RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Durham => Topic started by: Seelife on Thursday 02 February 23 14:23 GMT (UK)
-
Hi Folks, sorry to come with another Winn mystery so soon.
I have a Martin Winn, born 1844 in Birtley. He has a series of Census records that I can follow the family through time until he appears to pass in 1913. I have his marriage to a Mary Storey in 1864 with a source from FindMyPast, and this seems in order.
In the 1881 Census, Trimdon, Stockton from DRO, this is the family :
Martin Winn Head, Married Male 36 1845 Coal miner & beerhouse keeper Durham, England,
Mary Winn Wife, Married Female 34 1847 - Ferry Hill, Durham, England,
John Winn Son, Single Male 15 1866 Coal miner Framwellgate Moor, Durham, England,
William Winn Son, Single Male 13 1868 Coal miner Framwellgate Moor, Durham, England,
Annie Winn Daughter, Single Female 8 1873 Scholar Edmondsley, Durham, England,
Martin Winn Son, Single Male 5 1876, Scholar Durham, England,
Michael Winn Son, Single Male 4 1877, Trimdon, Durham, England,
Thomas Winn Son, Single Male 2 1879, Trimdon, Durham, England,
Elizabeth Winn Daughter, Single Female 0 1881, Trimdon, Durham, England.
A further daughter Mary was born it appears in 1887 according to 1891 census
But the thing is, the first three children appear to have a mother with maiden name of Storey, that fits OK. But the remaining later children seem to have a mother with a maiden name of Forbus/Forbes.
I notice that there are some family trees that say Martin married twice, once to Mary Storey then to Mary Forbes and Mary-1 passed away. For the record, I dont trust them, dont rely on them and dont use them as sources as 95% of them have REALLY iffy sourcing.
But I am not sure whats going on here. Am I just mixing up MY sources to make the kids fit?
Or, is there a mystery with Mary Storey/Forbes? I cannot find a marriage of Martin to Forbes and cannot find any Forbes with a likely marriage. Did Mary Storey have a mixed parentage?
Thanks for any thoughts on how to pick this apart or explain the inconsistency.
-
What is Mary’s father name on the marriage?
-
1861 Framwell Gate shows Mary Forbes, 14 yrs with parents Michael and Ann.
This fits with 1851 2391/558/28 and a marriage 1841 - Michael Forbes and Mary Parkinson.
However, although the other children have Parkinson as mother’s name, I can’t find a birth for Mary Forbes :-\
-
Hi Heywood, unfortunately, there is no father noted on the FindMyPast marriage record.
This is thr FindMyPast transcript :
First name(s) Mary, Last name Storey, Spouse's birth year -, Sex Female
County Durham, Country England, Birth year -, Document type Parish Registers, Marriage year 1864, Source reference 8768594, Marriage date 10 Dec 1864
Record set Durham Marriages, Place Durham, St Cuthbert
Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records
Spouse's first name(s) Martin, Spouse's last name Winn
Subcategory Parish Marriages, Collections from England, Great Britain
Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
Transcriptions © Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
-
There is quite a gap between the births of William, 1868 and Annie, 1873.
Have you checked for births/deaths between these years?
-
1865 John Winn, Durham mmn Forbes
1867 William Winn, Durham mmn Forbes
1875 Martin Winn, Chester ke Street mmn Forbes
Do you have these?
-
But the thing is, the first three children appear to have a mother with maiden name of Storey, that fits OK. But the remaining later children seem to have a mother with a maiden name of Forbus/Forbes.
Where do you have the Storey births?
-
I can't find the two oldest boys as a Winn/Storey birth you refer to.
I can only find John and William born in Durham R.D. mother's maiden surname Forbes.
Annie's birth should be registered in Chester le Street RD.
There are two:
Ann Winn, 1871, mmn Forber
Ann Winn 1872, mmn Story.
Where do you find John and William with mmn Storey?
-
Ann Winn, 1871, mmn Forber
She was born 2nd q. 1871. there is the burial of an Ann Winn of Edmondsley at Sacriston on 7th May 1871 aged 14 days, so that might be her.
The two older boys, John and William, both 'of Edmondsley' were baptised at Sacriston in 1867.
-
few more
Michael Winm march qtr 1877 Stockton vol 10a pg 129 mmn Forbus
Thomas Winn march qtr 1879 Stockton vol 10a pg 108 mmn Forbus
Elizabeth Winn dec qtr 1880 Stockton vol 10a pg 89 mmn Forbes
Mary Winn jun qtr 1887 Chester le Street mmn Forbes
marriage reg Martin Winn dec qtr 1864 Durham vol 10a pg 404 with Mary Storey on the same page
marriage 10 Dec 1864 at St Cuthbert's, Durham.
-
1861 Framwell Gate shows Mary Forbes, 14 yrs with parents Michael and Ann.
This fits with 1851 2391/558/28 and a marriage 1841 - Michael Forbes and Mary Parkinson.
However, although the other children have Parkinson as mother’s name, I can’t find a birth for Mary Forbes :-\
In 1851 Michael and Ann Forbes were living at New Cassop, with children John, Mary and William.
