A House Through Time. St. John, Bedminster, by contrast, at that time catered for a market town in Somerset which was yet to undergo the expansion and subsequent shift to being a suburb of Bristol that would come in the nineteenth century. The church is no longer extant, having been destroyed by bombing during the Second World War. So there were, no doubt, different demographics in these two parishes. Bedminster was not a wealthy town, but did attract people from the villages of north Somerset as a marriage venue. This, however, does not seem to be a sufficient explanation for the number of marriages by licence that took place there before the 1753 Marriage Act.

Could it be, perhaps that the marriages conducted by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough have been entered in the parish register at St. John, Bedminster? It seems unlikely but is perhaps not entirely outside the realms of possibility. I would be reluctant to promote that hypothesis as fact, however, without further research, which would almost certainly require a visit to Bristol Archives (closed at the time of writing). It would be an interesting study to research the couples who married at Bedminster during this period, whether they were of that parish or from elsewhere and what, if anything, about their circumstances might provide a clue to the preference for marriage by licence.

In the meantime, if you have a marriage in your family tree that took place by licence at Bedminster prior to the 1753 Marriage Act coming into force, you might perhaps wish to consider the possibility that the ceremony was in fact conducted by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough pub, with cake and ale for the wedding breakfast.

Is that the end of the matter? One might think so, but Bedminster wasn’t done with clandestine marriages just yet …

Although we do not have names and details of individual households to consult from the 1811 census, there is still some data available which proves quite enlightening. The Parish Register Abstract for the Hundred of Hartcliffe and Bedminster in 1811 – available via Google Books – notes that the number of marriages proportionate to population size elsewhere in Somerset at this time would mean we might expect 35 or 36 marriages per year at Bedminster, but that the average number taking place there each year at this time is 139. The footnote says that: “this receives full explanation from the remarks of the Clergymen of the northern part of Somersetshire, most of whom complain of the practice of clandestine marriages at Bedminster.” What could be happening here?

To find out more, read Part 2 …

Cardiff 1911: a question of language

WELSH, ENGLISH OR BOTH?

A particular feature of the census in Wales is the language question, first introduced in 1891. This was intended to record whether each member of the household spoke Welsh, English or both languages.

The data collected is by no means perfect. In 1891 there was no age limit specified for this question, resulting in some apparently very precocious babies who allegedly had language skills when only a few months old. From 1901 an age of three years or above was stipulated for the language question though this was not always strictly adhered to.

An answer of ‘Both’ for the language question does not necessarily mean that a person was equally fluent in both languages and there is no option to indicate the primary language spoken – someone may, for example, have had a basic knowledge of English but have conducted the majority of their day-to-day business in Welsh or vice-versa.

Some communities on the border with England completed the English version of the household schedule with the language question missing; I have also come across a number of household schedules in Swansea that are missing this column, which means information about the language(s) spoken in those households has not been documented.

Household schedules could be completed in Welsh and from 1871 you may see the letter ‘W’ in the first column of the enumerator’s book to indicate that a Welsh language household schedule had been completed. This can be a useful indication that the householder was most likely either a monoglot Welsh speaker or at least used Welsh as their primary language. As enumerators’ books were completed in English, however, it is possible that information may have been ‘lost in translation’ and we do not have household schedules available before 1911 to check.

THE LANGUAGES OF CARDIFF IN 1911

Household schedules from the 1911 census allow us to see for the first time how the language question was answered by individual householders, rather than as it was recorded in the enumerators’ books. In the south of Cardiff there are some answers which do not conform to official expectations. The Docks, Tiger Bay, Butetown, Cardiff Bay … this part of the city has had various monikers over the years, however one thing that is hugely evident from the 1911 census is the diversity of languages spoken in the area.

The countries of birth recorded on this piece of the census are numerous: Somaliland, Italy, Aden, St Kitts, Argentina, Jamaica, China, Martinique, Egypt, Russia, Sierra Leone, Australia, Barbados, USA, Liberia … in total over 40 different countries of birth are recorded. There was no “ethnic group” question on the census in 1911, however there were certainly Cardiff-born British English-speaking people in Cardiff at this time whose ancestors had come to the city from Africa, Asia, mainland Europe and elsewhere, but this is not evident from the data collected by the census.

Pobl Fel Ni (People Like Us) – statue by John Clinch (1993). Cardiff Bay. (Photograph: Jenni Phillips (2015))

So what about the language question? Well, many of the people living in this part of Cardiff and born overseas were recorded as English speakers, but in addition to the prescribed/expected answers, there are around twenty other languages recorded in this particular enumeration district, including Greek, Arabic, Norwegian, Turkish, Chinese, Egyptian English, Portuguese and Indian. At the Seamans Hospital on Ferry Road the languages spoken by patients included Swedish, Norwegian, German, Danish, Spanish, Arabic and Italian. Official data shows that 0.2% of people in Wales as a whole gave an answer to the language question other than Welsh, English or Both. This percentage is significantly higher in the south of Cardiff.

These answers to the language question reflect the diverse community already established in this area in 1911. Some of those enumerated here in 1911 were transient residents, seamen who had happened to be onshore when the census was taken, while others were living in family units, sometimes with parents born overseas and children born in Cardiff. Some men who had immigrated to Cardiff for employment purposes had settled in the city after meeting and marrying local women. There are cities with similar demographics in England in 1911 but the people who lived there did not answer a question about the language they spoke and by restricting the prescribed answers to Welsh, English or Both, some of the languages spoken in Cardiff at this time will not have been represented in official data either. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples in this piece of census which show that many people in south Cardiff took the opportunity to disclose the language they actually spoke and ignored the limitations of the prescribed answers to the question.

AN EXPRESSION OF IDENTITY

The 1911 census for Wales asked about Birthplace, Nationality and Language Spoken. Some respondents took the opportunity to provide additional clarification about their identity. Alfred Silver, a 31 year old timber yard labourer, gives his place of birth as “Born Cape Verde – Cardiff since 2 years old” Alfred was an English speaker and states his nationality as British – not “British subject by parentage” or “Naturalised British subject” as the census specified. Alfred was, quite simply, British.

The census has evolved since 1911, however there is still scope for improvements to be made to allow people to accurately express their identity. The proposed census form for 2021 includes the question “What is your ethnic group?” – Kizzy Crawford wrote about the limitations of the prescribed answers for people in Wales in the Guardian last month and Will Hayward’s piece for Wales Online includes an image of the specimen form. The response from the Office for National Statistics so far appears to be that respondents may write in an answer of their choosing if their identity cannot be accurately represented by the options given on the form … in much the same way as the residents of Cardiff’s dockland community in 1911 chose to record languages spoken other than the limited options of Welsh, English or Both. In some respects nothing much has changed at all.

FIND OUT MORE

The household schedules for RG 14/32126 (Registration District 588, Sub-District 3, Enumeration District 27) can be viewed on Ancestry and Findmypast.

More information about ‘Languages spoken in Wales and Monmouthshire’ – as recorded on the 1911 census – can be found on the Vision of Britain Through Time website.

To learn more about the heritage and diversity of Cardiff’s dockland community, check out Tiger Bay and the World.

For further reading about using the census for family history research in Wales, a good place to start is Chapter 5 of Beryl Evans’ book Tracing Your Welsh Ancestors: A Guide for Family Historians ( Pen & Sword: Barnsley (2015) – ISBN 978-1-84884-359-2) or Chapter 10 of Searching for Family and Community History in Wales (ed. Rheinallt Llwyd & D. Huw Owen – Gwasg Carreg Gwalch: Llanrwst (2014) – ISBN 928-1-84524-466-5), also written by Beryl Evans. Both books cover a wide range of other topics and are worthwhile investments for anyone researching family history in Wales.

A Somerset centenarian?

William MEAD (or MEADE) was a boatman on the river Parrett and on the canal near Bridgwater in Somerset. He certainly lived a long life and raised a large family, but did he really live to the age of 100?

