RootsChat.Com
Research in Other Countries => Australia => Topic started by: smudwhisk on Tuesday 01 December 15 00:38 GMT (UK)
-
Following on from last Friday's very helpful discussion on another member of the Hyatt family in New South Wales, I was wondering whether any kind RCers could cast their eye over this information and possibly help me. ;D On this particular line, I've not got any issues with posting all the information I have, unlike last week ;).
An Emma Hyatt married Herbert Spruce at Raymond Terrace Weslyan in November 1887. The entry contains no parent's details and as far as I can see, none of the witnesses are members of the Hyatt family. However, when she died in 1907, her death certificate lists her father as John Height and her birth place as Tamworth in 1869.
As far as I can see there was only one Emma Hyatt birth registered in NSW that year or adjoining years. Emma Maria Hyatt the daughter of John Hyatt and Emma Birth (who had married in 1867 at Hartley St John) was born 30 April 1869 at Krui River in the District of Merriwa. John and Emma had one further child, John, whose birth was registered in 1873 in Murrindi District.
I can find no further trace of John Hyatt junior and the only trace of Emma Birch I have found is a newspaper entry in 1877 from Trove. Her mother placed an entry in the Australian Town & Country Journal on 6 Jan 1877 (found on Trove) saying "if this should meet the eye of Emma Hyatt, maiden name Emma Burch (sic), last heard of at Liverpool or Breeza(?) Plains, write to your mother .." John Hyatt senior died at McLeod's Creek nee Drake in 1903 with his brother Richard the informant on his death certificate. Richard listed his brother as being single with no children. John may have been up at McLeod's Creek in 1901 when his brother Richard is listed on the Census as residing there with one other adult male. They appear to have both been mining in the area according to both death certificates.
There is an ancestry public tree which links Emma Spruce nee Hyatt with Emma Maria Hyatt, and I did send this person a message in August asking if John Hyatt's marriage certificate confirmed his birthplace as Enfield, but, to date, even though the tree owner would appear to have been on the site regularly since then, no response has been received.
I know that Krui River and Murrindi aren't that far from Tamworth, and obviously the informant on her death certificate (her husband Herbert) may have got the information wrong. However, I cannot find anything that places John and Emma Hyatt at any point in Tamworth. Would it be reasonable for someone born in the Merriwa area to say they were born in Tamworth?
I don't need any other information on the Hyatts unless anyone can find what happened to John Hyatt junior or his mother Emma Birch as I've been researching the family extensively for many years.
Thanks
Nicola
-
....An Emma Hyatt married Herbert Spruce at Raymond Terrace Weslyan in November 1887. The entry contains no parent's details and as far as I can see, none of the witnesses are members of the Hyatt family. ....
There's many a rural NSW marriage registration held by NSW BDM that has elusive blanks. Even NSW BDM admit on their website that there's details not on their registers.
Here's a thread I did up some time ago that may be useful, as the information was actually provided but simply not forwarded to the Sydney HQ of NSW BDM at the time, and NSW BDM has not ever finalised a full reconciliation of their records.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,546609.0.html
Cheers, JM.
-
I have just checked,
The NSW Electoral Roll 1870 for the Electorate of THE UPPER HUNTER includes localities as under:
Blandford, Murrurundi, Harben Vale, Sandy Creek, Wallabadah, Scone, Tamworth, Merriwa Musclebrook, Denison Town, and many many more in various police districts .....
Cheers, JM
-
Can you give the names of the witnesses on the 1887 marriage certificate. Emma's age on her death certificate would mean she is a minor in 1887.
I can see children born to Herbert SPRUCE and Emily / Emily M.
What children are born to your Emma HYATT and Herbert SPRUCE?
-
I'm not sure what if any background you are seeking re Emma BIRCH who you say may be the mother of Emma HYATT.
I do note the mother placing the "contact me" advertisement in 1877 which you have mentioned, requested reply to Binalong PO.
