RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Northumberland => Topic started by: DavidJP on Sunday 10 March 13 23:45 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all,
I have just found something that could mean a spanner in the works regarding this part of my family history! Allow me to explain.
My 4x gt grandfather Thomas Parker married Martha Graham in Bedlington St Cuthbert's on 16th June 1821. This info i found on familysearch/IGI a while back & i believe to be correct as the name Graham appears as a middle name for one of their grandsons. However, i've just looked on Freereg & it shows a Thomas Parks married Martha Graham on the same date! Which is right?? If it's Parks, then that's a fairly major spanner in the works! :( ::) Could sks check the parish records for me? I would be ever so grateful & hope & pray that it is in fact Parker!!
Also i know of 4 children to the marriage:
Mary b 1822
Ann b 1825/26
Isabella b 25th June 1827 (my 3x gt grandmother)
Thomas b 1831/32
All born Bedlington. Isabella's birth date comes from a family tree that an uncle of my late maternal grandmother's did about 35-40 years ago. The same tree shows Isabella's place of birth as Bedlington Ironworks. What his source(s) were i don't know.
Could sks also look up these baptisms & also see if there are any other siblings baptisms?
I have not been able to find any Bedlington parish records online anywhere, so any help with this would be very gratefully received.
Many thanks in advance.
Kind regards
David
-
i don't have access to the registers but I would make two points
1. The letters "er" at the end of a name can easily be read as an "s" in poor writing
2. There was a previous transcription of the marriages of Bedlington done by "George Bell". I wonder if this transcript was used to do the freereg transcriptions. You can see the George Bell transcript at
http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/Transcriptions/NBL/MBED.html
I would not give up hope that ypu have it right, but you do need to see the original register (not the bishops transcript or any transcription) and maybe also the baptism of the children. Hopefully someone will be able to look it up for you
-
Hi davidft,
Many thanks for your reply, much appreciated.
Hmmm, you could be right about the George Bell transcription, many thanks for the link to it!
I'm fairly confident that i have the marriage right, but as you say, i need to see the original & i won't be entirely happy until i've seen the original entry!
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
David
-
I cant help with a look-up but it looks to me it is a transcription error , I agree er could be mistaken for an s.
1861 Census Martha Parker is born c 1796 Whitby, Yorkshire;
Martha GRAHAM Christened 24 July 1796, Whitby, Yorkshire
Parents WILLIAM/JANE
(Birth 30 June 1796)
SIBLINGS, Christened same day;
JOHN ( Birth 19 July 1789)
MARGARET (Birth 11 Sept 1791)
WILLIAM (Birth 19 April 1794)
EARLIER Siblings;
JAMES 25 May 1781 (Birth same day), may have died
JANE 12 Sept 1784 (Birth 21 Aug 1784)
JAMES 19 Nov 1786 (Birth 28 Oct 1786)
Last 2 have name as Grayham
Source Familysearch.Org
Trish :)
-
Looking at the Free Reg entry, it appears to have been transcribed from the register as there is no suffix to the Church name. If it were transcribed from a previous transcription then the Church name field would have an Ex suffix, if it were from the Bishops Transcripts then the suffix would would be BT.
It is possible that its been mistranscribed, endings of words are much more likely to be scribbled in my (limited) experience, but also bear in mind that it may be the right people, but the original entry could have an error.
If it turns out to be a mistranscription in Free Reg then you can mail and ask for it to be reviewed and corrected.
Boo
-
Looking at the Free Reg entry, it appears to have been transcribed from the register as there is no suffix to the Church name. If it were transcribed from a previous transcription then the Church name field would have an Ex suffix, if it were from the Bishops Transcripts then the suffix would would be BT.
It is possible that its been mistranscribed, endings of words are much more likely to be scribbled in my (limited) experience, but also bear in mind that it may be the right people, but the original entry could have an error.
If it turns out to be a mistranscription in Free Reg then you can mail and ask for it to be reviewed and corrected.
Boo
I do wonder about that as i can find two tanscriptions online by G Bell described in one way or another as "original indexes"
Author: Bell, G
Name Added Entry: Yellowley, C
Title Statement: BEDLINGTON : CMB(I) 1813-39 [Microfiche.]
Published: Wideopen : Original Indexes, 2003
Description: 2 fiche
Subject: NORTHUMBERLAND - REGISTERS
Subject: Bedlington, Northumberland
-
I do wonder about that as i can find two tanscriptions online by G Bell described in one way or another as "original indexes"
Author: Bell, G
Name Added Entry: Yellowley, C
Title Statement: BEDLINGTON : CMB(I) 1813-39 [Microfiche.]
Published: Wideopen : Original Indexes, 2003
Description: 2 fiche
Subject: NORTHUMBERLAND - REGISTERS
Subject: Bedlington, Northumberland
'Original Indexes' was actually the name of the company set up by George Bell in order to publish his transcriptions and other genealogical material.
Now all available as part of 'Ancestral Indexes' via the NDFHS http://www.ancestral-indexes.co.uk/
-
'Original Indexes' was actually the name of the company set up by George Bell in order to publish his transcriptions and other genealogical material.
Now all available as part of 'Ancestral Indexes' via the NDFHS http://www.ancestral-indexes.co.uk/
LOL. Yes you have found the other source I had found. I am aware "original indexes" was a company name but the point I was trying to make is people could take it at face value.
I do wonder where "George Bell" originally transcribed her records from, was it original parish registers or bishops transcripts as differences can occur between the two as many of us have found out from first hand experience
-
Hi all,
Many thanks for your replies, very much appreciated.