On 19 May 1876 the Western Gazette reported as follows:

A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. – A man named William Meade, formerly a boatman, has died at Somerset Bridge, at the age of 100 years, which he attained in August last. He has left a numerous progeny, including two children by a great grandchild. (1)

The same story was reported by the Western Times, Chard & Ilminster News, Bridgwater Mercury, North Devon Journal and Weston Mercury with some reports including additional information:

On Wednesday last, a man named William Meade, who on the 6th August last attained the age of 100 years, died at the “Malts and Hops,” Somerset-bridge, near Bridgwater. The deceased, who, early in life, was a shoemaker, and afterwards a boatman, has left a numerous progeny. (2)

William was buried at North Petherton on 18 May 1876. The parish register entry for his burial and the GRO registration of his death both record him as being 100 years old at the time of his passing. (3, 4)

EXAMINING THE CENSUS

William MEAD is reasonably easy to locate in the 1871 census on account of his advanced age and place of residence. He is recorded as being aged 93 in 1871 and is living at the Malt and Hops, an inn that was run by Samuel FURSLAND who was married to William’s youngest daughter, Mary Jane. He is at the same address at the time of the 1861 census, when he is said to be 84 years old. This doesn’t quite add up to William being 100 years of age at the time of his death in 1876. The newspaper reports suggest a date of birth of 6 August 1775; that being the case, we would expect him to be 95 on the 1871 census and 85 on the 1861 census. It seems he has gained a few years along the way … (5, 6)

So if William wasn’t 100 years old when he died, when exactly was he born? The 1851 census gives his address as “by the Canal” in North Petherton and age 72, so a little younger again than the subsequent census returns might have us believe. There is also a son – O. MEAD – and a daughter – M. J. MEAD – in the household, as well as Wm. MEAD, a servant. Jumping back another 10 years, we can find the MEAD family living at the ‘Canal Basin’ in North Petherton, where household members include William MEAD – aged 50 – his wife Mary and presumed children Obediah, Robert, Joseph, Mary J and James. ‘Obediah’ on the 1841 census is a good match for ‘O. MEAD’ on the 1851 census and Mary Jane is a constant through all of the available census returns for William. The initial ‘O’ and the forename ‘Obediah’ (or ‘Obadiah’ on some records) is unusual enough that we can be reasonably sure this is the right family. Although there is no specific address recorded, they are living near the canal in both 1841 and 1851 and William’s job is consistently recorded as boatman. He has, however, apparently aged by over 20 years between 1841 and 1851. Even allowing for rounding of ages on the 1841 census, this cannot easily be explained … (7, 8)

WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR WILLIAM’S AGE?

William MEAD married Mary FRY at Stoke St. Gregory on 23 July 1804. Their first son, Philip MEAD was baptised there on 6 January 1807. Based on this information, William must have been older than 50 when the 1841 census was taken, otherwise he would only have been around the age of 13 when he married. An article in the Taunton Courier & Western Advertiser in 1843 includes testimony from William at a coroner’s inquest following the death of two boys near Somerset Bridge; as part of his evidence, William states that “he had been a boatman on the river Parrett and the Canal about forty-one years”. This would mean he started work as a boatman around 1802, about two years before his marriage. (9, 10)

One of the death notices for William MEAD in 1876 mentions that he worked as a shoemaker “early in life”. There is a record from apprenticeship books dated 1792 for a Wm. MEAD of Stoke St. Gregory apprenticed to a cordwainer (i.e. – a shoemaker), Thomas FUDGE. This seems to be a good match for ‘our’ William and certainly means he would have been older than 50 at the time of the 1841 census; although children might be apprenticed before the age of 10, it is implausible that William would have begun an apprenticeship when he was only a year old! (11)

There is a baptism record of interest at Stoke St. Gregory on 29 May 1785 for William MEAD, the base-born son of Mary MEAD. This is the closest match I have been able to find for William for his expected place and approximate date of birth. It’s around a decade later than would be expected for a death aged 100 in 1776, but it does seem to tally with all of the other records that have been identified for William MEAD. It is also possible that he was not baptised until some time had elapsed after his birth; certainly William’s own children were not always baptised immediately – his sons James, Thomas and John (who were not triplets) were baptised as a ‘job lot’ on Christmas Day 1813 at Stoke St. Gregory. (12, 13)

SO HOW OLD REALLY WAS WILLIAM MEAD?

In conclusion, I think it’s reasonable to say that any claims of William MEAD being 100 years old at the time of his death do not stand up to scrutiny. He was without doubt a very elderly man who had almost certainly passed the age of 90 before his death, but all other records suggest that he was somewhat short of the centenarian milestone. The 1841 census is something of an anomaly – possibly his age on that document should have been 60 rather than 50 – but otherwise there is a reasonably consistent timeline here for a boy born in the mid-1780s, apprenticed at a young age, with a career change and marriage in early adulthood, several children born between 1807 and 1831, followed by a long period of old age, mostly spent with his daughter Mary Jane’s family at the Malt and Hops.

William is certainly not the only person whose age at the time of death was exaggerated in the nineteenth century. For those born before the introduction of civil registration in 1837, their date of birth was not necessarily recorded at the time of baptism and a few years here and there could easily be added or subtracted. Living to the age of 100 was an achievement of note and resulted in William’s death being reported by several local newspapers. There are numerous reports of centenarians in nineteenth century newspapers, but one suspects that there are more exaggerated claims than there are true ones.

Unravelling the MEAD(E) family takes a bit of time; William’s son Obadiah married Emma MEAD (nee MARCHANT) who was the widow of his brother Henry; two of William’s grandchildren, James MEAD (son of James) and Mary Jane MEAD (daughter of Henry) married each other. The MEAD(E) name pops up for people and places around Bridgwater and the surrounding villages to this day. I am still trying to work out if William had two great-great-grandchildren living at the time of his death, but what is undoubtedly true is that William did have “numerous progeny”. Many of his descendants still live in Somerset today, while others now live as far afield as Australia, USA, Papua New Guinea, Germany, Canada and elsewhere. Quite a legacy for a very old man with a boat!

REFERENCES

(1) Western Gazette – 19 May 1876 – page 7, column 1. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(2) Weston Mercury – 20 May 1876 – page 8, column 4. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(3) GRO death index. Bridgwater. Q2 1876. MEAD, William. Vol 5c, Page 294 : www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(4) Burial. North Petherton parish register. 18 May 1876. MEAD, William. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1914. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(5) 1871 England Census. Malt & Hops, North Petherton, Somerset. MEAD, William. RD: Bridgwater. ED: 2. Household schedule number: 92. Piece: 2381. Folio: 24. Page: 19. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(6) 1861 England Census. Malt & Hops, North Petherton, Somerset. MEAD, William. RD: Bridgwater. ED: 2. Household schedule number: 34. Piece: 1622. Folio: 18. Page: 7. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(7) 1851 England Census. By the Canal, North Petherton, Somerset. MEAD, William. RD: Bridgwater. ED: 6a. Household schedule number: 4. Piece: 1924. Folio: 243. Page: 1. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(8) 1841 England Census. Canal Basin, North Petherton, Somerset. MEAD, William. RD: Bridgwater. ED: 2. Piece: 953. Book: 7. Folio: 18. Page: 3. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(9) Marriage. Stoke St. Gregory parish register. 23 July 1804. MEAD, William and FRY, Mary. Collection: Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(10) Baptism. Stoke St. Gregory parish register. 6 January 1807. MEAD, Phillip. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials, 1531-1812. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(11) Apprenticeship. Stoke St. Gregory. 1792. MEAD, William to FUDGE, Thomas. The National Archives. IR 1. Collection: UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices’ Indentures, 1710-1811. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(12) Baptism. Stoke St. Gregory parish register [transcription]. 29 May 1785. MEAD, William. Collection: Somerset Baptism Index. www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

(13) Baptisms. Stoke St. Gregory parish register. 25 December 1813. MEAD, James, Thomas and John. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 29 December 2019

Family history on my doorstep

In September 2019 I visited St. Margaret’s Church in Roath, Cardiff. This did not take a great deal of effort as it’s only around ten minutes’ walk from my house, however the Cadw Open Doors event included a historical talk and the opportunity to climb the tower so it seemed like a good way to spend the afternoon.

I was particularly keen to have another look around the church as my great-great-great grandparents, Henry BAILEY and Harriet GARRETT, were married there on 17 May 1875. The parish registers had been put out for public consultation on the day. Although I had already seen the parish register entry for their marriage, there was something quite gratifying about finding it again while standing in the place where the event took place.

At the time of their marriage, Henry lived at 10 Helen Street and Harriet’s address was 69 Partridge Road. Both had come to Cardiff from Somerset – the BAILEY family came from Martock, while the GARRETT family can be traced back for a number of further generations in the small village of Chillington.

(Marriage. Parish Register. Roath. 17 May 1875. BAILEY, Henry and GARRETT, Harriet. Record set: Glamorgan Marriages and Banns. Page: 171. www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

A HIDDEN GEM?

Henry and Harriet’s first child, my great-great-grandmother Sarah Jane BAILEY, was born at Garnet Street, Cardiff on 4 September 1875. This is not an address you will find on any contemporary maps, but logic suggests it would be parallel with the other ‘gem’ streets in Adamsdown – Pearl Street, Topaz Street, Emerald Street and so on.

(Birth certificate. Cardiff. 4 September 1875. BAILEY, Sarah Jane. Q4 1875. Vol: 11a. Page: 244. www.gro.gov.uk)

This is indeed the case, however today, Garnet Street is known as Broadway, as noted in the South Wales Daily News in 1876:

CHANGE OF STREET NAME. – One of the new streets in Roath, known for a considerable time as Garnet street, has lately been named Broadway, and the usual street tablet is now affixed at the corner of this improving part of the town. The street in question still requires macadamising.

(South Wales Daily News, 9 June 1876, p.6 – www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

The most recent reference I can find to Garnet Street is in an advertisement for a leasehold property in the Western Mail in 1923 which refers to “14 BROADWAY, CARDIFF (formerly Garnet-street).” Given that the street had been renamed nearly 50 years previously, this does suggest that perhaps some Cardiffians preferred the name ‘Garnet Street’ to ‘Broadway’ and that it persisted in the memory for longer than perhaps necessary.