There is an 1844 baptism of Mary Ann Forbes, parents Michael & Mary (late Parkinson), abode Cassop, and also William in 1850, same parents, abode Cassop Colliery.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DZW3-31P?i=464&cc=1309819&cat=1809118
-
1861 Framwell Gate shows Mary Forbes, 14 yrs with parents Michael and Ann.
This fits with 1851 2391/558/28 and a marriage 1841 - Michael Forbes and Mary Parkinson.
However, although the other children have Parkinson as mother’s name, I can’t find a birth for Mary Forbes :-\
In 1851 Michael and Ann Forbes were living at New Cassop, with children John, Mary and William.
There is an 1844 baptism of Mary Ann Forbes, parents Michael & Mary (late Parkinson), abode Cassop, and also William in 1850, same parents, abode Cassop Colliery.
Ignore that one, it looks like she died in 1845.
This looks like her: Ferryhill, 8th September 1847, Mary daughter of Michael and Mary Forbes, abode Little Chilton, father pitman.
Edit https://maps.nls.uk/view/102341650#zoom=6&lat=2658&lon=6980&layers=BT (just because I like maps)
-
Hi Folks, sorry for the delay in responding.
OK, my error with John and William (born the same day = twins).
There was not a maiden name on my research. I assumed (sorry) that it was Mary Storey as this was the marriage I had with martin 1864. Anns birth, 1872 has a maiden name of Story/Storey so I assumed that Mary Storey was the morther. Then everything changes and it is when I find the Forbus/Forbes as maiden name.
Is it possibel Mary Storey passed away?
Is it possible there are two marriages. I do not find a record of a Martin Winn=Mary Forbes marriage with my tools (FindMyPast, DRO, Myheritage, Gro.gov).
You mat be right that Mary Forbes is married, is there a source I am missing?
-
OK, my error with John and William (born the same day = twins).
See reply #5 John and William were not twins - different years.
Do you have different births?
-
These are the records I have >
First name(s) John, Last name Winn, Place Sacriston, County Durham, Birth year 1867 Country England, Birth date ? ? 1867 Document type Parish Registers, Baptism year 1867, Record set Durham Baptisms Baptism date 28 Dec 1867, Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, Father's first name(s) Martin, Subcategory Parish Baptisms, Mother's first name(s) Mary Collections from England, Great Britain Mother's last name Winn, Northumberland & Durham Family History Society, Transcriptions © Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
First name(s) William, Last name Winn, Place Sacriston, County Durham Birth year 1867, Country England, Birth date ? ? 1867, Document type Parish Registers, Baptism year 1867, Record set Durham Baptisms, Baptism date 28 Dec 1867 Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, Father's first name(s) Martin Subcategory Parish Baptisms, Mother's first name(s) Mary, Collections from England, Great Britain, Mother's last name Winn, Northumberland & Durham Family History Society, Transcriptions © Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
Ahhh / I see, its the same baptism date, that does not mean same birth date
-
Yes - they haven’t put the birth year on the baptism record.
It looks as though you need the detailed marriage information from a parish record or the registration certificate.
-
It looks as though you need the detailed marriage information from a parish record or the registration certificate.
Since you have the date and location for the Winn/Storey marriage you could get the parish record from Durham County Record office via their ‘quick search’ which is cheaper than buying from the GRO
https://recordofficeshop.durham.gov.uk/pgQuickSearch
-
These are the records I have >
First name(s) John, Last name Winn, Place Sacriston, County Durham, Birth year 1867 Country England, Birth date ? ? 1867 Document type Parish Registers, Baptism year 1867, Record set Durham Baptisms Baptism date 28 Dec 1867, Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, Father's first name(s) Martin, Subcategory Parish Baptisms, Mother's first name(s) Mary Collections from England, Great Britain Mother's last name Winn, Northumberland & Durham Family History Society, Transcriptions © Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
First name(s) William, Last name Winn, Place Sacriston, County Durham Birth year 1867, Country England, Birth date ? ? 1867, Document type Parish Registers, Baptism year 1867, Record set Durham Baptisms, Baptism date 28 Dec 1867 Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records, Father's first name(s) Martin Subcategory Parish Baptisms, Mother's first name(s) Mary, Collections from England, Great Britain, Mother's last name Winn, Northumberland & Durham Family History Society, Transcriptions © Northumberland & Durham Family History Society
Bishops transcript
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DH69-6LC?i=6&cc=1309819&cat=1810085
-
If I look at Freebmd in a very open search of Winn and a wide date range :
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Hull 9d 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
The records on the same page to that of Martin Winn
Storey Mary Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Toward Hannah Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
I dont find a mary Forbes in any reliable records.
Oh, and the image of Martin Winns marriage 1864 also shows the same Page and Vol 10a, 404
I dont believe the Forbes angle, but why is it in the baptism records unless this is an unrecorded "marriage". Im trying to locate a death for mary-1 just incase there is a "spouse" change after...
-
But Forbes or variant is the mother's maiden name on the birth registrations. Use the GRO site to check.
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/login.asp
I wonder if the complication comes from further back in the family.
