RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: BassinghamTerrier on Sunday 13 July 14 15:32 BST (UK)
-
Looks like I've picked a wrong 'un here!
I'm doing some fam-hist for my step-dad and I know that he has some illegitimacy in his family (starting with his father!) but the further back I go on another side, the more puzzling it becomes!
Long story short, I'm currently looking at Jessie Mary CANNON (his great-granny) and her exploits in 1891 and 1901.
I have no idea where she was in 1881, but in 1891 she is lodging with William HALL at 5 Dibbs Square, Wakefield. In the house with her are her three children: Emily CANNON, William CANNON and Alfred CANNON.
By 1901 she is living with new husband (married Jun 1/4 of 1899 in Wakefield) John ELLIS at 17 Saville Street, Wakefield (just around the corner apparently) still with Emily CANNON (declared as step-daughter) but now William and Alfred are going by the surname HALL and are also identified as step-children. To confuse things even more, there is now a 4-yrs-old Gladys HALL who is also a step-daughter!
And then there's ANOTHER child, this time - I presume!! - born to Jessie and John, Edith ELLIS who is only 1yrs old in 1901.
Am I given to believe that whilst living with William Hall, he adopted the two younger children and even gave her another one? I guess that the teenage Emily didn't want to be adopted and kept her birth name.
What do others think? ??? :-\
MT ;)
-
My first thought ...
Have you checked for a marriage of William Hall and Jessie and possible death of William between 1891 and 1899? :-\
Another possibility is that "lodger" in 1891 was incorrect and they were married. :-\
Not much help sorry ... :(
-
My first thought ...
Have you checked for a marriage of William Hall and Jessie and possible death of William between 1891 and 1899? :-\
No, simply because she married John Ellis as Jessie Mary CANNON, not Hall.
MT ;)
-
Jessie Mary Cannon age 36 married
Samuel John Francis Ellis and stated she was a Spinster - father Thomas Cannon occ Grocer
-
Emily's birth registered as Cannon
Sep qtr 1881
Cannon Emily
Wakefield 9c 46
Possibly William
Dec qtr 1888
William Hall Cannon
Wakefield 9c 61
and Alfred
Mar qtr 1891
Alfred Hall Cannon Wakefield 9c 62
-
Jessie Mary Cannon age 36 married Samuel Ellis and stated she was a Spinster - father Thomas Cannon occ Grocer
Really?
I have Jessie Mary Cannon married John Francis Ellis Jun 1/4 1899 in Wakefield.
All of the children's names fit perfectly in the 1891 and 1901 censuses.
I'm pretty sure that you have the wrong one.
MT ;)
-
The birth certificate of Gladys might answer a couple of questions -
trouble is, I can't see a birth for a Gladys Hall around 1897 on Freebmd. Makes me wonder if her surname is Cannon ...
scrap that - I had settings wrong. Will check again ... :-[
(not saying this is the case here, but women can and do remarry using maiden surnames rather than their married name)
-
Jessie Mary Cannon age 36 married Samuel Ellis and stated she was a Spinster - father Thomas Cannon occ Grocer
Really?
I have Jessie Mary Cannon married John Francis Ellis Jun 1/4 1899 in Wakefield.
All of the children's names fit perfectly in the 1891 and 1901 censuses.
I'm pretty sure that you have the wrong one.
MT ;)
Sorry I have amended the post, no excuse really but it was a feint copy I was reading ::)
-
Rosie's stuff looks good!
If I knew where she was in 1881 that might help.
I'm guessing that she might be lodging with William Hall ...
MT ;)
-
The birth certificate of Gladys might answer a couple of questions - trouble is, I can't see a birth for a Gladys Hall around 1897 on Freebmd. Makes me wonder if her surname is Cannon ...
scrap that - I had settings wrong. Will check again ... :-[
Looks interesting:
Births Mar 1897
Cannon Gladys Hall
Wakefield 9c 60
-
I wonder if Mr Hall is mentioned on the birth certificates of the ones with his surname as a middle name.
It looks to me as though she may have had had Emily with someone else :-\
-
Jessie is at home with her parents in 1881
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XQF5-14W
-
Jessie is at home with her parents in 1881
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XQF5-14W
And probably heavily preggers!! :)
MT ;)
-
Well done, Ruskie!