(Western Mail, 30 June 1923, p.2 – www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

Sarah Jane BAILEY c.1915 – photo: Mary West (private collection)

STAINED GLASS AND A HERALDIC MISHAP

The parish registers were laid out for the Open Doors event on top of the granite tombs in the BUTE family mausoleum, which we were told are in a similar style to those of the Tzars in St. Petersburg. Around the mausoleum there are stained glass windows depicting saints to represent members of the family who are buried there, adding a brightness to this final resting place. There is, however, a mismatch between the windows and the heraldry here; our excellent tour guide pointed out that the windows have been reinstalled in the wrong positions, so that the stone-carved heraldry below does not always match up with the person whose saintly representation appears above. It seems that using architectural evidence as a source for genealogy should be considered just as critically as paper records. I’m not sure which would annoy the BUTE family more – the misattributed heraldry or the steady flow of family historians thumbing through the parish registers on top of their tombs …

The BUTE mausoleum, St. Margaret’s Church,
Roath, Cardiff – September 2019

A GOLDEN PLAQUE

In the mausoleum, something shiny caught my eye. It was a small gold plaque; the first line read “Presented by CHARLES NORTH”. This came immediately after I had been looking at my great-great-great grandparents’ marriage record in the parish register. The witnesses were William NORTH and Mary NORTH. Thanks to previous research, I knew they were members of the family – Harriet GARRETT’s sister, Mary, had married William NORTH in Taunton in 1867.

(Marriage. Parish Register. Taunton Holy Trinity. 22 May 1867. GERETT [GARRETT], Mary and NORTH, William. Collection: Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

Mary and William NORTH had subsequently settled in Cardiff – as so many from south-west England did at that time – and another sister, Elizabeth GARRETT, had married Thomas VODDEN in Cardiff in 1872. I’d already constructed some skeletal ‘quick and dirty’ collateral lines descending from these couples on my family tree. While the BAILEY family had upped sticks and moved to Newport, these cousins of theirs had mostly stayed in Cardiff. I enjoyed coming across familiar streets, names and places of work as the families grew and moved around the city, but they were collateral lines I hadn’t really prioritised until now.

(Marriage. Cardiff. Q2 1872. VODDEN, Thomas and GARRETT, Elizabeth. Vol: 11a. Page: 475. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

The plaque at St. Margaret’s Church is in memory of Charles NORTH’s “beloved wife MEDORA GULNARE”. This is distinctive enough that it should be easy to check and a quick look at the Ancestry app on my phone confirmed it: Charles NORTH was my great-great-grandmother’s cousin; his wife’s name was Medora Gulnare. The plaque also mentions their daughter, “MEDORA VIOLET (LAWRENCE)”. Medora Violet NORTH had married Arthur LAWRENCE in 1936 according to this ‘quick and dirty’ branch of my tree, so it all fitted together nicely.

(Marriage. Newport Market. Q1 1936. LAWRENCE, Arthur and NORTH, Medora V. Vol: 11a. Page: 295. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

Plaque at St. Margaret’s Church, Roath, Cardiff – September 2019
Something shiny caught my eye … St. Margaret’s Church, Roath – September 2019

STEEL AND LOSS

Charles NORTH, his wife Medora and daughter – also Medora – are easy enough to find on the 1911 census. They were living at 35 Janet Street with Charles’ father, William NORTH. Charles worked as a barman while wife Medora was a dressmaker.

(1911 census. 35 Janet Street, East Moors, Cardiff. NORTH, William (head). RD: 588. ED: 27. Piece: 32094. Schedule number: 205. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

I wondered if I might find a descendant, perhaps living nearby in Cardiff, who could tell me more about the plaque in the church. This was not a wealthy family so it intrigues me that Charles went to the trouble of making a gift to the church in memory of his wife. Perhaps he was a deeply religious man. Certainly he lived very close to St. Margaret’s Church. The 1939 Register shows Charles working as a labourer in the steelworks, while his wife performs ‘unpaid domestic duties’. The vast East Moors Steelworks was a major employer in Cardiff and would have been easily accessible on foot from their home on Newport Road. The next household on the Register includes their daughter Medora and her son Clive LAWRENCE, born earlier that year.

(1939 Register. 611 Newport Road, Cardiff. NORTH, Charles; NORTH, Medora G., LAWRENCE, Medora V., LAWRENCE, Clive. RD: 588/1. ED: XGCL. Schedules: 7 & 8. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019)

Clive was the only child born to Medora Violet NORTH and Arthur LAWRENCE. If there were any living descendants, he would provide the link, but sadly this was not to be. Clive was killed in a road accident at Llanbradach in 1958 when the car he was travelling in collided with a British Road Services lorry, bringing this particular branch of the NORTH family to a sad and abrupt end. The following year his grandmother, Medora, died. The plaque in St. Margaret’s Church which commemorates her must date from some time after this but does not mention Clive. This seems strange to me – Charles went to the trouble of naming his (still living) daughter but neglected to include the name of his only grandson who had been lost so young. There could be any number of reasons for this and there is no-one left to ask for an explanation. Unless, perhaps, one of my Cardiff cousins is reading this blog post and can tell me anything more about it …

(Death. East Glamorgan. Q1 1959. LAWRENCE, Clive. Vol: 8b. Page: 328. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019) – (Death. Cardiff. Q4 1959. NORTH, Medora G. Vol: 8b. Page: 186. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 15 December 2019) – (Western Mail. 22 December 1958. p.5. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk  : accessed 15 December 2019)

THE GIRL FROM GARNET STREET

My great-great-grandmother Sarah Jane BAILEY died in 1960. She had seven children, five of whom survived infancy and three of whom had children of their own. Her father and husband were both dock labourers in Newport; it was not always an easy life but she did have one adventure overseas.

The photograph below was taken in America in 1932 with her grandchildren David, Bill and Elinor. Two of her daughters had emigrated and were able to arrange for her to make this trip to visit them. Today Sarah Jane has around 70 living descendants, two-thirds of whom live in America, the rest in England and just me here in Wales, in the parish where she was born over 140 years ago.

Sarah Jane BAILEY with David WEST, Bill WOOD and Elinor WEST. USA. 1932 – photo: Bill Wood (private collection)

What if the parish register is wrong?

I was pleased to see a tweet from Bristol Archives yesterday announcing that Bristol parish registers will shortly be available on the Ancestry website. Parish registers are a fantastic resource for genealogists and it’s great to see that we’ll be getting the images to view alongside transcriptions of the entries. I spent some time poring over entries for the BEVAN family in Bristol a few years ago trying to decide whether Frederick BEVAN, son of Edward and Betsey, might be part of a family whose other ten children all have Edward and Elizabeth recorded as the names of their parents in the parish register. Despite a good number of records being available for Frederick – he was a mariner who got divorced and ended up in the workhouse – I never did manage to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other.

Whilst Betsey is, at least, a diminutive form of Elizabeth, I have recently come across two examples of corrections to baptism entries in parish registers where the original entry has the mother’s name entirely wrong.

THE CASE OF PAUL PERRETT’S WILL

Paul PERRETT of Rowde in Wiltshire died in May 1824. The following year the Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette (accessed via the British Newspaper Archive) reported on an ejectment brought by Silas PERRETT which was primarily concerned with whether land referred to in Paul PERRETT’s will included both the land Paul’s father (also named Paul) had purchased in 1782 and the adjacent property purchased by Paul himself in 1800, or only the latter.

In the course of investigating this matter, an interesting situation arises regarding the parish register for Rowde, reported in the newspaper as follows:

It appeared that Silas Perrett, the common ancestor married Rebecca Long ; there were several children of this marriage ; Silas, the father of the present claimant, being the eldest ; and Paul, the purchaser in 1782, the second. The register of the baptism of Paul in 1737, described his as son of Silas and Elizabeth ; but over the word “Elizabeth,” within a bracket, was written in pencil the word “Rebecca”. – This pencil addition was proved to be in the hand writing of Mr. Higginson, who was Vicar of Rowde from 1764 to 1816 ; but as the baptism was many years before he became Vicar, the alteration could not be considered as made by any competent authority, and this evidence only served to shew that it was made long before the present dispute arose”.

The parish register entry in question can be seen on the Ancestry website in the ‘Wiltshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriage and Burials, 1538-1812’ record set or in person at the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre in Chippenham. The entry for Paul PERRETT senior’s baptism on 5th November 1737 clearly records his mother’s name as Elizabeth, but very faintly above the name Rebecca has been added above in pencil in an obviously different hand.

The newspaper article manages to further confuse matters by going on to state that:

“there were no Registers, either of a marriage of Silas and Rebecca, or of any children of such parents …”

The marriage of Silas PERRETT to Rebecca LONG is, in fact, documented in the parish register for Seend in Wiltshire on 6th July 1734; the newspaper has written ‘Rebecca’ here where they should have stated ‘Elizabeth’.