Trish, thanks for that info, already have the christenings that you posted, plus an earlier brother William b 8th Nov 1778 & baptised 13th Dec 1778. Took me a while to find as on the 1851 & 71 censuses (if i remember correctly!) Martha gave place of birth as Hull! Never could find anything in Hull for her, then finally find her in 1861 and as you posted she stated place of birth as Whitby & i found her baptism straight away. Unfortunately i have lost the census returns for both Thomas & Martha, due to a memory stick dying on me! :'( Thomas died in 1879 in Newcastle & Martha in 1873 also in Newcastle, although the age in the index (82) is wrong as she was 77 at death.)
Tickettyboo, Davidft & JenB, many thanks for your input, all very much appreciated, i'm beginning to feel a little more comfortable with the marriage record now. I believe like you that it's a mistranscription!
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
David
-
I'm inclined to agree with everyone but to eliminate all doubt I will have a look for you at the archives tomorrow.
Christine
-
Hi Christine,
Many thanks for offering to do that. Its very much appreciated.
Kind regards
David
-
I know from years of doing it how difficult transcribing can be and I also know that George Bell was usually accurate but on this occasion I can’t see how the error was made. There is doubt about the last letter in the name but there is a definite ‘e’ after the ‘k’. Also where the signature would go it clearly states that it’s the mark of Thomas Parker. One of the witnesses was John Parker. For completion the other three witnesses were John Johnson, John Laverick and Isabel Laverick.
I also have the baptismal details of all four children if you need them.
Christine
-
Hi Christine,
Many thanks indeed for checking the marriage record, its very much appreciated! I was reasonably confident that it was Parker, but to have confirmation is brilliant. I would very much like to have the baptism information for the children as well & my thanks for getting those too.
Intriguingly, the witness John Parker, i haven't a clue who he is! He's rather an unexpected mystery! Whether he's brother, uncle, cousin etc i don't know, i don't have a record of a John at all!
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
David
-
Hi David,
Here are the baptisms
Mary - 14 April 1822, father a Waterman from Bedlington
Ann - 26 Feb. 1824, father a keelman from Bedlington
Isabella - 22 July 1827, father a waterman from Bedlington Iron Works
Thomas - 26 Feb. 1832, father a waterman from Bedlington
I didn't spot any other children
Christine
-
Hi Christine,
Many, many thanks indeed for the baptisms. Its very much appreciated!
Kind regards
David
-
On the offchance that OP is still around, I think that Ann (sister of your Isabella) is my GGG-grandmother. Ann married Elijah Brooks and lived at Bedlington; Chippenham (Wiltshire) for a few years in the 1850s; and later Newcastle, where he died in 1886 and she in 1888. Their daughter, my ancestor Martha Ann, was born at Bedlington on Aug 4th 1850. Do you know if I'm correct that it's the same family as yours?
Not sure if you're aware of the marriage announcement from "Newcastle Guardian and Tyne Mercury", 26 Sep 1846: "At Horton, on the 17th inst. Mr George Hills, mariner, of Blyth, to Isabella, youngest daughter of Mr Thomas Parker, shipowner, Bedlington Iron Works."
-
Have just read the note about the Laverick witnesses. Elijah Brooks' grandparents were John and Elizabeth (nee Clark) Laverick - perhaps there's a connection.
-
Hello! I happen to have additional information concerning this Elijah Brooks ancestry. For starters, his Father was also an Elijah Brooks b 12 May 1795 in Ryton, Co Durham. I have several more generations further back, if you are interested. Sincerely, patrexjax
-
I believe the wrong Martha Graham birth has been identified above. I think the correct one is the 1792 Mar 11 baptism at Whitby - birth 1791 Dec 29 - parents James Graham (occupation: roper) and Mary.
- This matches the 1841 census where Thomas Parker (occupation: keelman) is seen with children Mary, Ann and Thomas at White House, Cowpen, while Martha and daughter Isabella are simultaneously seen with James Graham (age 80) at Coatham Mundeville. (James Graham died in 1842 and Mary Graham in 1841, both near Coatham Mundeville - Mary was buried in June so I'm not sure where she was at census time.)
- The 1791 birthdate is also an ever-so-slightly closer match for Martha's various census ages (56 in 1851, 66 in 1861, 78 in 1871) than 1796 is.
By the way, note that there seems to have been a Thomas George Parker (brother of Isabella) born 1829 who must have died in infancy as his younger brother is also called Thomas.
The maternal line then goes back to:
- Mary (above-mentioned Mary Graham) born 1762 May 23 at East Row near Whitby (now part of Sandsend village), daughter of Peter Stonehouse (occupation: brewer) and Ann;
- Ann baptised 1733 Nov 04 (also of East Row), daughter of William Linton (occupation: labourer) and Mary Saunderson;
- there are then several baby Marys to choose from so I haven't been able to go back further with certainty.
The above is consistent with marriage records I've seen as well.
Of course, do feel welcome to dispute this version, if I am wrong then I would like to know about it!
-
Hi brooksburns & patrexjax,
Many thanks indeed for your replies, very much appreciated. My apologies for the non response until now, this due to my taking a break/hiatus from family research for a while, but happily back now!
brooksburns, Many thanks indeed for the replies and info contained therein, much appreciated. I think that you are right, we are indeed almost certainly related, your Ann Brooks nee' Parker being my Isabella's sister. I had never been able to reliably find Martha & Isabella in 1841, therefore I had not known that Martha was with her parents at the time. Neither for some reason had I ever found Ann Parker's marriage to Elijah Brooks! Having had a look, I think that you are right as regards the correct Graham line, with the Stonehouse, Linton & Saunderson lines coming in to the Graham family. My thanks again, much appreciated.
patrexjax, many thanks for you reply concerning Elijah Brooks ancestry, much appreciated.
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
David