It looks like all the little Cannons were Halls too!
Well, I'll be a son of a gun! :D
MT ;)
-
Just checking my theory that William may have died ;), I found these:
Deaths Jun 1891
HALL William 73 Wakefield 9c 60
Deaths Mar 1896
Hall William 76 Wakefield 9c 32
Deaths Mar 1898
Hall William 46 Wakefield 9c 40
I am guessing that the last one would be most likely, so born around 1852. How does that fit in age wise with William Hall in 1891? Fits in OK with Gladys being his child.
-
It looks like all the little Cannons were Halls too!
Probably (but unsure about Emily ;)) - the certificate may tell a different tale. ;)
-
William Hall who died 1898 - of 17 Savile Street, Wakefield. Joiner & Shopkeeper died 18 June 1898 Probate Wakefield to Jessie Cannon spinster £667 8s 3d
-
Just checking my theory that William may have died ;), I found these:
Deaths Jun 1891
HALL William 73 Wakefield 9c 60
Deaths Mar 1896
Hall William 76 Wakefield 9c 32
Deaths Mar 1898
Hall William 46 Wakefield 9c 40
I am guessing that the last one would be most likely, so born around 1852. How does that fit in age wise with William Hall in 1891? Fits in OK with Gladys being his child.
He's 39 in 1891, so last one could be a fit. :)
MT ;)
-
William Hall who died 1898 - of 17 Savile Street, Wakefield. Joiner & Shopkeeper died 18 June 1898 Probate Wakefield to Jessie Cannon spinster £667 8s 3d
BINGO!
That's them.
MT ;)
-
So they were never married, just shacked up together and producing sprogs left right and centre! :o
My, my ... how very 21st century! ;)
MT ;)
-
So they were never married, just shacked up together and producing sprogs left right and centre! :o
My, my ... how very 21st century! ;)
MT ;)
It was quite common in those days ;D
-
Yay, well spotted rosie!
Did you find that on Ancestry probates?
-
Did you find that on Ancestry probates?
;D ;D ;D
I couldn't have done it without you though ;)
-
Righto!
Many thanks for your help, folks - it would seem as if we have this one nailed. :)
If only step-dad's father 'issue' was this easy ... :( :-\ :'(
MT ;)
-
:-* rosie
(I never think to look for probate - there is good information there, and in this case proves we have the right people).
I am still very curious about Emily's father. I expect it was William but it would be more interesting if it wasn't. ;)
-
Righto!
Many thanks for your help, folks - it would seem as if we have this one nailed. :)
If only step-dad's father 'issue' was this easy ... :( :-\ :'(
MT ;)
Now that sounds like a new challenge. How about starting a new thread MT? :)
-
Righto!
Many thanks for your help, folks - it would seem as if we have this one nailed. :)
If only step-dad's father 'issue' was this easy ... :( :-\ :'(
MT ;)
Now that sounds like a new challenge. How about starting a new thread MT? :)
I presume it is here ::)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=691475.0
-
Oh, dear.
Already got one on the go.
You're not going to like it, but by all means have a look.
There's a lot of reading to do before you start delving!! :(
LINK (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=691475.0)
MT ;)
-
Bang on, Rosie.
That's the one!
:(
MT ;)
-
Bang on, Rosie.
That's the one!
:(
MT ;)
It looks as though you have had the 'super sleuths' on it already ;D ;D
-
Bang on, Rosie.
That's the one!
:(
MT ;)
It looks as though you have had the 'super sleuths' on it already ;D ;D
Pretty much!
MT ;)
-
MT and rosie, have just signed back in (my morning) to read this so I will pop over to the other thread. Glad the super sleuths swooped on it because it sounds like it's way out of my league. ;)
Gosh, nine pages .... hope that is a good sign (off to read it now) :)
-
It's not really a good sign, although I do have one positive to add to it myself today.
MT ;)
-
You might be pleased to know that I have another query regarding this family, or at least the other side of the CANNON links! :)
Emily CANNON ended up marrying John Edward BEARDSHALL in 1903; a marriage at last, you might say! :)
But it seems as though the Beardshalls were 'at it' too. ;)
I have no idea who was the grandfather of John Beardshall, but I can guess ...