Luckily for Silas, his cousin Paul had left a will mentioning the names and relationships of numerous family members and it seems this was considered to be sufficient evidence, as the jury concluded that the original entry in the parish register had indeed been a mistake.

A more detailed discussion of this case can be found in the September edition of Family Notes, the P*rr*tt Society journal, which will be published shortly.

SARAH OR JANE?

A week later, I was looking through the parish register for another Wiltshire village, Steeple Ashton (available via Ancestry or at the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre) when I came across the following baptism entry in 1760:

John, son of John Axford and Jane* his wife November 16th

The asterisk, quite obviously written with a different pen, referred to a note at the bottom of the page:

The name of John Axford’s wife was Sarah – she survived her husband / was buried April 16 1825

This becomes more curious when we see that seven other AXFORD baptisms – Sarah (1st April 1763), Rebecca (5th April 1768), Jane (16th September 1770), Isaac (30th August 1772), Thomas (21st September 1776), William (18th October 1779) and Robert (24th June 1782) – have all originally been recorded as the children of ‘John Axford and Jane his wife’ with the mother’s name subsequently amended to Sarah (very faintly, in pencil, in the case of the 1770 entry for Jane’s baptism).

These corrections, apparently made decades later, do appear to be correct. John and Sarah’s marriage was recorded in the register for Steeple Ashton on 19th April 1759 and all five sons are named in John’s will, which also refers to Sarah Axford as the relict, in 1802 (probate records of the Archdeaconry of Salisbury, available on Ancestry in the ‘Wiltshire, England, Wills and Probate, 1530-1858’ record set). I can find no corresponding marriage for John AXFORD with a wife named Jane in the local area at the right time. It does seem extraordinary though that all of the baptism entries have the wrong mother’s name.

File:Steeple Ashton from across a field.jpg
Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire (public domain)

CORRECTING MISTAKES

Some errors in parish registers are acts of repetition or omission. In the parish register for Uphill in Somerset – available via Ancestry or at Somerset Heritage Centre – two baptism entries have been crossed out with the word ‘Error’ written alongside them. The entries in question are:

January 8th – Mary Ann, daughter of John & Elizabeth Jones – Uphill – father’s occupation: labourer

January 12th – Richard, son of James & Elizabeth Pool – Uphill – father’s occupation: yeoman

These entries are on a page dated 1814/1815; the preceding entry is dated 14th March, while the next entry is dated 23rd October 1814. The crossed out entries have then been added to the next page of the register and both are dated 1815. Perhaps this parish register is a copy of the original and the transcriber lost their place along the way?

Whether through lack of concentration during a transcription exercise, or through general poor record-keeping, there is another example in Uphill in 1835 of three baptism entries dated 8th February with a note to say that they were ‘omitted to be inserted in Feb[uar]y last’ with ‘and thus inserted here’ added after the last one. The preceding entry in the parish register is dated 24th September 1835, more than six months after these baptisms ought to have been recorded.

MURDER ON THE QUANTOCKS

Late additions are worth being aware of when using parish registers as a genealogical source. An example of this from the parish register of Over Stowey in Somerset – available via Ancestry or at Somerset Heritage Centre – is the recording of banns between Ann RICE and John WALFORD.

John WALFORD, according to many accounts, was betrothed to Ann RICE, but subsequently married Jane SHORNEY instead. John and Jane’s brief union was almost certainly not a happy one and culminated in John murdering Jane, for which he was sentenced to death.

This is a very brief version of the story – a more detailed summary can be found in this article from Somerset Live. There are numerous other variations of this tale that have been recorded over the years, so I shan’t attempt yet another rendition here, however the parish register is interesting because it certainly seems that John was somewhat indecisive in matters of the heart. There is a record of banns between John WALFORD and Jane SHORNEY is in 1780, but no marriage until May 1783, somewhat earlier than suggested in the linked article.

Later in the parish register – just before the first entry of banns in 1788 – there is a record of banns between John WALFORD and Ann RICE with no dates provided and a note in the margin to say ‘not entered before’. This entry has been made after John had been hung for his crime and clearly refers to events which – if they happened – had been some years previous to this entry in the parish register.

The Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Over Stowey, Somerset
(Robert Cutts from Bristol, England, UK [CC BY 2.0)

SOMETIMES IT’S NOT WRONG BUT THERE’S SOMETHING MISSING …

The final case I want to consider here is the marriage of Elizabeth RICE and James WAITES on 16 July 1724 in Nether Stowey, Somerset – again, this parish register can be viewed on Ancestry or at Somerset Heritage Centre and in this instance the register is written in a beautiful, legible hand; it is a pleasure to see such immaculate penmanship in an eighteenth century parish register and the entry is in fact accurate – as far as it goes …

At Somerset Heritage Centre there are 66 boxes of papers relating to the Acland Hood family of Fairfield in Stogursey. Among them are the leases for a grist mill in Adscombe, run for many years by the PERRETT family.

The lease for Adscombe mill in 1701 (DD/AH/34/22/2) refers to Elizabeth PERRETT, daughter of Thomas PERRETT; Elizabeth was, at this time, a young child.

Next, in 1736 (DD/AH/34/22/3) there is a lease that names Thomas PERRETT, his daughter Elizabeth wife of James WAITS and John WAITS (their son ‘now aged about seven years’).

What’s happened here? Well, there is a marriage entry for ‘George Rice of Nether Stowey and Elizabeth Perret of Overstowey’ at St. Mary Magdalene, Taunton, on 8 July 1719 (this can be seen, for example, in Phillimore transcriptions here). This couple have a son, George RICE, in 1722, before Elizabeth is widowed and subsequently marries James WAITES – as Elizabeth RICE – at Nether Stowey in 1724.

The next lease for ADSCOMBE, in 1757 (DD/AH/34/22/4), refers to Elizabeth WAITES of Nether Stowey, George RICE the miller and John WAITES, her son. So Elizabeth’s son from her first marriage had become the miller at Adscombe after the death of his grandfather and is, in fact, the father of Ann RICE who was allegedly betrothed to John WALFORD.

It’s easy to see how someone might note the name Elizabeth RICE in the parish register and go looking for a corresponding baptism, then attribute the marriage entry to the wrong person, as there is nothing to indicate that Elizabeth was a widow or that it was her second marriage.

A CONCLUSION IN DEFENCE OF PARISH REGISTERS

I hope these examples haven’t put anyone off using parish registers in their family history research.

Parish registers are one of the most accessible and useful resources available, particularly for researching people who lived at a time before surviving census records and prior to civil registration.

Mistakes do happen though, so it’s important whenever possible to seek additional evidence to support – or cast doubt on – the information in parish registers. As with all genealogical research, the more evidence you can find to support (or disprove) your hypothesis, the better. Researching collateral lines of the family and others with the same surname in the locality may also help to provide evidence for your work.

Even if – as in the case of Frederick BEVAN – you can’t reach a conclusion or the person in question turns out not to be a member of your family after all, the research process can still be fascinating and provide experience of dealing with different types of records. Frederick was certainly an interesting character to research and will almost certainly be the topic of a future blog post in due course.

Trout Cottage

Amongst my grandmother’s papers, there is a photograph of a house labelled “Trout Cottage – Malpas 1923”. This whitewashed cottage surrounded by blossoming trees is not the home of my ancestors, who lived in the terraced streets of Newport. Their houses were not unlike those that can be seen in the background on the right-hand side of the photograph; certainly not detached properties with gardens.

Trout Cottage – Malpas, 1923

Using a key word search on the Find My Past website, it is relatively easy to find out who lived at this address; a process made easier by the fact that the residents were consistently from the same family.

THE WRIGHT AND JONES FAMILIES

In 1871 Trout Cottage was the home of Edward WRIGHT, his wife Ann and their six children[1]. Edward was a ‘Tailor & Sexton & Constable’ according to this census.

In 1881 and 1891 the WRIGHT family are still living at Trout Cottage[2][3], however in 1891 there is an additional household listed at this address; that of Martha JONES, an 82-year-old widow living on her own means, and her 16-year-old [great] niece Martha WOOD[4].

Edward WRIGHT had died by 1901. The residents of the cottage at the time of that census were his widow, Ann, along with their daughter Lavinia Annie JONES – now married to George Owen JONES[5] – and a niece, Elizabeth WRIGHT.

By 1911, the residents of Trout Cottage are Owen JONES – a signal linesman – his wife Annie and their two children[6]. This couple are, of course, George Owen JONES and Lavinia Annie JONES (nee WRIGHT) going by their middle names.

The 1939 Register[7] shows Lavinia Annie JONES, now retired, living at Trout Cottage with her sister Maria WRIGHT. Also in the household at this time are Enid Elise BIRT and Arthur BIRT – daughter and son-in-law of Lavinia Annie JONES.

On 12th May 1951 the Western Mail[8] reported that:

“The inquest was on Maria Wright, of Trout Cottage, Bettws-lane, Newport, who went shopping, slipped on the pavement and fractured her leg. She was taken by ambulance to the Royal Gwent Hospital, but was sent home because there was no bed available. Nine days later she died from hypostatic pneumonia following her leg injury.“

In 1961, the National Probate Calendar includes the following entry:

JONES Lavinia Annie of Trout Cottage Malpas Newport Monmouthshire widow died 17 April 1961 Probate Llandaff 31 May to Enid Elise Birt married woman and Harry Charles Staunton Jones bus inspector. Effects £2113 16s[9].

