1841 Census, Lilleshall, Shropshire for Ann(e) Bailey/Bayley

[scriv2]

Hi Bram and Oz

Sorry about the Yeaton/Yeadon confusion - a typo on my part.

Yes, I think that is the right Ann - not heard back  from Z yet on it though.

And as to Catharine, I think that could be the scenario - a child for their marriage, who dies in 1839. Would fit in with the idea of it being our Thomas marrying Catharine Aspery in 1834. I am still trying to prove that one way or another.

I am in Hampshire, UK by the way.

Barbara

[Bram Taylor]

Hi scriv2
Thanks for that confirmation thus far, just about off to bed now, I am really regretting not renewing my Ancestry.co.uk last year, at least I could follow where you all are and perhaps for a while even get in front!!!!! I have not been on this site for quite some time and I am a bit overawed by the response! Beats being on your own nutting things out but I guess I was lucky and struck a bunch of very nice people? My wife can not believe I got thirteen pages worth of assistance. Thanks a million to all of you, it has given me a real lift as I deal with some nasty illness, by the way, I was born up in Scotland, a little place called Beith, came here in 1952 and they threw me straight in the army!!!!! Cheers for now,
Bram

[z]

Hi All

Apologies, for not getting back sooner,  with that said I have been following your progress and here are my thoughts:-

I think that the family in 1841 with Thomas and Catherine Bayley are the family of Ann, and that the address on Alfreds birth certificate helps to confirm this, although I am unsure that the Ann found in Yeaton is 100% correct, and although it appears that Yeaton and Cheswell in modern day terms is about 45 mins away, I am wondering whether Ann would have remained a little closer to her family, why would she have travelled so far to look for work, was that the norm? So here is another theory ......... The census for 1841 was taken 6/7th June and Alfred was born in Feb 1842 which would mean, if my maths is correct, Ann could have been with Amos Evers around May/June, and if the gypsy connection is correct then Ann and Amos may have eluded the census of 1841. I think the gypsy connection needs further investigation, as the name Amos Evers is quite an unusual name and doesn't sound as though it is fictitious, although you never know, so a post on the travellers board might be worth a shot.

Also who is this John/Joseph Bayley with the family in 1851, could he also have been the son of this elusive character Amos!! Have looked for a birth for him and could not find anything under Joseph, however there are three entries in the Free BMD for a John Bailey,  b 1844 Newport, (Bailey also spelt this way for Alfreds registration in 1842) nothing for 1845.

Well, inspite of your broken toe Barbara you have come up trumps And have certainly kept us on our toes

All the very best - take care.

z

[scriv2]

Hi Z and Bram - asleep at the moment in Oz.

Yes, that all makes sense, Z...it will be interesting to see if anything more crops up on the gypsy forum.

And yes, I had thought as well that the 1844 Newport birth of John seemed best fit. It's a pity we can't read these certificates free of charge to see the father.

I have been busy trying to find out about Catherine and to differentiate between the the other couple in St Julian's, Shrewsbury.I have found a marriage which could be the other Thomas :-

Thomas Bayley married Catherine Jones, 15 Aug 1836, St. Mary, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

That seems to tie up with that Catherine having been born in Wales, as shown in later censuses and the area is right  for that other couple, where all their children are born in Shrewsbury.

So that frees up the 1834 Newport marriage for Thomas and Catharine Aspery as a strong contender for ours.

I am trying to find out whether Catharine Aspery (or maybe Asprey or Astbury) had been married before.

Also, Thomas is entered as Married in the 1851 census, although she is not there with him, but I can't find a reliable death or census entry for her up to 1861, when he appears as a widower.

Sorry you are having health issues, Bram. It's a pleasure to be able to help and it's nice to get stuck into a challenge - especially when I can justify putting my toe up!!!

Ah well, back to the 1800s..

Barbara

[z]

Hi

Just a thought, I wonder if your theory was correct and that Thomas Bayley and Catherine didn't marry, is it possible that she could have been buried under her maiden name ................ whatever that is? Or as the 1841 census does not offer condition of marriage, are we assuming that they were married and that the enumerator also assumed that her surname was the same as the rest of the household? And thus Thomas stated he was a widower in 1861 from Elizabeth? Does that make sense?

Z

[scriv2]

Yep, I guess all is possible at the moment with this one. We need a breakthrough!

As to John/Joseph Bailey - if you follow him through the censuses he only appears as Joseph once and that is in 1851. The rest of the time is John, which ties in with the birth in 1844.

His age in 1861 - as John again - on ancestry has been mis-transcribed on the record as 10 not 16. I have checked the image and have submitted an alteration.

B

[scriv2]

Christenings from familysearch, but still no father.

Alfred Bailey
Christened 11 Mar 1842, Longford by Newport, Shropshire
Mother's Name:    Ann Bailey

John Bailey
Christened 8 Sep 1844, Longford by Newport, Shropshire
Mother's Name:    Anne Bailey

[Bram Taylor]

Hello to all out there

I have just finished reading the newest findings from you people and it becomes more interesting each time I read through your thoughts on Anne, Alfred Joseph and co.
As I typed  Joseph here I thought I would go back to the marriage certificate of Anne and George Taylor to check the witnesses there and found that they were Anne Taylor, and JOSEPH Bailey! It seems strange that he is baptised as John Bailey as Scriv2 found and then decides he prefers Joseph but I realise that a lot of people prefer a different common use name than their given name which they sometimes dislike for various reasons?
I think now the most obvious thing to do is for me to send for John's/Joseph's birth certificate and see who is shown as father there. Is there any consensus on which record is the most likely choice record to send for rather than waste time and money?
 Also on a similar vein, did Joseph/John ever marry, I have not found a marriage yet and can not remember how hard I tried. I am wondering who Joseph saw as his father? If I can find that record for certain then I will send for them both in the hope that it will be a eureka moment!!!! I will keep looking for Joseph's marriage in the interim.
Bye for now and once again my heart felt thanks for all your efforts,

Bram

[scriv2]

Hi Bram

Just read the latest intriguing development and I will look into it.

First thoughts are that surely Alfred's brother Joseph was too young to be a witness at George and Ann's marriage, so are we looking for a brother Joseph Bailey? I will have a look.

Also, I think I did find John in later censuses, marrying an Emma. I will have a look.

Bye for now

Barbara