Young William BIRCH of Binalong
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18764962
Land transfer mentions Ann BIRCH of Binalong
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/104857054
Births to women named Ann BIRCH
1001/1849 V18491001 35 BIRCH Emma
Parents James & Ann
1142/1847 V18471142 32A BIRCH William
Parents James & Ann
879/1854 V1854879 40 BURCHSarah
Parents James & Ann
11585/1859 BURCH Ann
Parents James & Ann
PICTON
Sue
-
James BURCH m. Ann MALONEY 1843 St. Bede's, Roman Catholic, APPIN #V18431954 92
-
Are you discounting this birth?
NSW 1869 #9634, registered at Cassilis
Emma M HYATT
Parents John, Emma
Death certificates often have incorrect information and it may be that Emma had a later connection with Tamworth, leading the informant to believe that Tamworth was her birthplace.
Cassilis is in the same general area as the Hunter Valley towns mentioned. Certainly closer than the BIRCH/BURCH family in the Binalong/Picton areas.
Just a thought - Judith
-
There's many a rural NSW marriage registration held by NSW BDM that has elusive blanks. Even NSW BDM admit on their website that there's details not on their registers.
Here's a thread I did up some time ago that may be useful, as the information was actually provided but simply not forwarded to the Sydney HQ of NSW BDM at the time, and NSW BDM has not ever finalised a full reconciliation of their records.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,546609.0.html
Cheers, JM.
Thanks JM, I've had a look to see if the Raymond Terrace Wesleyan still exists but so far have been drawing a blank. Unfortunately, being in the UK its a bit more difficult often to obtain such info but I'll see what I can find.
Re 1870 Electoral Register, interesting so they were all in the same Upper Hunter locality. Thanks.
-
Can you give the names of the witnesses on the 1887 marriage certificate. Emma's age on her death certificate would mean she is a minor in 1887.
I can see children born to Herbert SPRUCE and Emily / Emily M.
What children are born to your Emma HYATT and Herbert SPRUCE?
The 1887 marriage witnesses look like Miriam Keasey and Annie Theasey but that's just what the handwriting looks like.
I've found details of Herbert and Emma's children and can cross reference them with the BMD index. The problem I have is the identity of Emma as its the Hyatt family I'm following forward only thanks.
Added - Having had a dig about on ancestry, Miriam Keasey would appear to be Miriam Quainton wife of Frederick Keasey and Annie was their daughter who married Thomas Hutchinson in 1892. Miriam and Frederick were both from Buckinghamshire and I can't see any connection with my Enfield Hyatt family so they were probably just friends of the family or friends of Herbert Spruce who I believe was from Newcastle upon Tyne.
-
I'm not sure what if any background you are seeking re Emma BIRCH who you say may be the mother of Emma HYATT.
I do note the mother placing the "contact me" advertisement in 1877 which you have mentioned, requested reply to Binalong PO.
Hi Sue, I'd like "kill off" Emma Birch, meaning it would be nice to find out what happened to her after the births of her two children. She and John Hyatt would appear to possibly have parted company at some point, or that's my interpretation of the newspaper ad from 1877. Mind you its just possible she died young, along with son John, and the deaths were registered, at which point John hooked up with his brother after his brother's wife died in 1882.
-
http://www.whitepages.com.au/business-listing/uniting-church-in-australia-926089/raymond-terrace-nsw
Uniting Church in Australia's NSW archives office :
https://assembly.uca.org.au/resources/historical-reference-committee-and-archives
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11479459?selectedversion=NBD27565072
Cheers, JM
-
Are you discounting this birth?
NSW 1869 #9634, registered at Cassilis
Emma M HYATT
Parents John, Emma
Death certificates often have incorrect information and it may be that Emma had a later connection with Tamworth, leading the informant to believe that Tamworth was her birthplace.
Cassilis is in the same general area as the Hunter Valley towns mentioned. Certainly closer than the BIRCH/BURCH family in the Binalong/Picton areas.
