|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Mary Laidler - Missing Years (Read 487 times)
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
 Offline
Posts: 77
|
I am trying to locate Mary Laidler's missing years!
The only census she appears on is the 1861 census, where she is listed as living at 6 Chapel Lane, Newcastle. Her birth place is given as Talking Tarn, Cumberland.
I have the birth certificate for her daughter Mary Jane in 1852. There she was still living in Newcastle and appears to have been a single mum, as no maiden name is listed, or father!
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
AMBLY
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2998
Falkland Islands "Desire The Right"
|
Hi alisporter
"Talking Tarn" is actually "Talkin Tarn" which is apparently 2 miles Sth of Brampton:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/walkthroughtime/
I looked at the 1861 Census you mention - which gives Mary the mother as born around 1824.
The following on the IGI is a possible for her:
Mary LAIDLER chr: 18 Jan 1824 in Hayton By Brampton, Cumberland,
Mother: Eleanor LAIDLER , father not stated (on iGI).
Mary also had another daughter besides Mary Jane - an Ellen E born Newcastle around 1850 which appears to tie in with this FREEBMD:
Births Jun Qtr 1849 in Newcastle T Ref: V25 P448
Ellen Elizabeth LAIDLER
It may be worth getting this cert too to see what clues it may have - esp. regarding the address of where she was born - might be possible to find it in 1851 Census.
So , looking for Mary b 1824 and Ellen E b 1850 on Census 1851
When did Mary Jane b 1852 marry? Do you know anything more abt Ellen E?
Cheers
AMBLY
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
Thanks Ambly,
That's a lot of information.
I have Mary Jane's wedding certificate. On it she names her father as John Laidler, Joiner. I think I have found him on the 1851 census in Westgate Street Newcastle, but these Laidlers are from Eglingham/Wooler, Northumberland.
I can see another Laidler from Talkin in Blenkinsopp in 1851, but no trace of Mary there.
I shall order the birth certificate for Ellen Elizabeth and try and find out more on Eleanor (another single Mum).
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7150
|
If Mary Laidler was unmarried it is unlikely Mary Jane had a father with the surname Laidler. Illegitimate people like Mary Jane on their marriage did not broadcast their illegitimacy unless they had to, because they were marrying in a place where they were known for instance. Otherwise they ususally gave a father's surname which was the same as their own and if they knew their father's first name and occupation they might give that, or it could be the name and occupation of a man within their extended family such as a later step father.
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
Thanks Valda.
John Laidler-the-Joiner's sister was married to The Police Inspector at Prudhoe, and Mary Jane's daughter eventually married a police sergeant, so perhaps you are right, to preserve her status she named him as her father, but he was just a relative. I wish I could see how it all fits together. Wooler seems a long way from Talkin Tarn.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7150
|
I think the police connection is probably just a coincidence and really a bit tenous. Different people with the same surname (and in this case it wasn't even the same surname) marry police officers.
What reason other than the surname have you got for suspecting any Laidlers in Newcastle in 1851 (28) were any connection to Mary born in Cumberland, who may just gone to a city like Newcastle to seek a postion as a servant?
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
Mary Jane was born in Newcastle in 1852, I know alot about her. She married a John Dixon and their daughter married a police sergeant.
Her marriage certificate names John Laidler Joiner as her father and as I say, I've located him and his sister married a Police Inspector. This may explain how My Dorothy Dixon was introduced to the Police Sergeant's son (an Engineer), i.e. her mother's Aunt, or Aunt if John was her step-dad, was married to the Inspector.
Mary Jane's natural mother is the mystery, as not only does she appear to be a single mum, but she only seems to appear on one census - 1861, where she states Talkin Tarn as her birthplace.
So, it seems unlikely that she happened to meet another Laidler to father her child, although not impossible I suppose. I can only assume that John Laidler from Wooler/Eglingham was a relative?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7150
|
Mary Jane since was illegitimate (her mother was unmarried on the 1861 census) on her marriage gave her father the same surname as herself. John is the most common personal name. I have a man who married four times and chose John once and William once. On the occasion he was known he gave no father's name and on his first attempt he gave Miles - his mother much later had married a John Miles. He gave various common occupations to the three fathers he named.
If Mary Jane did know who her father was and she was giving details about him on her marriage, then logically he was John somebody (but not Laidler) who was a joiner.
Have you obtained Mary Jane's birth certificate to see what details if any her mother gave about her father on her birth and the address she was living at? Mary and her two daughters could very well have been living with the father in Newcastle, but all known in their everyday lives in his surname.
Unfortunately you have no actually evidence that John Laidler the joiner you have found on the censuses has any connection to Mary Jane. I appreciate that having invested some effort in researching his family means that if at all possible you want there to be a connection between the two families, but as you say you are assuming there is a connection without any further actual evidence to back it up . Assume and presume are very dangerous in family history research and lead all of us to a lot of dead ends, coincidences and red herrings.
I would suggest contacting the Cumbria Record Office to see whether you can find out any more about the 1824 baptism for Mary Laidler. As she was born illegitimately there may be other records for her such as a 'Bastardy order' which would give further details about her mother and her father.
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AMBLY
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2998
Falkland Islands "Desire The Right"
|
Hi again
A thought also, was that Mary LAIDLER not being a young girl when she had Ellen E or Mary Jane - she was in her mid to late 20's - it is also possible she was a widow who had illigitimate children (have seen this often occur too!) and therefore in that way not a born LAIDLER....
