Hi peeps
Working backwards from Albert Bailey (b. 1840 in Melbourne, Derbys), his father is John Bailey b. 1818 in Wilson.
I have John on the 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871 and 1881 census records; he dies in 1884.
All of them show him living at various addresses in Derby with his wife and +/- children, his dob/pob as 1818-19 in Wilson and his occupation as a shoemaker.
I found a baptism of a John Bailey on 3 May 1818 at Breedon on the Hill, s/o William Bailey and Margaret of Wilson. Oh, yippee, I thought and set about trying to find out if William and/or Margaret survived until the 1841 census. I've found a household in Wilson on the 1841 census consisting of:
William Bailey, 45, Ag Lab
Margaret Bailey, 45
Fanny Bailey, 20
John Bailey, 21, Ag LabMary Bailey, 16
Eliza Bailey, 12
Charles Bailey, 10
Hannah Bailey, 7
Abraham Bailey, 5
Nathan Bailey, 1
Mary Bailey, 2mths
All born in County, and I think the County is Leicestershire, despite being in Melbourne (Derbys) sub-registration district.
And my heart sank a bit. How can John be in Derby in 1841, married* with children and being a shoemaker, and be in Wilson with his parents all at the same time?
* John married Susannah Peat on 12 Jun 1837 in Melbourne, so that's just a few weeks before civil registration started. Can't find an image of the marriage on t'internet, so don't know who the witnesses were and whether that might help.
There's a marriage in Breedon in 1815 between a William Bailey OTP and a Margaret Adcock OTP, which could be right, but I'm still stuck with the two John Baileys. And to add to the confusion, John appears on several Ancestry trees as John Bailey Adcock; and William appears to father 25 children in both Wilson and Leicester at virtually the same time, so there's clearly something wrong with that. Despite this, numerous people seem to have copied it!
Can anyone help me untangle this, please?
Thanks
STG