Baptism Gateshead 25 Sept 1815 Michael son of Jane Forbes, single woman
also same parish 17 Feb 1813 James illegitimate son of Jane Forbes - note in register says 'wife of James Forbes who has been three years in Portugal'
I haven't spotted James again until 1881
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27B-BWBZ
His son John has married by the following census and has a son named Michael
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:WJD4-MN2
The marriage cert for Michael Forbes may name his father - he married Ann Parkinson 13 March 1841 at Pittington GRO reg march qtr 1841 Durham vol 24 pg 62 or buy from the Record Office as advised by JenB
:-\
-
I dont believe the Forbes angle, but why is it in the baptism records
Forbes isn't in the baptism records, it's the mother's maiden surname in virtually all the birth registrations.
-
Mary would be under age on her marriage, perhaps she lied.
The certificate would be useful.
-
OK, I see what Osprey and Jenb are hinting at, I think. To me it then seems that we have two "marriages" for Martin. First with M Storey then a second with M Forbes. I agree that the later children have a mother maiden name Forbus/Forbes so it does seem that there was a second marrriage or partnership.
-
This is crazy. I see what Jenb means. Gro search has this.
Name: Mother's Maiden Surname:
WINN, JOHN FORBES GRO Reference: 1865 S Quarter in DURHAM Volume 10A Page 303
WINN, WILLIAM FORBES GRO Reference: 1867 J Quarter in DURHAM Volume 10A Page 358
So there is only 1 child with a storey mother, Ann 1872 and that is AFTER the first two John and William. UNLESS it is as Jenb says and Ann is born 71....
I officially own up to being confused.
I'm not sure how to resolve this marriage issue cos martins marriage record still point at Storey!! Also means the census dates are out, that I can believe....
-
The marriage certificate and the birth certificate of Ann would hopefully solve your issue.
-
Censuses
1871 Mary 25 yrs b Ferry Hill
1881 Mary 34 yrs b Ferry Hill
1891 Mary 44 yrs b Ferryhill
Death 1898 51 yrs
Have you looked for Mary Storey and Mary Forbes before 1871 with the same birth details?
-
If I look at Freebmd in a very open search of Winn and a wide date range :
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Hull 9d 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
The records on the same page to that of Martin Winn
Storey Mary Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Toward Hannah Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
I dont find a mary Forbes in any reliable records.
Oh, and the image of Martin Winns marriage 1864 also shows the same Page and Vol 10a, 404
I dont believe the Forbes angle, but why is it in the baptism records unless this is an unrecorded "marriage". Im trying to locate a death for mary-1 just incase there is a "spouse" change after...
Volume 10a simply refers to County Durham.
The Birth register has a page 404.
The Marriage register also has a page 404.
These do not refer to the same record! ;)
-
I can find Mary Forbes in Census 1851 and 1861 but not Mary Storey.
1861 Census, Durham District
Family Number: 21773.6
Framwellgate Moor Village, Newcastle Row
Michael Forbes, head, married, 45, coal miner, born in Gateshead, County Durham
Ann Forbes, wife, married, 39, born in Winlaton, County Durham
John Forbes, son, 19, coal miner, born in Cassop, County Durham
Mary Forbes, daughter, 14, born in Ferryhill, County Durham
William Forbes, son, 10, born in Cassop, County Durham
Jane A. Forbes, daughter, 7, scholar, born in Cassop, County Durham
Elizabeth Forbes, daughter, 5, born in Crook, County Durham
-
Hi KGarrad, those are all marriage records on FreeBMD. I just cleaned out the extra stuff
Marriages Dec 1864 (>99%)
Winn Emily W Derby 8b 857 Scan available - click to view
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Hull 9d 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Venson Leeds 9b 552 Scan available - click to view
Winn William Bedale 9d 998 Scan available - click to view
Thanks for inputting tho as any help is appreciated.
Looking at this, I am slowly coming around to a Forbes being the morther as its supported by the childrens birth records (MMn Forbes) on GRO.
But I cannot find the link to martin with a marriage. So its still a mystery.
-
If I were you I would most definitely purchase the 1864 Winn/Storey marriage certificate as already suggested by Heywood.
You need some hard evidence rather than relying on indexes and transcriptions which don't give the full picture.
I have already told you how you can do this cheaply by getting the parish register marriage entry from Durham County Record Office.
My own feeling is that somehow, but I don't know why, Mary Forbes and Mary Storey are the same person.
-
Just popping in again to say that, as already pointed out, the 1864 marriage was at St Cuthbert's which is exactly the right church for Framwellgate, which is where the Forbes family were living in 1861......
Please do be careful about copying and pasting information. If you post census information it should really be your own transcription from the original, not a cut and paste from another website such as Durham Records Online.
-
Hi KGarrad, those are all marriage records on FreeBMD. I just cleaned out the extra stuff
Marriages Dec 1864 (>99%)
Winn Emily W Derby 8b 857 Scan available - click to view
Winn Martin Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Hull 9d 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Thomas Durham 10a 404 Scan available - click to view
Winn Venson Leeds 9b 552 Scan available - click to view
Winn William Bedale 9d 998 Scan available - click to view
Thanks for inputting tho as any help is appreciated.