I have not found any evidence of a family connection between the WRIGHT or JONES families and my own ancestors. If there is one, it would be on a collateral line too distant to reasonably account for my grandmother keeping these photographs.

MRS JONES OF TROUT COTTAGE

There is a second photograph amongst my grandmother’s papers, printed on a postcard; a dark-eyed lady with a neutral expression, labelled “Mrs Jones of Trout Cottage”. This must, surely, be Lavinia Annie JONES (nee WRIGHT).

Mrs Jones of Trout Cottage

So I know who lived in Trout Cottage and I’m pretty confident I know who the lady in the photograph is, but I’m still not sure why my grandmother kept pictures of Mrs Jones and her family home.

The date for the photograph of Trout Cottage is six years before my grandmother was born and presumably the image of ‘Mrs Jones’ is from around the same time.

I have considered the possibility that perhaps my great-grandmother, Rose DAVIES, might have worked as a servant at the cottage before her marriage, but this seems unlikely given that there is no record of any servant working for the family in any of the census years nor on the 1939 Register. Rose was born in the same year as Enid Elise JONES, daughter of ‘Mrs JONES’, so perhaps they were friends? But that doesn’t explain why my grandmother would have kept labelled photographs of her house and her mother.

What is the possible significance of the date 1923, written on the back of the photograph of Trout Cottage? Well, my great-grandparents were – according to their marriage certificate – living in Malpas at the time of their marriage on Christmas Day 1923[10] however the certificate does not provide any more specific details about their address at this time. Could one or both of them have lived for a short time at Trout Cottage before their marriage? The witnesses were Thomas BARRETT and Jennie MANNING; Thomas did not have any connection, as far as I can establish, with the JONES or WRIGHT family and Jennie was my great-grandmother’s sister.

There is no evidence of the WRIGHT and JONES taking in boarders from outside the family on the various censuses or the 1939 Register, but an article on page 13 of the Western Mail on 7 April 1934, accessed via the British Newspaper Archive, reports that:

“When calling at her neighbour’s bungalow, Mrs Harriett Lewis, 89, of Trout Cottage, Malpas, fell down the entrance steps and died five days later”.

Mrs Harriett Lewis was not, as far as I can determine, a member of the extended WRIGHT or JONES family, so perhaps the family did at one time let out rooms to provide additional income.

Perhaps, if either or both of my great-grandparents did live for a time at Trout Cottage, the 1921 census will reveal some answers in due course. I shall continue to seek answers, but whatever the case, Trout Cottage and ‘Mrs Jones’ must have had some significance for my grandmother to have kept these photographs for decades afterwards.

[1] 1871 census – WRIGHT, Edward – Trout Cottage, Malpas. Newport registration district. RG10. Piece: 5350. Folio: 133. Page: 9.

[2] 1881 census – WRIGHT, Edward – Trout Cottage, Malpas, Newport registration district. RG11. Piece: 5270. Folio: 30. Page: 15.

[3] 1891 census – WRIGHT, Edward – Trout Cottage, Malpas, Newport registration district. RG12. Piece: 4379. Folio: 139. Page: 3.

[4] 1891 census – JONES, Martha – Trout Cottage, Malpas, Newport registration district. RG12. Piece: 4379. Folio: 139. Page: 3.

[5] Marriage. GRO index. – JONES, George Owen & WRIGHT, Lavinia Annie. Q3 1898. Newport. Vol 11a. Page 227.

[6] 1911 census – JONES, Owen – Trout Cottage, Malpas, Newport registration district. RG14. ED: 2. District: 2. Sub district: Llantarnam. Sub district: 4. Piece number: 32022.

[7] 1939 Register. JONES, Lavinia Annie. Trout Cottage, Newport, Monmouthshire. Schedule number: 97. Sub Schedule Number: 1. ED: XNOP. Registration district: 587 – 2.

[8] Newspaper report. 12 May 1951. Western Mail. Page 3. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 15 August 2019

[9] National Probate Calendar (England & Wales). JONES, Lavinia Annie. 1961. Page 306.

[10] Marriage. GRO index. – GRANT, George & DAVIES, Rose. Q4 1923. Newport. Vol 11a. Page 421.

M*N*S BREWER – making sense of an ancestor’s unusual forename

A moss-covered headstone at St. Mary’s Church in the Exmoor village of Luxborough marks the final resting place of my great-great-great-great grandfather and two of his grand-daughters[1]. On this occasion his name is recorded as Meaness BREWER, chiselled in the stone for as long as it can withstand the moss, damp and winds of the moor. For nearly 150 years the stone has stood, marking his final resting place along with that of five-year-old Mary Ann RANDLE and sixteen-year-old Sarah RANDLE.

Even in death, there was inconsistency in the spelling of his name. His death certificate records that Meanness BREWER died from acute bronchitis on 2nd July 1872 at Kingsbrompton [Brompton Regis][2]. The same spelling appears on the GRO index (although it has been indexed by Ancestry as Meanpess BREWER[3]).The parish register for Luxborough is consistent with the death certificate and records his name as Meanness BREWER[4] (indexed as Meamen PRECIOUS on Ancestry[5]).

In the late 1860s and early 1870s M*n*s’ daughter Hannah and her husband Giles RANDLE were living at Goosemoor, otherwise known as Gupworthy station, on the West Somerset Mineral Railway[6]. This accounts for the burial of two of the RANDLE daughters – and Hannah’s father Meaness BREWER – in the churchyard at Luxborough.

So, who was M*n*s BREWER and how did he end up with such an unusual forename?

St. Mary’s Church, Luxborough (ChurchCrawler / LUXBOROUGH, St Mary’s Church, Somerset)

THE VARIOUS SPELLINGS OF M*N*S

The marriage by banns of Menniss BREWER and Mary CHALLIES was recorded in the parish register for St. Mary’s Church in Chard on 10th August 1824[7]. Both made their mark rather than signing their names. Locating the marriage record is further complicated by a known error on Family Search for film 1526463[8] which has resulted in the place of marriage being indexed as Charlton Mackrell instead of Chard. This index gives the names as Menas BREWER and Mary CHALLIS with the event date recorded as 1st August 1824[9].

An additional conundrum is presented by the name of his wife, given at the time of marriage as Mary but on all subsequent records as Sarah. Census records tell us that Sarah was born in Donyatt which corresponds with the baptism of Sarah CHALICE on 8th May 1803[10]. There is no equivalent birth record for Mary, nor any matching death of a Mary BREWER subsequent to the marriage. The first child of Meneus BREWER and Sarah – Hannah BREWER – was baptized at Donyatt on 3 July 1825[11] which doesn’t allow much time for any possibility that Sarah might have been his second wife. In 1851 a visitor to Sarah’s household in Bridgwater is Edward CHALLES from Donyatt[12], which perhaps adds some further weight to the argument that Sarah CHALLIS was the wife of M*n*s BREWER. As neither could sign their name at the time of their marriage, it is conceivable that an error was made and neither was in a position to notice and correct it.

Three more children followed Hannah BREWER. Their only son, James BREWER, son of Meneus BREWER and Sarah was baptized at Donyatt on 15 July 1827[13]. He was followed by Harriot BREWER, daughter of Menas BREWER and Sarah, baptized at Chard on 22 November 1829[14] – on this occasion ‘Menas’ has been transcribed as ‘Thomas’ on Ancestry). Finally, on 5 December 1830[15], Ann BREWER, daughter of Menas BREWER and Sarah, was baptized at Chard.

The next record of the BREWER family is the 1841 census[16], which records Meanes BREWER, a shoemaker, living at Yammer with wife Sarah and their four children. The following year, Hannah BREWER married Giles RENDALL [RANDLE] at St. Mary’s Church in Chard on 30 July 1842; her father’s name was recorded as Manus BREWER[17].

The BREWER family were about to leave Chard, perhaps involuntarily, as the construction of Chard Canal and its associated reservoir saw the area known as Yammer (or Amor) flooded; an English Heritage Extensive Urban Survey[18] refers to the remains of Yammer (Amor) corn mill being seen when Chard Reservoir was drained in 1930.

Chard Reservoir (Derek Harper)

So it is that, by 1851, the BREWERs had moved to Bridgwater, though at the time of the census M*n*s was visiting his son James’ family in North Curry[19]. The census image is not particularly clear; Ancestry has indexed him as Marinus BREWER, while Find My Past and FamilySearch have opted for Manners BREWER and to me it looks like Mannies BREWER.

Harriet BREWER married John HARWOOD at St. Mary’s Church in Bridgwater on 26 January 1852[20]; her father’s name is given as Mainess BREWER (indexed as Mainch BREWER on Ancestry).