Just a thought - Judith
Hi Judith, no I'm not discounting that birth as that's the family I'm interested in. Just hoping to find something that would definitely confirm that Emma Spruce was Emma Maria Hyatt because of the discrepancies on her death certificate. I do appreciate, as I mentioned in my original post, that the informant, namely her husband, may have been misinformed. If she'd used her middle name on her marriage and subsequently, then that would have been more useful. :-\
According to Emma Maria Hyatt's birth certificate, Emma Birch was born in Picton so that is going to most likely be the correct family but as its the Hyatt family I'm following forward, I'm not researching the Birch family other than to confirm Emma Birch's parentage. As the parentage details are also missing from her marriage certificate to John Hyatt, all I can really go on is the details from her daughter's birth certificate, although I will have a look at JM's suggestions earlier in this thread.
The missing parentage on the parent's marriage certificate isn't as big a problem as for the 1887 marriage, for me anyway, because their daughter's birth certificate confirms where John Hyatt was born and there is only one John Hyatt born in Enfield at the correct time so I know who he was - namely the brother of my 2xGGrandmother.
http://www.whitepages.com.au/business-listing/uniting-church-in-australia-926089/raymond-terrace-nsw
Uniting Church in Australia's NSW archives office :
https://assembly.uca.org.au/resources/historical-reference-committee-and-archives
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11479459?selectedversion=NBD27565072
Cheers, JM
Thanks JM, I'll have a look. Was obviously entering the wrong search words into Google. :-X
-
Directly from NSW BDM's own website
http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/family-history/registry-records.aspx
"...
The task of reconciling the Early Church Records and amending the marriage registrations was never finalised. The Registry's records from these years are not complete and it can be worthwhile for genealogists to contact the relevant church to find details missing from a marriage certificate "
Cheers, JM
-
Thanks JM, I'll try contacting them but it'll very much depend on whether they'll check Emma's parent's names for free or whether they require a fee, since the latter is a bit impossible from the UK. With a bit of luck if I word it in a particular way and they confirm the details, it'll be obvious that they have checked the original and not just agreed with me (I'm a bit cynical about getting things checked for free, but that's 'cos over here the CofE and many non-denominational cemeteries do like to charge for everything. ;)
-
Thanks JM, I'll try contacting them but it'll very much depend on whether they'll check Emma's parent's names for free or whether they require a fee, since the latter is a bit impossible from the UK. With a bit of luck if I word it in a particular way and they confirm the details, it'll be obvious that they have checked the original and not just agreed with me (I'm a bit cynical about getting things checked for free, but that's 'cos over here the CofE and many non-denominational cemeteries do like to charge for everything. ;)
Well, as I understand it, in NSW, Church Records are just that, Church Records. They are not automatically Public Records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Church Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep and preservation of their organisation's private records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Official Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep of their records either ..... so NSW BDM collects fees/charges for providing copy of their historic BDM records, NSW State Records collects fees/charges for providing copy of their archival records .... Family History Groups of volunteers have fees and charges for the services they provide in searching their archival materials ....
I don't see the impossibility of a fee being remitted from the U.K. You could of course undertake to make a donation in the UK to your local Uniting Church if you are concerned about exchange rates. :)
:) As an aside, do please send the Uniting Church Archivist in NSW a copy of the document you currently hold, as it may well have minor clues to help them locate their original register.
Cheers, JM
-
Hi Sue, I'd like "kill off" Emma Birch, meaning it would be nice to find out what happened to her after the births of her two children. She and John Hyatt would appear to possibly have parted company at some point, or that's my interpretation of the newspaper ad from 1877. Mind you its just possible she died young, along with son John, and the deaths were registered, at which point John hooked up with his brother after his brother's wife died in 1882.
If you find it difficult to follow JM's suggestions, then I feel you should explore the pathway of researching the BIRCH family, even if you do not see it as part of your agenda.
There were siblings for the Emma I have located (Parents James and Ann BIRCH/BURCH)
Sarah possibly married a Bernard DEVINE and a man of that name died in Binalong.
Death notices etc often contain family information and I would be seeking as much information as possible to connect your Sarah to this family (or not)
Sue
-
I agree Sue with your suggestion if it is too difficult to chase up the elusive blanks on that marriage cert .....
Re Bernard DEVINE ....