His father, James (Mason?) Beardshall (b.1841 Thurgoland) was a child of Mary Beardshall who appears on both the 1841 and 1851 censuses as the unmarried daughter of George and Sarah HAGUE. I think that the key to this is that when George Hague married in 1818 he married Sarah Beardshall, although I'm a bit flummoxed as to how Sarah would be a Beardshall rather than a Hague if she was born in 1818/19? I suppose that she could have been born just before the marriage and so kept the surname Beardshall. I really think her father was William Hague, but can't be sure.
Anyway, she is defo unmarried in both 1841 and 1851, with children.
UPDATE: Clementina definitely born illegitimately. See HERE (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NFW5-84W)
ANYWAY, my REAL question surrounds the 1841 census return (HO/107/1325/14) and one of the names on it.
As far as I can ascertain, the details are as follows ...
In the 1841 census George and Sarah HAGUE are living in Thurgoland with their children Joseph, Timothy, Joshuah and William, together with their daughter Mary BEARDSHALL and her children Edward, Mariah, James and another child whom I cannot identify. This final child seems to be 11yrs old and is another Beardshall.
So, does anyone have access to the transcript and can tell me who this is, please?
Whoever it might be, he/she does not appear with the family by 1851, although it's quite possibly that by the age of 20/21 he/she would have moved on.
Thanks again,
MT ;)
-
Below entry James aged 1month.
Certainly hard to read **tron (female) aged 11years.
(Certainly drawing my eyes)
Brian
-
Good try, Brian.
Is there not an official transcription available? Does ancestry, Genes or FindMyPast not have one where the name has been identified?
MT ;)
-
If anyone can read the original as I have tried to do, they must have eyes like a sewer rat :o
[Or have a better scanned image] - Anyone else got 1841 Yorkshire census set on disc?
Brian
-
I think the name could be Ann. Have the look at the household below, the 45 year old female has the same first name. Or the A in Agl Lab of the male in next household.
-
Now having another look, it compares exactly :)
So Ann it must be, no joy with the index supplied with census set.
Brian
-
OK, thanks folks.
So it looks like I need to find an Ann BEARDSHALL born c1829 (aged 11 in 1841)
MT ;)
-
Just looked at the above again ...
If Ann is 11, then she can't be a BEARDSHALL; Mary Beardshall is only 20 on this (although I believe she was nearer 22/23) so she couldn't have produced a child when she was 9 to 12!
The ditto marks MUST refer to the HAGUE family in the house, which would make sense looking at the arrangement of children, which seems to be all the boys first (although oddly not in age order) followed by the girls (with Mary's children following immediately after her) finishing with the youngest Hague girl in the household.
I THINK that's right anyway. :)
MT ;)
-
For the 1841 census,adults above the age of 15 were told that they could enter their ages to the nearest 5 or 10 so anyone 15-19 could be entered as 15,and those 20-24 might appear as 20.
Not all enumerators did that though and found it easier just to put someone's correct age ;)
Carol
Instructions to Enumerators in the 1841 Census
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0e2l/
-
Yes, Carol, I knew that, but I still fail to see why it wasn't easier just to write the person's age in the first place. Unless they didn't know it! :)
MT ;)
-
there's an enumerator's mark before Ann to show she is a separate household within the house. She could be a niece to Sarah.
As Carol said, ages on the 1841 were meant to be rounded down to the nearest 5, so Mary could be up to 25, but still probably not Ann's mother. 1841 does not show relationships, so nothing to link Mary to George Hague. By 1851, George has died and Mary is shown as the daughter of widowed Sarah.
-
there's an enumerator's mark before Ann to show she is a separate household within the house. She could be a niece to Sarah.
I can see an enumerator's mark (two lines) on the same line that Ann's name is written. This means that she is the last person in that particular household.
I was also wondering if Ann might be a niece, Or other relative of Mary Beardshall as Mary would not be her mother.
Hague family and Beardshall families are living next door to each other but are separate families.
-
On one of my 1841 censuses, my ancestor John is 25 his wife 20,with 3 young children.
The very first one is Sarah 15 ,which seemed a little odd.And his 67 year old dad was there too.
Dad died just 4 years later- but Sarah appears in 1851,she's John's sister !!!
That's the problem with 1841 ,never presume ;)
Carol