The following year, Ann BREWER married James SMITH at St. Philip and St. Jacob Church in Bristol – her father’s name has been transcribed as M Brewer in the England, Select Marriages, 1538-1973 record set on Ancestry (which is sourced from FamilySearch).

Yet another variation of the name appears on the 1861 census[21] which shows Mains BREWER living with his wife Sarah in Bridgwater. Despite an extensive search, I have not been able to locate him on the 1871 census – Sarah is in Bridgwater with Ann’s son Thomas SMITH[22] and he does not appear in the households of his children Hannah[23], James[24], Harriet[25] or Ann[26] – so this is the last official record we have for him before his death in 1872.

It is not really fair to attribute any blame to the various enumerators, transcribers, indexers and parish clerks who recorded M*n*s name in such a variety of ways. It’s not really clear how it was ‘meant’ to be spelled, even though it has, oddly enough, persisted for centuries in the BREWER family …

ORIGINS

Locating M*n*s’ parents is not easy, as there is no corresponding baptism record for a child of this name at St. Mary’s Church in Chard in the appropriate time period. There is, however, a baptism entry for a “Son of Christopher and Betty” with the surname BREWER on 29th May 1803, but the forename field has frustratingly been left blank[27].

There is, however, further evidence to suggest that M*n*s is indeed this unnamed son of Christopher and Betty. Specifically, Christopher BREWER had a brother – Menes BREWER – baptized in Chard on 25 June 1775[28] and an uncle – Meness BREWER – baptized in Chard on 25 December 1754[29].

These are the only other M*n*s BREWERs named in the parish register for Chard, so where did this strange forename come from? It does not appear, as is sometimes the case, to be derived from a family surname.

St. Mary’s Church, Chard (Phil Williams)

I believe it is most likely that M*n*s is a diminutive form of the name Parmenas, for which there is evidence of use by the BREWER family at earlier dates in Chard and the surrounding area.

There is a marriage entry in the parish register at St. Mary’s Church in Chard on 1st October 1678 for a Parmenas BREWER and Elizabeth Ousley[30] Another Parmenas BREWER, son of Richard and Ursula, was – according to an indexed record set on Ancestry and FamilySearch at least – baptised at nearby Wayford on 20 January 1739[31]. There is a Parmenus BREWER of Wayford, Somerset, enlisted in the 3rd Dragoon Guards at London in 1759[32], though his age doesn’t exactly tally with the indexed baptism record; maybe an error in transcription, inaccurate recording of data or a different Parmenas BREWER from the same place. There are also a number of baptisms recorded in Chard in the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth for children whose father is named as Parmenas BREWER (and the mother as either Eliz., Johane or Susanna)[33].

Parmenas was one of the Seven Deacons who were leaders in the early Christian Church[34] and it is presumably after him that the various Parmenas – and M*n*s – BREWERs were named, though why they favoured the name of a lesser-known early Christian leader who warranted no more than a passing mention in the Bible is anyone’s guess.

As for the BREWER family, their history in the town of Chard goes back centuries. At St. Mary’s Church there is a memorial to the physician William BREWER, a physician, who died in 1618 and his wife Deanes who passed away in 1614. It records that they had “ONLY 6 SONNS & 5 DAUGHTERS ALL MEN & WOEMEN GROWNE”. At the time of writing I have found no proof that M*n*s BREWER was a direct descendant of this couple, though there have certainly been BREWERs living in Chard consistently from William and Deanes’ time until the present day.

The Brewer memorial at St. Mary’s Church, Chard

THE NAME LIVES ON …

Just as the BREWERs have consistently maintained a presence in Chard – and unlikely as it may seem – M*n*s’ name has persisted among his descendants.

In the RANDLE line of the family, a great-grandson, Giles Mainness RANDLE, was born in 1876[35]. Subsequently Giles settled on the spelling Meanus for his middle name and uses this consistently for the 1900 record of his marriage[36], on the electoral register[37] and at the time of his death in 1936[38].

James BREWER’s son, William Stacey Meanneas BREWER, was baptized at West Hatch on 5 January 1860[39]. The GRO registration of his birth[40] spells his middle name as Meanneass and it is rendered as Menos on the record of his marriage to Rebecca Billett DAVIS in 1889[41]. The GRO spelling, Meanneass, is used once again on the probate calendar shortly after his death in 1941[42].

In 1893, William’s son – William Meanneass BREWER – was born[43] and this spelling is used consistently for his baptism[44], on the census in 1901[45] and 1911[46] and in Kelly’s Directory[47]. The name has continued to be used as a middle name by descendants of William’s until the present day.

Meanness, Meanus, Mains, Meaness, Menniss, Menas … whatever your name is, this one’s for you.

[1] https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/197017713/meaness-brewer

[2] Death certificate. BREWER, Meanness. GRO. Q3 1872. Dulverton. Vol. 5c, Page 217.

[3] http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=freebmddeath&h=3993770&ti=5538&indiv=try&gss=pt  

[4] Burial – parish register. BREWER, Meanness. 7 July 1872. Luxborough. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\luxb/2/1/4

[5] Burial – parish register. BREWER, Meanness [indexed as PRECIOUS, Meamen]. 7 July 1872. Luxborough. Somerset, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1914. : www.ancestry.co.uk (accessed 5th August 2019)

[6] http://www.westsomersetmineralrailway.org.uk/goosemoor.php : accessed 5 August 2019

[7] Marriage – parish register. BREWER, Menniss & CHALLIES, Mary. 10 August 1824. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/7

[8] https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Chard,_Somerset_Genealogy#Known_Issues

[9] England Marriages, 1538–1973 , database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NX1T-CZH  : 19 April 2018), Menas Brewer and Mary Challis, 01 Aug 1824; citing Charlton-Mackrell, Somerset, England, reference item 13 p 9, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,526,463

[10] Baptism – parish register. CHALICE, Sarah. 8 May 1803. Donyatt. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1913; Reference Number: D\P\don/2/1/3

[11] “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J9PK-Q45 : 19 April 2018, Meneus Brewer in entry for Hannah Brewer, ); citing Item 40 p 27 n 213, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,526,603

[12] 1851 census. BREWER, Sarah. Bridgwater, Somerset. Registration district: Bridgwater. ED: 1c. Schedule number 64. Piece 1925. Folio 73. Page 17. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

[13] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, James. 15 July 1827. Donyatt. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\don/2/1/4

[14] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, Harriot. 22 November 1829. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/18

[15] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, Ann. 5 December 1830. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/18

[16] 1841 census. BREWER, Meanes. Chard, Somerset. Class: HO107; Piece 949; Book: 3; Civil Parish: Chard; County: Somerset; Enumeration District: 4; Folio: 27; Page: 6; Line: 22; GSU roll: 474600. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

[17] Marriage – parish register. RENDALL, Giles & BREWER, Hannah. 30 July 1842. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/9

[18] https://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/downloads/eus/Somerset_EUS_Chard.pdf : accessed 5 August 2019

[19] 1851 census. BREWER, Marinus. North Curry, Somerset. Class: HO107; Piece: 1922; Folio: 287; Page: 10; GSU roll: 221078-221079. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

[20] Marriage – parish register. HARWOOD, John & BREWER, Harriet. 26 January 1852. Bridgwater. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\bw.m/2/1/37

Marriage – parish register. SMITH, James & BREWER, Ann. 23 January 1853. Bristol. England & Wales Marriages, 1538-1940. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

[21] 1861 census. BREWER, Mains. Bridgwater, Somerset. Class: RG9; Piece: 1624; Folio: 99; Page: 30; GSU roll: 542841

[22] 1871 census. BREWER, Sarah. Bridgwater, Somerset. Class: RG10; Piece: 2386; Folio: 90; Page: 48; GSU roll: 835108

[23] 1871 census. RANDLE, Hannah. Brompton Regis, Somerset. Class: RG10; Piece: 2357; Folio: 38; Page: 5; GSU roll: 835098

[24] 1871 census. BREWER, James. North Curry, Somerset. Class: RG10; Piece: 2368; Folio: 66; Page: 16; GSU roll: 835102.

[25] 1871 census. HARWOOD, Harriet. Bridgwater, Somerset. Class: RG10; Piece: 2387; Folio: 66; Page: 2; GSU roll: 835108.

[26] 1871 census. SMITH, Ann. Bridgwater, Somerset. Class: RG10; Piece: 2385; Folio: 73; Page: 3; GSU roll: 835107

[27] Baptism – parish register. BREWER. Son of Christopher & Betty. 29 May 1803. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/2

[28] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, Menes. Son of Richard & Sarah. 25 June 1775. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/2

[29] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, Meness. Son of Robert & Mary. 25 December 1754. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/2

[30] Marriage – parish register. BREWER, Parmenas & OUSLEY, Eliz. 1 October 1678. Chard. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/1

[31] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, Parmenas. 20 January 1739. Wayford, Somerset. Ancestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. Original data: England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. Salt Lake City, Utah: FamilySearch, 2013.