NSW ER 1870 YASS PLAINS
Bernard DEVINE, freehold, Blakeney Creek
William DEVINE, freehold, Blakeney Creek
William DEVINE, residence, Oolong Creek
Cheers, JM
-
Well, as I understand it, in NSW, Church Records are just that, Church Records. They are not automatically Public Records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Church Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep and preservation of their organisation's private records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Official Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep of their records either ..... so NSW BDM collects fees/charges for providing copy of their historic BDM records, NSW State Records collects fees/charges for providing copy of their archival records .... Family History Groups of volunteers have fees and charges for the services they provide in searching their archival materials ....
I don't see the impossibility of a fee being remitted from the U.K. You could of course undertake to make a donation in the UK to your local Uniting Church if you are concerned about exchange rates. :)
OK I've taken several deep breaths after reading this reply because to say I was insensed by it would be an understatement.
Just because someone says they hope that there wouldn't be a charge for checking already known information, does not mean that individual expects everything for free and wouldn't dream of paying out for things.
Sorry JM, but considering there are no money orders available for purchase in the UK to send to Australia and its not possible to easily obtain a cheque drawn in a foreign currency (it may in fact not be possible anyway) on a UK bank other than possibly at considerable cost, I shall not be pursuing confirming the missing blanks on that certificate on what is a distant sideline. If it had been a direct ancestor, I would have not thought twice about doing that, but if the descendants of the individuals concerned appear to have not bothered trying to confirm the detaiils (and nothing on their tree suggests they have even though the live in Australia), I really do not see why I should should have to pay out further to confirm what is a sideline and therefore doesn't affect my own directline research. I already have purchased from NSW several copy certificates and certificate transcripts on this particular line and I'm afraid I have no intention of spending any more of limited funds when that money would be better spent confirming my own directline research.
And yes I suppose I could provide a donation to a UK based United Reform Church, but that is something that my grandparents did for many years as both were elders in their local church. However, I suspect that the URC in Australia if they expected a donation, would prefer it was given to them and not a local church in the UK.
While I appreciate that unlike in the UK, Trove provides free access to your historic newspapers, and some other records are available for free on Archives websites, the vast majority of Australian records are far more expensive to obtain copies of, even with what is currently a favourable exchange rate, than their UK equivalents and it doesn't help that so many Australian organisations have not yet bothered to provide online facilities for payment. If they did, then those of us overseas may make more use of their services looking at sidelines.
I may at some point follow Sue's suggestion of following Emma Birch's siblings to see if any confirmation can be found without requiring any excessive expenditure. But after 17 years of research and a fairly substantial amount of expenditure (which I was and still am happy to do as I enjoy the hobby), my priorities still remain in researching my own directline brickwalls and not spending an inderterminate amount on sidelines overseas. While I am happy to spend some and enjoy following them forward, it is not, and I shouldn't be criticised for saying so, a priority. Considering people who descend from such lines appear to be reluctant to spend money in their own country researching these and other lines, its not up to me to confirm these things. While I would like to, I shall leave them with a "maybe" comment.
Thanks to all for your help but I think I shall leave it there.
-
Perhaps you may be interested in reading the late Nick Vine Hall’s books “Tracing Your Family History in Australia” and "Tracing your Family History in Australia – Bibliography”
ISBN 1 86404 384 9 and ISBN 1 86484 385 7 or there's ISBN-10 1764040718 and ISBN-13 978-186494715
Also, there’s his CD Parish Registers in Australia 1787 – 1990 ISBN 186404 398 8
http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/lifetime-interest-in-genealogy-was-sparked-by-a-family-link-tojames-cook/2006/11/13/1163266477542.html?page=fullpage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Vine_Hall
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/research-topics/family-history/how-to-start-your-family-history NSW State Records lists the book among their suggested Finding Aids.
http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs200.aspx National Archives lists the book in their fact sheet as well.
Good Luck with your ongoing family history research.