Looking at this, I am slowly coming around to a Forbes being the morther as its supported by the childrens birth records (MMn Forbes) on GRO.
But I cannot find the link to martin with a marriage. So its still a mystery.
Mother's Maiden Name may not be the name she married under?
Previous marriage?
Step-father's name?
I agree with the others - you really need the certificate :D
-
I initially wondered if it was a transcription error - although it would seem that it would be on all records, if it were, which is unlikely.
Then, of course, there is the birth of Ann with mmn Story.
Her birth occurring a year after the birth of twins, Martin (mmn Forbes) and Ann (mmn Forber) and their death.
The link between the marriage and Ann’s birth is strange, I agree.
-
Hi, I have ordered the record as suggested, maybe it will shed some light, I will get back when the results turn up. In the meantime, I will keep digging. One suggestion was she remarried, but her age for a first marrige would be too young I think. She does seem to be 17 when married, maybe a porkypie to cover age... The records of birth do point at a Forbes - but no proof yet.
-
I mentioned the idea of a fib for her marriage earlier. It has been known but there doesn’t seem to be a reason.
Has anyone found a birth registration for Mary Forbes?
Great news that you have ordered the record and looking forward to a resolution. :)
-
Has anyone found a birth registration for Mary Forbes?
No, but I found a very likely looking baptism (reply #11)
If she was indeed born in or near Ferryhill then her birth should have been registered in Stockton R.D. https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/stockton.html
-
freeBMD has Mary Fobes, 1st q 1847, Stockton 24, 239.
-
freeBMD has Mary Fobes, 1st q 1847, Stockton 24, 239.
Thanks Jen - I think that rings a bell :)
-
freeBMD has Mary Fobes, 1st q 1847, Stockton 24, 239.
This appears in the index on the Durham Register Office website, but not on GRO :-\
-
Hi, I previously found the 1847 baptism for Mary Forbes on FindMyPast. Reference DDR/EA/PBT/2/108
Document type Bishop's Transcripts, Baptism date 08 Sep 1847 and parents Michael and Ann, place = Ferryhill.
-
Hi, I previously found the 1847 baptism for Mary Forbes on FindMyPast. Reference DDR/EA/PBT/2/108
Document type Bishop's Transcripts, Baptism date 08 Sep 1847 and parents Michael and Ann, place = Ferryhill.
Yes, that’s the one I gave in reply #11.
-
freeBMD has Mary Fobes, 1st q 1847, Stockton 24, 239.
This appears in the index on the Durham Register Office website, but not on GRO :-\
Got her, she's on GRO as Mary Tobes, mother's maiden surname Parkinson
-
Hi Folks, just a thought, I think someone suggested it earlier..... Could someone who has an Ancestry sub, have alook at the 1851 and 1861 Census for Ferryhill. Mary Storey and Mary Forbes (1846-4 and possible marriage 1864). I can see the records but not the details. I get something on FindMyPast, but Im curious to see if there is more detail on the "original".
I wonder if Mary Forbes/Storey are the same person and for some reason went to live with either a Storey or Forbes and started using their name. So she used one name when married and reverted or changed when registering kids?? Was she a servant? I understand that servants sometimes were "adopted" into a family... Just trying to come with any explanation..... hope the marriage record to Martin sheds light....
-
1861 Framwell Gate shows Mary Forbes, 14 yrs with parents Michael and Ann.
This fits with 1851 2391/558/28 and a marriage 1841 - Michael Forbes and Mary Parkinson.
However, although the other children have Parkinson as mother’s name, I can’t find a birth for Mary Forbes :-\
The baptism and birth registration has now been found as you know.
-
Could someone who has an Ancestry sub, have alook at the 1851 and 1861 Census for Ferryhill.
I'm not clear on why you want to look at the 1851 and 1861 for Ferryhill?
-
Hi JenB, its a wild shot, thought there may be something that points at a person not of that family living with them... exploring reasons why there is a name flip. But as you say, wait for the marriage cert, patience isnt my strong suite. But Heywoods info helps somewhat...
-
But Heywoods info helps somewhat...
I should hope that the information that all of us have given has helped 'somewhat'.
-
OH, please excuse my offhand remark.
The help is far from "somewhat", poor choice of words indeed. The help from all of you has been super and demonstrates the incredible knowledge and resources these forums provide. My apologies, it was not meant so. It refers more to my ability to interpret the facts, Im still trying to get my head around all the various new info. The quick search should I hope provide some direction.
My sincere thanks to all here....
-
Still waiting on the record, probably early next week.
I tried looking at Bastardy records, I found Storey's but all in the wrong timeframe or location.
Found another reference to a Mary Story married to a Winn, Mary Storey married one of these people - Thomas Winn, Martin Winn 1864, 10a 404 from FindMyPast. So still a mystery where this Forbes come into play.I did find a Mary Forbes marriage but in 1866 and in Gateshead and a different husband.
-
While waiting for the cert of Martin Winn marriage to Mary Storey, I did a search on Durham County Council registers online. I found two results for a marriage to Mary Storer in 1864.