[32] Regimental Register of Service. BREWER, Parmenus. 1759. The National Archives; Kew, Surrey, England; Class Number: WO 25; Class Title: 3 Dragoons; Piece Number: 275; Piece Title: 3 Dragoons

[33] Baptisms. BREWER. Children of Parmenas BREWER & Johane/Eliz./Susanna. Several entries. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\chard/2/1/1

[34] Parmenas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenas : accessed 6 August 2019

[35] Birth. RANDLE, Giles Mainness. GRO. Q3 1876. Bridgwater, Somerset. Vol 5c. Page 366

[36] Marriage – parish register. RANDLE, Giles Meanus & HARSE, Emily. 25 February 1900. Weston-super-Mare Emmanuel. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\wsm.em/2/1/6

[37] Electoral register. RANDLE, Giles Meanus. 1935. Hemdean Road. Berkshire Record Office; Reading, Berkshire, England; Berkshire Electoral Registers

[38] National Probate Calendar. RANDLE, Giles Meanus. Death: 30 October 1936, Reading. Probate: 15 December 1936, London. England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1861-1941

[39] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, William Stacey Meanneas. 5 January 1860. West Hatch. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

[40] Birth. BREWER, William Meanneass Stacey. GRO. Q1 1860. Taunton, Somerset. Vol 5c. Page 439.

[41] Marriage – parish register. BREWER, Wililiam Stacey Menos & DAVIS, Rebecca Billett. 23 March 1889. West Hatch. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\hat.w/2/1/9

[42] National Probate Calendar. BREWER, William Meanneass Stacey. Death: 5 April 1941, Taunton. Probate: 19 June 1941, Llandudno. England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1861-1941

[43] Birth. BREWER, William Meanneass. GRO. Q1 1893. Taunton, Somerset. Vol 5c. Page 298a.

[44] Baptism – parish register. BREWER, William Meanneass. 10 February 1893. North Curry, Somerset. Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Reference Number: D\P\CUR.N/2/1/11

[45] 1901 census. BREWER, William Meanneass. Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset. Class: RG13; Piece: 2274; Folio: 73; Page: 9

[46] 1911 census. BREWER, William Meanneass. Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset. Class: RG14; Piece: 14225; Schedule Number: 1

[47] Kelly’s Directory 1931. BREWER, William Meanneass. 42 Cornwall Road, Dorchester, Dorset. Page 82. UK, City and County Directories, 1600s-1900s. www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 5 August 2019

JANE - tracing the life of my great-great-great-grandmother

Some ancestors leave an easy paper trail to follow.

Others, like Jane, make things more difficult … and interesting.

The story of my great-great-great grandmother begins on 20th May 1857 when we first meet Jane HILLMAN at her wedding to Thomas PRICE in Bristol. Their marriage certificate tells us that Jane is the daughter of Isaac HILLMAN, a general labourer[1].

Jane is apparently nineteen years old at the time of her wedding, which took place in a register office. Her first child, Elizabeth PRICE, was baptised at Temple Church in Bristol on 19th July 1857[2]. Elizabeth’s birth was registered in Bristol in the third quarter of 1857[3] and it is certainly possible that the impending birth of their first child gave a sense of urgency to Thomas and Jane’s marriage.

Jane, Thomas and baby Elizabeth subsequently moved to the village of Uphill in Somerset where Thomas worked as a shoemaker[4].

Between 1860 and 1882 Thomas and Jane had thirteen more children, all of whom were baptised in Uphill and lived to adulthood. By the time their last child was born, Thomas and Jane were already grandparents; Elizabeth’s first son, William Charles POPLE, was born in Uphill in 1881[5].

Isaac HILLMAN — and his wife Jane — had also moved to Uphill by 1861[6] and appear in the next household after the PRICE family on the census of that year. As the family grew they would presumably have provided some much-appreciated support.

On 20th January 1887, Thomas PRICE passed away at the age of 49. His cause of death was recorded as morbus cordis [heart disease] of uncertain duration, pneumonia for six months and albuminuria for two months[7]. He was buried in the churchyard on the hill overlooking the harbour at Uphill on 24th January 1887[8].

The old Church of St. Nicholas, Uphill, Somerset

WHERE DID THEY GO?

What happens to Jane next? Well, this is where the story gets interesting. Logically we might expect Jane to stay in Uphill. Her children and a growing number of grandchildren are living in the village. There are no close HILLMAN relatives — Isaac and Jane, both now deceased, had no other known children. So, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to find Jane still living in Uphill by the time the 1891 census comes around, would it?

However, Jane and the three youngest PRICE children — Lucy, Arthur and Thomas — are not recorded on the 1891 census. Another son, Walter Isaac PRICE, is missing from this census, but the other ten PRICE children can all — with one exception — be found living in Uphill or the nearby town of Weston-super-Mare.

By 1891, five of the PRICE children — Elizabeth[9], Charles John[10], Sarah Jane[11], William[12] and Mary Ann[13] — have all married and are living independently in Uphill.

James[14] PRICE is lodging with his sister Elizabeth’s family and Henry[15] PRICE — the only one found living outside Somerset on the 1891 census — had gone off with his wife, Alice, to live in Ystradyfodwg in south Wales where he worked as a coal miner.

The three youngest PRICE children who can be found on the 1891 census — Ellen[16], Alice[17] (my great-great-grandmother) and Rose[18] PRICE — are all teenagers working as servants in Weston-super-Mare.

There are no death or burial records for any of the ‘missing’ PRICE children in the UK — nor for their mother Jane — which led me to investigate the possibility that they may have gone overseas …

A NEW LIFE IN AMERICA

The key to finding Jane seemed to be searching for her and the children as a group rather than individually. Sure enough, there’s a near perfect match for them on the 1900 US Federal Census living in Plymouth, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania[19]. Jane, Arthur, Lucy and Thomas are living in a household together on Shonk Street. All of them have come to America in 1888 — the year after Jane was widowed — and this census states that she has 14 children. It’s all coming together rather nicely.

Arthur and Thomas have both found work in the coal mines and Lucy is employed as a silk reeler. As for Walter Isaac, the other ‘missing’ PRICE child, he was serving in the US Army in 1900, based at Fort Mott, Salem, New Jersey[20].

Jane was still living at Shonk Street with Lucy and Thomas in 1910[21]. She died on 3rd January 1914. Her cause of death was recorded as mitral insufficiency and dropsy and she is buried at Shawnee Cemetery in Plymouth[22].

So, is that the end of the story? Not quite. Why did Jane and the children go to America in the first place? There were a couple of surprises yet to be found …

Shawnee Cemetery — 1908 — Fred Clemow (public domain)

“THE WOMAN WITH TWENTY CHILDREN”

When I was a child, I sat with my grandmother one day at her kitchen table and drew a family tree on a long since lost piece of wallpaper. I always remembered her telling me about a woman with twenty children, but I’d never been able to place this person in our family tree. I didn’t begin researching seriously until after my grandmother had passed away and eventually concluded it was exaggeration on behalf of one or other of our ancestors.

Looking at the census returns for Jane in America more closely, there are some clues that all is not what it seems. The US census from 1890 has regrettably not survived, but in both 1900 and 1910 she is recorded as married, although her surname is still PRICE and there is no husband living in the household. Did she just prefer to think of herself as married rather than widowed? No. In 1900 the census says Jane has been married for eleven years and in 1910 there’s a tiny number 2 in superscript next to the letter M in the marital status column. This suggests that Jane has married again, sometime around 1888/89, but kept the surname PRICE.

Then I find a newspaper report of Jane’s death[23]:

Death of Mrs. Jane Price. After a prolong illness of two years duration, Mrs. Jane Price, an aged and esteemed resident of this town died on Saturday afternoon of a complication of diseases at her home on Shonk street. Deceased lady was about 74 years of age and a resident of this place for upwards of twenty years. She is survived by thirteen children, nine of whom are residents of England, and four, Walter, Lucy, Arthur and Thomas, of this town …

So far this all makes sense. Charles John PRICE had died in 1905[24] so there were only thirteen children still living at the time of Jane’s death. But then — something else:

… also five stepchildren, Mrs. Evan Jenkins, William Price, Joseph and Thomas Price, of this place, and Mrs. Evan Jenkins of Glen Lyon. The funeral will take place Tuesday afternoon from the house at 1:30 o’clock to St. Peter’s church where services will be conducted at 2 o’clock by the pastor, Rev. J. Hall Griffith. Interment will be in Shawnee cemetery.

It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that another stepchild might have predeceased Jane, so it seems she almost certainly was “the woman with twenty children”.

So now to find her second husband …

AN ILLEGAL WEDDING

With Jane’s stepchildren having the surname PRICE, and Jane herself going by this name until her death in 1914, it stands to reason that this was probably the surname of her second husband. I was unable to find a marriage record for Jane in America, but in a way, that made sense. Emigrating alongside a new husband would be more likely than a widow upping sticks across the Atlantic with some of her children and leaving the rest of the family behind.

Turning to records back in England, a marriage in Bedminster in 1888 looked like a possibility, as the GRO index listed Jane PRICE and William PRICE[25], so I ordered their marriage certificate.