I agree with everything Valda has said & suggested; the fact she is not found on a Census apart from 1861 - and I can't find Ellen either, in 1851 - does suggest there is a bit more than meets the eye!
If people are covering their tracks in this way, ie: to avoid "scandal" or preserve "pride", "dignity", one will often find scraps of truth are woven with fibs! The key is - what is the fib, and what is the truth 
Cheers
AMBLY
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7150
|
I would concur with Ambly apart from the fact Mary was recorded as unmarried on the 1861 census. If she were a widow even a widow with illegitimate children there is no way she would have given her status as unmarried since widowhood would give her a more respectable position. I have often seen on censuses proven single women (from other records) falsely informing the census enumerator they were widows and being enumerated as such.
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
Thank you for all your suggestions and comments.
I do have Mary Jane's birth certificate. It does not show any details for a father.
I could understand if she were harder to find in 1861 with two illegitimate children. Seems strange she can't be found on any other census, when the children would have left by 1871 (Mary Jane was then a servant).
Valda would you presume Talkin Tarn could be a red herring then? After all, I have other ancestors who gave all manner of birth places, none of which were the actual ones!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7150
|
I think every time family historians say or write either of these two words they should take a deep breath and stop.
Assume (dictionary definition = to take for granted; to claim unduly)
Presume (dictionary definition = to take for granted; to suppose to be true without proof)
I cannot presume or assume anything without the evidence to do so. Yes you can get factual inaccuracies in any record including censuses and certificates, but at this point the 1861 census is the only evidence we have for Mary's origins (the rest as you've stated before is assumption and not evidence). Until you explore the evidence you do have, which is a possible Cumberland origin and not in itself unreasonable, it is not really possible to know whether it is a red herring?
When we assume and presume we should do it on the basis of known probability. In asking me the question whether I would presume Talkin Tarn is a red herring, in reality you are asking me to calculate the probability. I don't think I have enough sound evidence to make the calculation and therefore you are really requesting me to speculate - the third word in family history to watch out for. It is not so often said, but it is very often poorly done.
Speculate (Dictionary definition = to make theories or guesses; to consider a matter from every point of view).
I've tried here to answer your question using the second definition of the word and not the first, but in reality as I have said before I have very little actual evidence to go on. Having said that why would someone (if the enumerator has not got it wrong and he might very well have) pick 'Talkin Tarn' of all places to say they were from. If you weren't born there what would be your chances of ever having heard of the place?
You really need to follow the lead through before you can dismiss it as a red herring.
As to why Mary was easier to find in 1861 then the earlier and later censuses, it is probably dependent on her circumstances. If she was living with a man in 1851 then she and her children may very well be there, but in another name. Ditto the later census but include the possibility of her death. If anyone was in an institution at the time of the census then they will often merely be enumerated in their initials. Mary could have been missed off the 1851 census when life was perhaps much more of a struggle for her (many people paid their rent daily and moonlight flits ahead of the rent man were common - and if the rent man couldn't catch families, the census enumerated would have had little chance). The poor living at the margins were and are often missed off censuses. I would be thankful, under the circumstances in a very large city, that the census enumerator caught Mary at least once, in the surname and place you expected her to be.
If you have Mary Jane's birth certificate have you searched the address and the surrounding area on the 1851 census, concentrating on any possible candidates no matter what there surnames are?
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
I did look at the address, 28 High Bridge on the 1851 census and there is a servant there called Mary Brewe, but no sign of Ellen who would have been 2 years old.
Interesting, John Laidler the Joiner's mother was Jane Brewis, who also appears to have been a single Mum before she married John Laidler and this made me wonder whether Mary was actually Mary Brewis, her daughter, as her son Henry used both Brewis and Laidler as surnames.
John Laidler's parents were from Haltwhistle, Northumberland but moved to Cumbria around 1808. He had a sister Eleanor who had a daughter called Mary pointed out by Ambly. Eleanor later married Septimus Forster and moved to Hexham and later Gateshead.
If this is my Mary, it makes John Laidler the Joiner her cousin. We could assume he may have fathered these children (he certainly didn't get married himself until 1858) or presume he was like a father figure, being related and living nearby - the rest of the family stayed living in Waterhead. As he is the only John Laidler, Joiner, that I can find in the area, who I can see also has a link with Cumberland and Northumberland............speculation?
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, I am ordering Mary's death certificate now to see if that sheds any further light on the family. Somehow I doubt it will.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
Geoff E
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2999
|
I think your assumption that Jane BREWIS was a single mum is probably at fault ... there is a baptism for a Henry BREWIS at Wooler 17 Sept 1813, son of William and Jane.
If Eleanor LAIDLER married Septimus FORSTER, there is the possibility that Mary may appear on a census as FORSTER.
If Mary's mother was Eleanor, this could explain the naming of a child Ellen.
More questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alisporter
RootsChat Extra
Offline
Posts: 77
|
I did notice that Henry, but further checking on the census showed another Henry Brewis, born around that time. Perhaps William was Jane's brother?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland; Porter, Legerwood
Northumberland; Porter, Ogle, Legerwood, Dixon, Kennedy, Iveson
Cumberland; Laidler
Wales; Evans, Walters, Morgan, Thomas
Somerset; Leigh, Cook
Oxfordshire; Denman
Middx; Chelsea; Benson; Finsbury; Macklin
Nottinghamshire; Perry
Cambridgeshire; Cropley
Berkshire; White
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