#41 STOREY Mary 1864 and #42 STOREY Mary 1864
One is to Martin Winn = STOREY, Mary, Year1864 marriage: WINN, Martin
The other was STOREY, Mary, 1864, DAVISON, Robert A
But in 1861, STOREY, Mary married FORSTER, Robert F
In the 1861-70 period there were no Mary Forbes married in the register, not until 1883 and that was not to Martin. Out of curiosity looked at convicts, Storey and Forbes but none fitted the time or place. Also looked at Wills. There was a Robert Storey a farmer, from Ferry Hill died 3 April 1841.
There were Storeys and Forbes about but ATM no connection between them.
-
Hi Folks, the certificate image has arrived.
The image shows Year 1862, Number 24 Dec 10th.
The Record is for St Cuthberts parish church:
Martin Winn age2 Batchelor, Residence F.Gate Moor, Father - Martin Winn, Father Occ Pitman
Mary Storey age18, spinster, Residence F.Gate Moor, Father - Micheal Storey, Father Occ Pitman
Married by Banns, ?Ridley
It appears to be in the presence of (I think) Robert Atkinson and (clearer) Margaret Winn
I assume F.Gate Moor is Framwell Gae Moor.
AS Mary's father is Michael Storey, at least I have a line to explore. But I have no idea where the Forbes angle comes in. It is possible as was suggested, that there was a family mixup where Mary decided to use the name of a close family for records. But it seems less likey that it was the marriage that has misleading info due to fathers name.
Interestingly on the same page above Martins marriage is another Winn marriage.
Thomas Winn marries a Hannah Toward on 26 November also of F.Gate Moor and father Martin Winn
-
Worth noting that the father of Mary Forbes was Michael Forbes. As Osprey has already indicated it looks like Michael Forbes was illegitimate. He may have known his father was called Storey.
I have something similar in my own family. My grandfather and siblings show different mother's maiden names. The explanation is that his mother was illegitimate - her mother married three years later. Some births show her surname at birth while others show her mother's married name.
William
-
Hi Millmoor, That may well explain some of what is going on. Still strange that Mary decided to enter Forbes rather than than Storey or use a middle name as was sometimes used. Well, I will dig a little more, but it looks like we have a possible explanation.
Added : yes I have the baptism of Michael 1815 that shows Jane Forbes, single womman, Gateshead.
-
My own feeling is that somehow, but I don't know why, Mary Forbes and Mary Storey are the same person.
I’m still of the same opinion, particularly as Mary ‘Storey’ gave her father’s Christian name as Michael which was the same as Mary Forbes’ father’s. Same father’s occupation as well and living in Framwellgate same as in the 1861 census.
-
Still strange that Mary decided to enter Forbes rather than than Storey
I'm not quite sure what you mean?
-
Hi JenB. Sorry I wasnt clear. What I meant was, Mary recorded her marriage as a Storey and father as Storey. But the childrens birth records have MMN Forbes.
So, where I am at is this. I believe Michael Storey is Forbes illegitimate and later used what he assumed/knew to be his "fathers" name. I think Mary used Storey as thats what she knew as her father as per marriage cert. There may have been a "family chat" that revealed the history and she used Forbes as childrens MMN as she seems to have grown up in that family.
On Familysearch Micheal seems to be Forbes and all same family names etc and Framwellgate etc. Even Mary is there as a Forbes.
Its all circumstantial, but all the records coincide and match. I just need to explain it clearly for anyone who comes after me on Wikitree. But so far, I think we all agree Michal and Mary are Forbes and they knew Michaels background. AND I really appreciate ALL the help to get to this point.
Not the first Winn mystery Ive come across, but a bit different. I can imagine some of the converstation between families over this.
-
Hi JenB. Sorry I wasnt clear. What I meant was, Mary recorded her marriage as a Storey and father as Storey. But the childrens birth records have MMN Forbes.
That's because her given name was Mary Forbes. We have that from her birth registration, baptism and all the censuses up to her marriage.
So, where I am at is this. I believe Michael Storey is Forbes illegitimate and later used what he assumed/knew to be his "fathers" name.
I take your point that Michael's father might have had the surname Storey, but I'm interested to know where, apart from Mary's marriage, you find him as Michael Storey rather than Michael Forbes?
-
Hi JenB. As I said, I think its all circumstantial that Michael Storey/Forbes are the same. There is nothing I can find where a Michael Storey pops up other than this marriage. Other michael storeys appear as separate individuals. But there are few other explanations. Im open to any lines for me to follow.
-
As Mary gives her age as 18 yrs, would there be a formal consent from her father or could she just say/invent/forge this for her marriage.
I am finding it difficult to accept that Michael Forbes’ biological father was Storey which was then adopted as the name for her marriage and for one child’s birth as a legitimate choice.
Mr Storey may well have been the father which caused her to use it but as Michael always seems to be Forbes, I would think that she used it to deceive rather than she thought it her true name.
Did her siblings marry as Forbes?
-
So, where I am at is this. I believe Michael Storey is Forbes illegitimate and later used what he assumed/knew to be his "fathers" name.
What records have you found showing Michael Forbes also using the surname Storey?