The marriage certificate confirmed that Jane PRICE, a widow, had married William PRICE, a widower, at St. Luke’s Church in Bedminster on 10 June 1888. Her father was named as Isaac HILLMAN so I was in little doubt that I’d found the right record.

However, I was starting to be suspicious. Jane’s late husband, Thomas PRICE, had a brother named William who I’d lost track of in England at a young age. This William PRICE she had now married was the son of Joseph PRICE — the same name as Thomas’ father. Had Jane married her deceased husband’s brother? If so, she was technically breaking the law as this would not become legal until the Deceased Brother’s Widow’s Marriage Act was passed in 1921.

Joseph PRICE is not an uncommon name, but the witnesses on the marriage certificate, Mary and Frank CREECH, provided an extra clue. Mary PRICE — sister of Jane’s late husband Thomas — had married Francis CREECH in 1873[26].

Furthermore, the address that both Jane and William gave at the time of their wedding was, in fact, Mary and Frank’s home in Bedminster[27]. This address is listed for the CREECHs in the 1889 edition of Kelly’s Directory of Somersetshire, with the City of Bristol.

Why had Jane apparently married her brother-in-law? Well, William was a widower — twice over — with several children and had been living in America since the mid-1860s. Perhaps the family thought it would be a convenient union between the two and facilitated this by arranging for them to marry in a parish where they were not known, using a family address as cover. Shortly afterwards Jane went to America with her new husband. By 1900 William and Jane were estranged; he was living at a different address in Plymouth, next door to his son of the same name[28].

There is more to tell about the PRICE family in America, but I shall leave it for another time. This is Jane’s story and to bring it to an end we need to go right back to the beginning …

THE GIRL WHO DIDN’T EXIST

There never was a girl named Jane HILLMAN.

There is no evidence that Isaac HILLMAN and his wife Jane COOK had any children. Nothing on the GRO indexes or relevant parish registers to suggest that they were biological parents … however on the 1851 census an eleven-year-old niece named Jane COOK is living with Isaac and Jane in Cameley, Somerset[29].

Jane PRICE consistently tells us on records that she was born in Temple Cloud, a village that’s part of the parish of Cameley.

Jane COOK, according to the 1851 census, was born in Cameley, but there is no birth registered in Clutton (the registration district covering this area) for either Jane HILLMAN or Jane COOK around 1840.

There is, however, a birth registered for Jane Cook PAIN in Q4 1839[30]. Checking Cameley parish register reveals that on 1st December 1839, Jane COOK, the baseborn daughter of Charlotte COOK, was baptised with a note against the entry stating “Samuel PAIN reputed father”[31].

Charlotte COOK was the sister of Isaac HILLMAN’s wife, Jane. She appears with her daughter Jane COOK on the 1841 census in her parents’ household in Litton[32].

Charlotte married George SKINNER at Uphill in 1845[33]. Her daughter Jane, born out of wedlock in 1839, is not listed in their household on the 1851 census[34] and no subsequent record of her life can be found.

All evidence — and lack of evidence — seems to point to one thing. I am reasonably confident that Jane COOK was raised by her aunt and uncle, Jane and Isaac HILLMAN, and considered herself to be their daughter. It is the only explanation I can find for the disappearance of a girl called Jane COOK after 1851 and the appearance of a girl named Jane HILLMAN in 1857. Jane consistently refers to Isaac HILLMAN as her father and it is certainly possible that she did not know who her biological parents really were. To all intents and purposes, Isaac was the father who really mattered anyway.

So, there you have it. Jane Cook Pain Hillman Price Price — the complicated life of my great-great-great grandmother.

REFERENCES

All references are to documents available at www.ancestry.co.uk with the exception of birth/marriage/death certificates purchased from www.gro.gov.uk and a newspaper article [23] from www.newspapers.com

[1] GRO Marriage Certificate — PRICE, Thomas & HILLMAN, Jane — 20 May 1857 — Q2 1857 — Bristol, Gloucestershire — vol. 6a, page 174

[2] Baptism — PRICE, Elizabeth — 19 July 1857 — Bristol, Gloucestershire — England & Wales Christening Records, 1530–1906 (Ancestry)

[3] GRO Birth Index — PRICE, Elizabeth — Q3 1857 — Bristol, Gloucestershire — vol. 6a, page 3

[4] 1861 census — PRICE, Thomas — Uphill, Somerset — Registration district: Axbridge — Sub-registration district: Banwell — ED: 6 — schedule number: 24, piece: 1671 — folio: 86 — page number: 4

[5] GRO Birth Index — POPLE, William Charles — Q3 1881 — Axbridge, Somerset — vol. 5c, page 523

[6] 1861 census — HILLMAN, Isaac — Uphill, Somerset — Registration district: Axbridge — Sub-registration district: Banwell — ED: 6 — schedule number: 24, piece: 1671 — folio: 86 — page number: 4

[7] GRO Death Certificate — PRICE, Thomas — 20 January 1887 — Q1 1887 — Axbridge, Somerset — vol. 5c, page 434

[8] Parish register — burial — PRICE, Thomas — 24 January 1887 — Uphill, Somerset — Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538–1914; Reference Number: D\P\uph/2/1/10

[9] 1891 census — POPLE, Elizabeth — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 80 — Page: 14[

10] 1891 census — PRICE, Charles J — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 85 — Page: 23

[11] 1891 census — EXON, Sarah J — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 84 — Page: 21

[12] 1891 census — PRICE, William — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 77 — Page: 7

[13] 1891 census — PORTER, Mary A — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 84 — Page: 22

[14] 1891 census — PRICE, James — Uphill, Somerset — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 6 — Piece: 1919 — Folio: 80 — Page: 14

[15] 1891 census — PRICE, Henry — Ystradyfodwg, Glamorgan — Registration district: Pontypridd — ED: 7 — Piece: 4422 — Folio: 40 — Page: 23

[16] 1891 census — PRICE, Ellen — Weston super Mare — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 10 — Piece: 1920 — Folio: 21 — Page: 35

[17] 1891 census — PRICE, Alice — Weston super Mare — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 9 — Piece 1919 — Folio: 140 — Page: 41

[18] 1891 census — PRICE, Rose — Weston super Mare — Sub registration district: Weston super Mare — Sub Schedule Number: 10 — Piece: 1920 — Folio: 21 — Page: 35

[19] 1900 US Federal Census — PRICE, Jane — 337 Shonk Street, Plymouth Ward 1, Luzerne, Pennsylvania — Roll: T623_1434 — Page: 10B — Enumeration District: 118

[20] 1900 US Federal Census — PRICE, Walter I — Fort Mott, Salem, New Jersey — Roll: T623_993 — Enumeration District: 190

[21] 1910 US Federal Census — PRICE, Jane — 335 Shonk Street, Plymouth Ward 1, Luzerne, Pennsylvania — Supervisor’s District: 6 — Enumeration District: 102 — Sheet: 15A

[22] Death certificate — PRICE, Jane — 3 Jan 1914 — Plymouth, Luzerne, Pennsylvania — Plymouth Death Certificates, 1906–1963 — Certificate Number: 5268

[23] Newspaper obituary — PRICE, Jane — 5 Jan 1914 — Wilkes-Barre Times Leader — Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania

[24] GRO Death Certificate — PRICE, Charles John — 14 August 1905 — Q3 1905 — Axbridge, Somerset — vol. 5c, page 289

[25] GRO Marriage Certificate — PRICE, William & PRICE, Jane — Q2 1888 — Bedminster, Somerset — vol. 5c — page 1247

[26] GRO Marriage Index — CREECH, Francis & PRICE, Mary — Q3 1873 — Clifton, Gloucestershire — vol. 6a — page 294

[27] Kelly’s Directory of Somersetshire, with the City of Bristol — CREECH, Francis — 1889 — Dyers & Cleaners — Bristol

[28] 1900 US Federal Census — PRICE, William — Plymouth Ward 1, Luzerne, Pennsylvania — Roll: 1434 — Page: 16A — Enumeration District: 0118

[29] 1851 census — HILLMAN, Isaac — Cameley, Somerset — Registration district: Clutton — Sub registration district: Harptree — ED: 9 — Schedule number: 71 — Piece: 1938 — Folio: 133 — Page: 18

[30] GRO Birth Index — PAIN, Jane Cook — Q4 1839 — Clutton, Somerset — vol. 11 — page: 92

[31] Baptism — COOK, Jane — 1 December 1839 — Cameley, Somerset — Cameley parish register — Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813–1914 (Ancestry) — South West Heritage Trust

[32] 1841 census — COOK, Charlotte — Litton, Somerset — Hundred: Wells Forum — Registration district: Clutton — Sub-registration district: Harptre — Piece: 962 — Book: 5 — Folio: 4 — Page: 2

[33] Marriage — SKINNER, George & COOK, Charlotte — 16 April 1845 — Uphill, Somerset — Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538–1914; Reference Number: D\P\uph/2/1/6

[34] 1851 census — SKINNER, Charlotte — Uphill, Somerset — Registration district: Axbridge — Sub-registration district: Wedmore — ED: 1 — Household schedule number: 73 — Piece: 1936 — Folio: 431 — Page: 22

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started