Cheers, JM
-
I am in NSW Australia, and if I were to remit funds to the UK perhaps I would contact our Society of Australian Genealogists…… Perhaps there’s a similar / reciprocal arrangement for remitting funds to Australia… “and to our sterling cheque service (an economical way to send small amounts of money to the UK)”
http://www.sag.org.au/joining/benefits-of-membership.html
http://www.sag.org.au/helping-you/sterling-cheques.html
I can confirm that the Uniting Church in Australia does have facilities for electronic deposits to be made directly into their bank accounts. I am not sure if their archives office at North Parramatta has a separate sub-account specifically for ‘look ups’ but I leave it up to our OP to follow up as I notice the thread has been marked with a green tick, ready to be moved across to the completed board.
Add
http://www.sag.org.au/helping-you/research-guides.html?task=view&id=48
Joint Copy Project
The early church registrations now held by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages are not the originals, but are returns sent to it at a later date. Because of the risks of mistake or omission in the copying process, the original church registers are always worth checking. These registers remain with the relevant church authorities, and for more than 25 years SAG has been working with the National Library of Australia and the Mitchell Library to microfilm them and make them available to researchers at these three repositories.
Most inner-Sydney churches have been filmed, as have all registers of the Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn. Many Roman Catholic and Presbyterian registers have also been microfilmed. A cut-off date of about 1940 has been applied to many of these registers for privacy reasons.
Advantages of church registers
......... researchers should always locate any relevant church registers event to ensure information recorded at the time has not been omitted from or incorrectly transcribed to the civil records.
Whether you order bdm certificates from NSW BDM or from NSW BDM Official Transcription Agents, you are ordering copy of the NSW BDM registrations. If the BDM ceremony was conducted by a member of the clergy, then the original registration will be in the Church registry. NSW church marriages from 1 March 1856 were basically two ceremonies being conducted concurrently by the one person ----the civil ceremony and the church ceremony. Until about 1895 the NSW BDM's Registrar General in Sydney was usually receiving only the summary report of the civil ceremony from the clergy. If the ceremony was conducted by a civil registrar, then there's obviously no reason to seek out a Church registration, but most 19th century NSW marriages were conducted by clergy, and from March 1856 those clergy needed to be licenced by NSW BDM to conduct the civil requirements and not just the ecclesiastical requirements of their own denomination.
Cheers, JM
-
Hi Nicola,
This is another link to the Archives http://www.utc.edu.au/campus/synod-archives/
It says you can do your own research (at limited times). It is not too far from me so I could try pottering around but it may not be until the New Year (pretty busy at the moment).
Give me a nudge (and perhaps send me the MC) to remind me to have a look in early January if still searching.
cheers,
Ros
(JM didn't mean to offend - she was leaping to the defence of her many rellies in the church)
-
Hi Sue, I'd like "kill off" Emma Birch, meaning it would be nice to find out what happened to her after the births of her two children. She and John Hyatt would appear to possibly have parted company at some point, or that's my interpretation of the newspaper ad from 1877. Mind you its just possible she died young, along with son John, and the deaths were registered, at which point John hooked up with his brother after his brother's wife died in 1882.
She may have left John and befriended another chap and assumed his name without marriage.
I cannot find any further reference to her :-\
The newspaper advertisement could be interpreted as you say, but sometimes people just lost track of each other and such notices were placed at the time of serious illness or death in the family.
We have no way of knowing whether or not she responded or replied :P
Sue
-
With all these Spruce and Birch it is a real family tree. The offspring may be like a forest. ;D
I am going to see if I can find the original registers at Raymond Terrace, lets hope they contain the missing parents names.
Neil
-
Just a possibility for the death of Emma HYATT
EMMA HEAD AGE 40 YEARS DIED SYDNEY PATRICKS PLAIN 9363/1876
Patricks Plains is Singleton area of Hunter Valley halfway between Murrurundi and Raymond Terrace.
If she died alone the name could be completely wrong, the other missing info like parents names leads me to believe she wasn't known to the informant.
Neil
-
With all these Spruce and Birch it is a real family tree. The offspring may be like a forest. ;D
;D ;D
I am going to see if I can find the original registers at Raymond Terrace, lets hope they contain the missing parents names.