-
Hi Heywood and Jen. I also have no good reason why Mary has "deceived". I also cannot find a link from Forbes to Storey other than the implied unmarried birth of Michael. And I cannot find a forwards or backwards link for Michael to Forbes-Storey. Nothing-Nada.
I can only take comfort in that everyone else in family trees are equally confused. But I would like to pick it apart, preferably without a Tardis. Checking marriages for the Forbes or later records, I find no change of names.
If the Forbes angle is a red herring - then there must be another Michael Storey from elsewhere who has arrived to work the mines in Framwell who married (presumably) and had a child Mary.
The Michael Storeys I find in Sunderland, Tanfield, Darlington etc do not match up and dont have a Mary of the right age etc. I am happy to accept that Michael exists as a Storey, but where other than a marriage cert? So the question remains, why did Mary list kids MMN as Forbes.
After all, there she is, living & married to Martin in 1891 in Witton Gilbert with six children.
If there is a dead end at Michael Storey, so be it, but I hate admitting defeat.
-
So the question remains, why did Mary list kids MMN as Forbes.
Perhaps I haven't explained my thinking on this clearly.
I think that Mary Forbes and Mary Storey are the same person.
Mary was born, birth registered and baptised as Forbes and appears as such with father Michael and mother Ann in the 1851 and 1861 censuses.
For some reason when she married Martin she gave her surname as Storey.
The simple reason why Forbes is entered as mother's maiden surname on the birth registrations is that Mary's maiden surname was Forbes (as I said in reply #56)
why did Mary list kids MMN as Forbes
It wasn't necessarily Mary did this - it was whoever registered the births.
-
Hi Jen, OK I see your reasoning. I guess the takeaway is, dont try to force things to fit. But the flipside is, why did she change her name when getting married? There does not appear to be a marriage the same day according to the records, so possible mixup there. Both Mary and Michael give their names as Storey. They do make their mark X so its likely if a name was written wrongly for whatever reason, they would not know.
-
Hi JenB. Sorry I wasnt clear. What I meant was, Mary recorded her marriage as a Storey and father as Storey. But the childrens birth records have MMN Forbes.
So, where I am at is this. I believe Michael Storey is Forbes illegitimate and later used what he assumed/knew to be his "fathers" name. I think Mary used Storey as thats what she knew as her father as per marriage cert. There may have been a "family chat" that revealed the history and she used Forbes as childrens MMN as she seems to have grown up in that family.
On Familysearch Micheal seems to be Forbes and all same family names etc and Framwellgate etc. Even Mary is there as a Forbes.
Its all circumstantial, but all the records coincide and match. I just need to explain it clearly for anyone who comes after me on Wikitree. But so far, I think we all agree Michal and Mary are Forbes and they knew Michaels background.
I can see that you want the records to be clear for others who may be interested.
I cannot, therefore, understand that you seem to be willing to explain/accept the irregularity in the surname as Michael Forbes ‘possible’ father when there is no evidence of Jane Forbes relationship with Mr Storey.
Sorry, if I have missed the records somewhere.
-
Both Mary and Michael give their names as Storey.
Not necessarily. Someone, probably Mary, has said that her fathers name was Michael Storey.
Michael might not have been present.
But so far, I think we all agree Michal and Mary are Forbes and they knew Michaels background.
I can certainly agree with the first part of this statement but absolutely not with the second part. I would want to see some sort of proof that Michael’s father was called Storey.
As William suggested it might have been his father's name.
Equally it might simply have been a surname that, for some reason, Mary conjured out of thin air.
-
Lots to think about, here is what I can say from the searching, hope I havent missed something :
1 The marriage cert states Martin Winn married Mary Storey 1864 of Framwell Gate Moor
2 The father of Mary (on cert) is Michael Storey of FGM
3 There is no clear birth of Mary Storey in Ferryhill/FWG
4 The children of Martin and Mary have a MMN of Forbes
5 A Mary Forbes was the daughter of Michael and Ann Forbes B1846
6 Michael Forbes was the son of Jane Forbes (Single woman) B1816 Gateshead
7 Michael had a brother James to Jane (Single Woman)
8 1861 Census places Mary Forbes (b1846 Framwell/Ferryhill) aged 14
9 There is no direct evidence to link Michael Storey with Michael Forbes
10 There is no direct evidence to link Mary Storey with Mary Fornes
11 Both "Marys" and both "Michaels" reside in the same area Framwell/Ferryhill
12 A number of other Mary Storeys were born in the timeframe, but do not fit birthplace or marriage
13 As pointed out, the father on the cert may be hearsay not in person
14 Mary may have created a fiction for some as yet unknown reason
15 The possibility of Michael Storey being a Forbes and changed his name is speculation
16 St Cuthberts Durham is a Catholic church.
17 Many Storeys and Forbes it seems Primitive Methodists
I am probably missing some key fact.
-
St Cuthberts Durham is a Catholic church
No! There are two St Cuthberts in Durham.
The one at which they were married was St Cuthberts Framwellgate, which was Anglican, not Roman Catholic. The marriage record you quoted earlier clearly said ‘Parish Church’ which it would not have done if it was a Roman Catholic Church. Additionally the format of a Roman Catholic register would be quite different and the names would very likely have been Latinised.
