|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Martha/Marsha or Nathaniel ??? (Read 611 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hepburn
RootsChat Aristocrat
 Offline
Posts: 2620
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi Dee,
There is a marriage Free BMD Martha Fido to Horatio Haskard/John Stirling,1866 7b 346,I was thinking if you could look these up in the 1871 , to see where Martha was born...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
stoke on trent. carson,wain,leese,shaw,key,scalley,mitchell, hepburn,finney,james, nottingham,pollard,grice, derbyshire,vallands,turton,howe. new zealand,turton canada,carson. australia,mitchell,scalley,   |
|
|
lizdb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 6105
|
As Colin suggested, the full indexes are the way for you to proceed - they are available free on
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/vital/freebmd/bmd.aspx
i have looked through births from 1843 - 1847 for you. These are all the Fido's registered in Chippenham registration district.:
Jan/Feb/Mar 1843 Elijah
jan/Feb/Mar 1845 Martha
Oct/Nov/Dec 1845 Sarah Ann
jan/Fe/Ma 1846 Ann
Ap/May/Ju 1847 Henry
" John
This shows that there was no Nathanial registered in this time.
It also shows that there are two Fido families producing children in this area at the same time - there is no way that Sarah Ann and Ann can have the same parents. So that is something to be very aware of, when piecing together your family.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lizdb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 6105
|
Just been through deaths for the same years
Only one of the names I found in the births that appears in the deaths is Ann - J/F/M 1846 - this could be the baby Ann dying within a few days/weeks of birth, or it could of course be a completely different adult Ann, because this is annoyingly before ages are recorded in the death registration index!
My guess is that Nathaniel (who you say you have found the christening of in 1847, with John) was actually registered as something else, but then christened as nathaniel.
Henry could be John's twin (or could be from the other family), if he is John's twin it is likely they were christened together - perhaps they had a change of mind over the name as all the others are biblical name, so they decided to go for nathaniel rather than Henry!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lizdb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 6105
|
If Matha died at or soon after birth, her death would be registered, and i have looked through to 1847. If the baby was stillborn - i.e. never drew breath, then there would not have been a birth registration.
It is possible, therefore, that she died 1848-51. Back to the indexes I go!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lizdb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 6105
|
OK, only deaths of a Fido in Chippenham area in years 1848 - 51 are:
Mary Ann in Ju/Au/Sep 1848
Charles in Oct/No/DEc 1851
So, on that basis, if Martha was born in 1845 (or very end of 1844) and has not died she must be around in 1851.
The suggestion of Colin's that the name was indexed incorrectly is certainly one to pursue - and I agree with him that getting the birth cert is a good idea.
Another possibilty is that she was just 'missed off' the census - doesnt answer the problem of where Nathaniel came from!
I have a family in my tree, 3 children, middle child is just not on one cesus, he should be about age 10. Was a new baby in previous census, hasnt died as is mentioned in fathers will, made after next census. Isnt with any rellies that we can find.
If the Fido's had 6-7 children, this must be even more likely to happen! Or she could have been staying with granny - granny thought she would be listed at home, and parents thought granny would give her name, and in the end no one did.
All sorts of possibiltities.
Do you have the family in 1871?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valda
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7488
|
Nathaniel appears on both the 1851 and 1861 censuses aged 6 and 16 with his parents John Fido and Susan nee Norris (in 1851 all 6 surviving children).
The GRO birth certificate of Martha or Marsha would be a copy of th original birth certificate written by the Chippenham registrar in 1845. A clerk at the GRO in 1845 read the copy certificate and indexed the name as Marsha Fido (a modern FreeBMD transcriber has interpreted his handwriting as Martha).
The original certificate at the Chippenham Registration Office has also been indexed as Marsha by a modern transcriber - probably a member of Wiltshire Family History Society, with the added information the mother's maiden name was Norris - therefore a child of Susan and John's.
Susan and John's children up to 1851 from the Wiltshire index show they would have had difficulty squeezing anyone else in (though not impossible) and that the children's births are consistently registered.
FIDO Francis J Corsham 1839
FIDO (boy) Corsham 1841
FIDO Elijah Corsham 1843
FIDO Marsha Corsham 1845
FIDO Ann Corsham 1846
FIDO John Corsham 1847
FIDO Eliza Corsham 1848
FIDO George Corsham 1850
Corsham baptisms have coverage on the IGI - same surviving children (the exceptions are the unnamed boy and Ann) baptised in the year of their birth - except Nathaniel baptised with John.
FRANCIS JAMES FIDO 17 MAR 1839 Corsham
ELIJAH FIDO 12 MAR 1843 Corsham
NATHANAEL FIDO 16 MAY 1847 Corsham
JOHN FIDO 16 MAY 1847 Corsham
ELIZA FIDO 29 OCT 1848 Corsham
GEORGE FIDO 22 SEP 1850 Corsham
The actual baptism entry in the Corsham register may indicate Nathaniel's age at the time of baptism.
Death registrations
FIDO (boy) 0 Corsham 1841
FIDO Ann 0 Corsham 1846
Wiltshire coverage of Corsham (sub-district) Chippenham death registrations goes up to 1867 - so no other Fido Corsham deaths registered between 1841 and 1851. They don't have full coverage of all sub-districts for Chippenham registration district so Mary Ann 1848 and George Fido 1851 must have had their deaths registered in another sub-district (though this doesn't exclude the possibility of Corsham related deaths in an adjacent place)
So the interest really is in what original gender Marsha (Nathaniel)'s birth was registered in.
Nathaniel appears to have married
Marriages Jun 1868
FIDO Nathaniel Chippenham 5a 81
Hancock Sarah Jane Chippenham 5a 81
and produced children and was still alive in 1901. So perhaps just a 'late developer'?? Hence the delay in his baptism whereas the birth registration had to be done within 6 weeks. Both the birth certificate and the actual baptism record might reveal more information to confirm or eliminate the hypothesis that Nathaniel and Marsha are the same person. I have seen birth certificates where further information was added to the original certificate in the margin which changed the gender of the baby (in one case the father registering the birth had been over celebrating and registered his son as a girl)
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valda
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 7488
|
The GRO index would have been created in 1845 by a clerk who was used to reading the handwriting of the time. The index image on Ancestry is the orginal handwritten index.
The Wiltshire index would have been read by a member of Wiltshire Family History Society who would be reasonably skilled at reading C19th writing. If they were not sure it would have been double checked.
The original clerk would have written out the certificate from what he understood he was being told by the person registering the birth who may or may not have been literate or semi- literate (could read but couldn't write).
The original register's clerk/registrar would have copied the certificate to send to the GRO.
That makes it unlikely that there has been a mistranscription of what was originally written apart from by the transcriber for FreeBMD who thought the GRO index said Martha.
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lizdb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 6105
|
In my humble opinion the GRO index definitely says Martha, and not Marsha
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