Neil
Thanks Neil, its much appreciated. The two Hyatt brothers who emigrated to Australia and their descendants have been causing me headaches for years. :-\
-
Just a possibility for the death of Emma HYATT
EMMA HEAD AGE 40 YEARS DIED SYDNEY PATRICKS PLAIN 9363/1876
Patricks Plains is Singleton area of Hunter Valley halfway between Murrurundi and Raymond Terrace.
If she died alone the name could be completely wrong, the other missing info like parents names leads me to believe she wasn't known to the informant.
Neil
Interesting, its a possiblity as the surname does get written with some strange variations.
She may have left John and befriended another chap and assumed his name without marriage.
I cannot find any further reference to her :-\
The newspaper advertisement could be interpreted as you say, but sometimes people just lost track of each other and such notices were placed at the time of serious illness or death in the family.
We have no way of knowing whether or not she responded or replied :P
Sue
Sue, that is what I suspect may have happened. Unfortunately I've not been able to pickup any births with an Emma Birch/Burch as the mother but doesn't mean anything. As with many of the wider Hyatt family spouses, it wouldn't be out of character in the UK or Australia. ;)
-
Hi Nicola,
This is another link to the Archives http://www.utc.edu.au/campus/synod-archives/
It says you can do your own research (at limited times). It is not too far from me so I could try pottering around but it may not be until the New Year (pretty busy at the moment).
Give me a nudge (and perhaps send me the MC) to remind me to have a look in early January if still searching.
cheers,
Ros
(JM didn't mean to offend - she was leaping to the defence of her many rellies in the church)
Thanks Ros, Neil Todd had Pm'd me to say, as he does visit RT, he would see what he could do. However, I do very much appreciate the offer. :)
-
Thanks JM, I'll try contacting them but it'll very much depend on whether they'll check Emma's parent's names for free or whether they require a fee, since the latter is a bit impossible from the UK. With a bit of luck if I word it in a particular way and they confirm the details, it'll be obvious that they have checked the original and not just agreed with me (I'm a bit cynical about getting things checked for free, but that's 'cos over here the CofE and many non-denominational cemeteries do like to charge for everything. ;)
and my response
Well, as I understand it, in NSW, Church Records are just that, Church Records. They are not automatically Public Records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Church Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep and preservation of their organisation's private records. I see nothing wrong in today's custodians of Official Records expecting to collect funds for the upkeep of their records either ..... so NSW BDM collects fees/charges for providing copy of their historic BDM records, NSW State Records collects fees/charges for providing copy of their archival records .... Family History Groups of volunteers have fees and charges for the services they provide in searching their archival materials ....
and
....OK I've taken several deep breaths after reading this reply because to say I was insensed by it would be an understatement.
Just because someone says they hope that there wouldn't be a charge for checking already known information, does not mean that individual expects everything for free and wouldn't dream of paying out for things.....
and
(JM didn't mean to offend - she was leaping to the defence of her many rellies in the church)
Thanks Ros, however, I don't believe I offended, nor do I believe I was defending my many rellies, either those in various denominations or those whose careers were as NSW public servants in the NSW BDM. I am simply very NSW centric, and I believe I have a fair understanding of the processes and protocols prevailing in various eras in NSW in the 19th Century.
On one occasion that I was at the Archives at North Parramatta I was approached for a donation before I had entered the storeroom. Fortunately I had already prepared my envelope, and I also located several significant ledgers that had been thought lost. These seem to have been holding open some of the inner doors. I hope that the shelving has been strengthened, and that there is now some logical order to the various items held in those Archives.
Cheers, JM
-
Now I may ruffle a few local feathers and cause some laughter among others in Port Stephens area BUT.
There is a well known family local to this area that have been here since day dot. Their spelling, reading and writing have somewhat been in question since that time. If one of them had had a daughter around 1845 reference # 2230/1846 V18462230 32A and her name was EMMA then her surname could have been written transcribed or even spelt wrong into many different variations. The BLANCH family had just such a daughter.
Now most of the children did not attend school regularly in this area the local schools were a bit far flung and arduous in the least to get to but some of the BLANCHE/BLANCH childrens name have been inscribed on the roles. If she received an education which I doubt, she may have known how to spell Blanch but she may have written BIRCH instead......maybe.
