RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Yorkshire (West Riding) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Jojosam on Monday 17 July 06 10:02 BST (UK)
-
Hello
I think I'm on the right board. I have a Bailey family in Manchester in the 1881 Census. I'd like to find them in earlier censuses and, as they had a 10 year-old who was born in Leeds, I'm guessing they were in Leeds in the 1871 census. The people are
Robert Bailey (a hatter, born in Newcastle Under Lyne around 1831),
his wife Ellen (born in London around 1837), and
children Margaret (she should be there but had left home by 1881), Eliza (both born in London), Ellen (born in Leeds). There might have been more older children.
Robert and Ellen were married in 1858 in London.
I'd be really grateful if someone could see if they appear on the 1861 and/or 1871 census please.
thank you.
-
1871- Manchester
RG10/4047-64-16
13 Bennett St
Bailey
Robert 39 head b London Hatter
Ellen 33 wife b "
Eliza 4 dau b "
Ellen 11m dau b Leeds
Joe
-
Hi
1861 Census England Middlesex London St Giles Without Cripplegate
Rg9/214 Folio 24 Page 54
Three Penny?? Court
BAILEY
Robert Head Marr 29 Hatter Newcastle Under Lynn
Margaret Wife Marr 33 Scotland
Joseph Son Unmarr 6 Scholar Surrey Lambeth
Samuel Son Unmarr 4 Scholar City Cripplegate
Anne Dau Unmarr 2 City Cripplegate
Margaret Dau Unmarr 4mths City Cripplegate
Cannot seem to find them on 1871
Cheers
Karenlee
-
Excellent! :) Thank you Joe and Karenlee. Your information throws up some totally new information.
Do you think I'm safe in assuming that Robert's 1871 birthplace info was wrong? Please don't tell me they are more likely to be two different families - although I am wondering where Margaret (my g-g-grandmother) was in 1871. And now I've just realised that the marriage I found can't be right if the two families are the same.
Oh well - another branch with some more puzzling out to do. I think I must have had some of the information wrong.
Jojosam
-
Hi Jojosam
Ithink it is safe to assume that Roberts birthplace is wrong but he is the right guy.
If say Robert was out when the enumerator called his wife would have to give the details and maybe she was unsure of his actual birthplace so just said " London " I have come across this same senario lots of times.
Of course Robert may have just forgotten where he came from.
Joe
-
This looks like Robert with his parents although the 1841 does not give places of birth or reletionships to each other
1841 Cencus-Newcastle-under-Lyne-Staffordshire
HO107/1009/3-7-7
All born in County Staffordshire
Joseph 30 Hatter
Harriet 35
Robert 9
William 7
Joseph 6
John 4
George 3
Joe
-
1851-Cencus-Cripplegate St Giles Middlesex
HO107/1525-227-27
6 Moorling Square
Samuel Tennant 41 head b Edinburgh Master Hatter+4 men
Bridget "46 wife b Scotland
Margaret " 24 dau b Edinburgh
Thomas " 13 son b London
Ann " 11 dau b London
Robert Bailey 19 servant b Newcastle under Lyme App Hatter
Joe
-
Just to throw another idea into the mix -- could Ellen have been wife #2 ??
Karenlee
-
Ive just spent a couple of hours Karen lea looking for two marriages just in case.
The Tennant family who george was living with in 1851 have a dau called Margaret b in Scotland who could possibly fit the bill for your 1861 post.
I also found a death for a Margaret Bailey in 1862 in East London which is the registration district for Cripplegate.
Jojosam...do you know when he married Ellen or her maiden name
Joe
-
Just found on the 1871 Census
1871 Census England Middlesex Hanwell
RG10/1323 Folio 98 Page 5
Central London District School for the Children Chargeable to the City of London
BAILEY
Ann Pauper Inmate 12 Scholar Middlesex London
Margaret Pauper Inmater 10 Scholar Middlesex London
-
Karenlea I had just found the school entries in 71 lol....
Joe
-
Great minds Joe !!
-
What a lovely surprise - I thought I'd sneak a look at the site again (at work) and here's even more information from you. :o Thank you very much to both of you. :D
I had found a marriage for a Robert Bailey to Ellen Philpott in 1856 but now this seems to be the wrong one. It also means that the birth I found for Margaret (the daughter) might be wrong. ???
In about 10 minutes I'll be travelling out of email contact for a couple of days. But as soon as I get back I'll be in touch with a relation who might be able to help me make a story out of all these new facts. I'll be interested to see if there are any stories of Margaret's early life. This would also be the first Scottish connection on any of my family's branches.
I'll also hit BMD and IGI again; and then I'll post what we've found out, hopefully to give you the end of the story (and probably to test our theory :-\).
Thanks again. :-*