-
6 Michael Forbes was the son of Jane Forbes (Single woman) B1816 Gateshead
7 Michael had a brother James to Jane (Single Woman)
An earlier post, and a published tree (maybe more) seems to quote the baptism record as:
‘Illegitimate son of Jane , wife of James Forbes, who has been in Portugal for three years’.
This is given for both James in 1813 and Michael in 1815 in the tree I have viewed. It can’t really apply to both these baptisms though.
** osprey quoted the baptism earlier and Jane was described as a ‘single woman’ on Michael’s baptism
You have Jane as ‘single woman’ but I agree that the children would not be born within the marriage.
It might be that if there was a husband James, he was in the military. There is a record of a James Forbes, Gateshead discharged in 1816.
-
Just one final point:
If Mary was born in 1847 and married 1864, she would be 17 yrs rather than 18 yrs which may added to the possible deception.
On the other hand, she may just not have known her age.
Do you think this search is now exhausted? It looks as though you will not find an explanation of this mystery at the moment. :-\
-
from the parish register, the note is only on the baptism of James. On that of Michael, it says 'single woman'. It's possible that there were 2 different Jane Forbes in the parish.
I had a look for James and there is a candidate in 1881 who happens to have a son called Michael.
:-\
-
Thank you
In 1841 he is transcribed as ‘Forker’ on Anc. living in Auckland with wife Ann.
1851 2385 /527/27
James and Nancy Forbes plus children
-
1841 from FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQBX-YSR
I was hoping to find a parish marriage to see if there was a father noted for James. No luck so far.
-
Thank you everyone for trying to resolve this mystery. The latest input from Osprey and Heywood is really useful for family background. But I think we may have exhausted ways to solve the mixup.
I agree that Mary does appear to be 17 which may have contributed.
Jen, thanks for the church tip, I am still very new to this stuff and Google mislead me. So much to learn. The folk here certainly make up for my deficiencies.
Thanks all.
-
Google mislead me.
I can see why Google came up with St Cuthbert's being Roman Catholic - it is a City Centre Church. The 'right' St Cuthbert's is a little out of the City Centre.
As I said before, the other clue would be the format of the entry you were sent.
-
Michael Forbes appears to have died in Dec 1871 and is buried in St Cuthberts, Durham.
I am reposting the 1881 census previously posted by Osprey for James Forbes.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27B-BWBZ
Look carefully at this as the details for his wife, recorded as Hann, are familiar as those of Michael's wife, Ann. Moreover the two sons showing, John and James would, from their age and place of birth appear to be the sons of Michael and Ann.
So I would suggest that James married his brother's widow, Ann. Now we come to a rather interesting marriage:
18 May 1872 James Forbes married Ann Storey in Spennymoor. Moreover if you look at the co Durham marriage index it shows that these 2 names appeared on the marriage cert - Anne Storey and Anne Parkinson.
James Forbes was buried at Tudhoe, 4 June 1890 while Ann Forbes was buried 17 Dec 1891 at St Cuthbert, Durham but note that her residence on the Bt is given as Wingate.
Now given that Ann died in Dec 1891 you would expect to find her in the 1891 census. Not so but what can be found is a census record for a widowed Ann Storey living in Trimdon. Note her age and place of birth correspond with Ann Forbes in earlier censuses. Furthermore the details for son James correspond with those of James Forbes - age 23, the original showing as born in Framwellgate.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:WJDK-LN2
In summary it appears we have 2 further instances of the use of the surname Storey for Forbes. The marriage certs. for Michael Forbes and Ann Parkinson and for James Forbes and Ann Storey/ Parkinson might well be worth obtaining.
William
-
What great finds William. That has to be the same Ann who originally married Michael Forbes.
The mystery deepens.
Given the re-occurrence of the Storey surname I am happy to concede that it looks like my suggestion that
it might simply have been a surname that, for some reason, Mary conjured out of thin air.
just isn't correct.
-
That James Forbes marriage cert to Ann would be interesting indeed. What a good find!
-
Well that is interesting.
So, it takes the Storey name back to Ann, Michael’s wife rather than Michael. Is that right?
I look forward to any explanations and solutions, :)
-
No I do not see it that way, Heywood. I would suggest that the Parkinson refers to her maiden name and Storey to her previous married name, which she has used rather than Forbes. Hopefully the marriage cert would clarify.
William
-
I think that’s what I meant - that Ann was also using Storey - sorry!
However, you mean as her married name.
-
That James Forbes marriage cert to Ann would be interesting indeed. What a good find!
That's another which could probably be obtained via the Durham Record Office quick search, since the transcription states that its a Parish record from Spennymoor.
-
Here is Ann's death notice in the Durham County Advertiser 18th Dec 1891
At Trimdon Grange Colliery, 14th inst, Ann, widow of the late, Mr M Forbes, miner, aged 68 years.
William
-
As I have a lot of credits on Durham Records Online I couldn't resist getting the Michael Forbes/ Ann Parkinson 1841 marriage record :-X
13th March 1841 at St Laurence, Pittington.
Michael Forbes, full age, widower, coal miner of New Pittington, father James Forbes, shoemaker
Ann Parkinson, minor, spinster of New Pittington, father John Parkinson, coal miner
Witnesses James Richardson & Edward Bell.
Michael was a widower. This might be his first marriage (r-h page, middle entry)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6L24-G9C?i=920&cc=1309819&cat=1808387
No Storeys to be seen there :-\
-
I do hope someone has a big sheet of paper to record all these various records now discovered.
From a tree
James Forbes married Margaret McGregor and she died in 1939.
In 1841 - previously mentioned, he is with wife Ann - later Nancy in 1851.
There are step children ‘Grey’ but I think her maiden name was Aisbett or similar. They have a child- Aisbett Forbes in 1849
There is a child James Forbes in these censuses - born abt 1837.
Free BMD has a marriage 1860, Auckland
James McGregor Forbes and Ann Coates.
1861 , Coundon, Auckland
Transcribed as Stong
There is a note attached - James McGregor Forbes
However, looking at the census it looks like Story
The child Margaret Ann , 5 months was registered as Forbes.
Sorry this is so longwinded but I wanted to give background.
-
there is a military record for a James Forbes born Gateshead. He was a private in Captain William Covell's company in the First Royal Regiment of Veterans.
He had been in the 60th Foot Regiment 1806-1815 and then the Veterans 5 Oct 1815 to 24 Jun 1816. By this time, he had a pulmonic complaint and a gunshot wound in the left thigh and foot received 21 June 1813 at Vittoria.
Described as about 30 years of age, 5 Ft 712, light brown hair, blue eyes, fair complexion. By trade a shoemaker.
https://www.britishbattles.com/peninsular-war/battle-of-vitoria/
-
1861 , Coundon, Auckland
Transcribed as Stong
There is a note attached - James McGregor Forbes
However, looking at the census it looks like Story
The child Margaret Ann , 5 months was registered as Forbes.
It looks very much like Storey to me.
(RG 9/3709/51/39)
What is more, James senior appears to be in Coundon as well - as James Storey.
Take a look at RG 9/3709/50/37.
I think her maiden name was Aisbett or similar. They have a child- Aisbett Forbes in 1849
Aisbett seems to be Nazibeth Storey in 1861
James's mother in law Ann Aisbett is there as well in 1861.
There are other 'Storey' children with James senior in 1861. One of them is Alice Storey. her birth is registered as Alice Forbes, mother's maiden surname Aisbett.
What a tangled web. Another Forbes family also using the surname Storey.
-
there is a military record for a James Forbes born Gateshead. He was a private in Captain William Covell's company in the First Royal Regiment of Veterans.
He had been in the 60th Foot Regiment 1806-1815 and then the Veterans 5 Oct 1815 to 24 Jun 1816. By this time, he had a pulmonic complaint and a gunshot wound in the left thigh and foot received 21 June 1813 at Vittoria.
Described as about 30 years of age, 5 Ft 712, light brown hair, blue eyes, fair complexion. By trade a shoemaker.
https://www.britishbattles.com/peninsular-war/battle-of-vitoria/
That’s great. I mentioned it earlier but could not access the record. It seems to fit!
-
I agree Jen, it’s very tangled.
I feel I should apologise for my doubts re Storey in previous posts.
Sorry Seelife.
-
I have just read through all the latest posts. Wow, thank you millmoor Heywood osprey jen and others. What increasable work. I have started organising to add Forbes on wikitree to help add depth to the Martin/Mary stuff. These finds are super useful.
It does now seem like there is a link between the names. i may try to patch it into excel. This tangle surpasses any previous I've had. Think I need to reread this a few times.....
-
I've only discovered this thread but found it to be one of the most interesting & intriguing as well as the fantastic research & input of some well known researchers on RC.
I think DNA may hold some clues too.
Annie
-
Think I need to reread this a few times.....
Definitely!
It's too much of a coincidence that brother James was also (intermittently) calling himself Storey.
I looked up a few of the children who appear with him as Storey in 1861, and the ones I could find on a quick search were registered as Forbes.....
Well done William, who started off this new episode :) I have to confess that I'd looked at the 1881 entry for James and family and didn't make the vital connection to Ann, Michael's widow.
-
Here is the Family Search version of James's 1861 entry.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7CB-FW7
For Stoney read Storey and for Aisbeck read Aisbett.
The birthplace of Etterby is actually Etherley.
-
Ah. Thanks Jen. That was the link I was missing. I have been hunting high and low. I have started putting the story together, it so mixed up, its slow going. The link really helps as I was not able to find a solid "source" that tied them together. I have a general idea whats going on, but still cannot understand what the family over some time was doing swapping names - wierd. Putting all this info into wikitree is a hair tearing exercise.
By the way - I just want to work out Nancy Forbes entry, I dont find her other than in the 1851 census with james Forbes.
-
By the way - I just want to work out Nancy Forbes entry, I dont find her other than in the 1851 census with james Forbes.
She is still with him in 1861, as Ann. Nancy is a ‘pet’ name for Ann.
-
Thanks Jen. I had assumed that was the case, just wanted to be sure.