:-\
Neil
JM do you know where that reference number of the baptism is located?? :P
-
Thanks Ros, however, I don't believe I offended, nor do I believe I was defending my many rellies, either those in various denominations or those whose careers were as NSW public servants in the NSW BDM. I am simply very NSW centric, and I believe I have a fair understanding of the processes and protocols prevailing in various eras in NSW in the 19th Century.
Cheers, JM
I read nothing offensive in the helpful suggestions either and indeed, when it comes to NSW history geography, and "processes" JM is our expert. :)
Sue
-
JM do you know where that reference number of the baptism is located?? :P
1846 is the year, often the year of the baptism, but if the date of birth was also noted on the Early Church Record, then it can be the year of birth.
2230 is the line number in that Early Church Record
V32A is the Volume number.
The Early Church Records were not always bound up into volumes. The NSW BDM website has some history background at its live link at the bottom left of its home page : http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/about-us/history-of-the-registry.aspx
Re Volume 32A :
My CDs gave up years ago, shortly after I gave my reader away to a family history group, so I cannot give exact parish for that reference.
There are RChatters around who can :) I can confirm that it is C of E, as at NSW State Records online
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-4/short-guide-4
and
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-4/volumes-1-123-1/volumes-1-123
Some call centre operators may not have detailed answers as sometimes I have become aware of explanations re the "V" .... "V" as in "Vital" rather than "V" as in Volume.
My trusty reference book is currently on loan to my sister in central Australia.
Cheers, JM
-
This is another link to the Archives http://www.utc.edu.au/campus/synod-archives/
Hi Ros,
That is a good link. I notice that they note that they have a fee schedule now....
Fees: The fee schedule is available on request. There are concessions for members of the UCHS.
http://nswact.uca.org.au/community/uniting-church-historical-society/
Cheers, JM
-
Now I may ruffle a few local feathers and cause some laughter among others in Port Stephens area BUT. There is a well known family local to this area that have been here since day dot. Their spelling, reading and writing have somewhat been in question since that time. If one of them had had a daughter around 1845 reference # 2230/1846 V18462230 32A and her name was EMMA then her surname could have been written transcribed or even spelt wrong into many different variations. The BLANCH family had just such a daughter :-\ Neil
JM do you know where that reference number of the baptism is located?? :P
JM do you know where that reference number of the baptism is located?? :P
My CDs gave up years ago, shortly after I gave my reader away to a family history group, so I cannot give exact parish for that reference.
There are RChatters around who can :) Cheers, JM
Baptism:
Emma BLANCH 1846 #V18462230 32A
Father: Thomas
Mother: Hanna
Parish: Australian Agricultural Company; Dungog; Eldon; Stroud; Uffington, Church of England
-
Thanks Merlin,
That makes good sense :) AA Co ....
Cheers, JM
-
Thanks Merlin well at least THAT Emma BLANCH was in the right area for a wedding at Raymond Terrace.
Neil
PS
Had to drive to Raymond Terrace anyway today but the place was deserted, will give them a call.
-
I just made contact with the Uniting Church at Raymond Terrace and as JM suspected the registers were sent away for proper storage. So they are most likely in Sydney.
Neil
-
JM gave such an interesting account of the old archives that I was even more tempted to visit them.
I must admit that I would prefer to potter around the old archives ... dusty old tomes propping up doors. ;D However it seems that they have upgraded and modernised the archives so I suspect I will be fighting with microfilms and old microfilm readers ... ?
Well who knows ...? :D
It's all part of the experience of uncovering our history.
I am appropriately chastened - sorry to have presumed to explain on your behalf JM... (you know I love and admire you)
cheers,
Ros
-
:) I love these Santas .....
This one best :P :P
no no no I am mistooken ....
this one best :D :D :D
or ::) ::) ::)
I cannot make up my mind so probably I should settle for this one :-\ :-\ :-\
Anyway, I do hope so Ros, (that the facilities have improved) although they do have funding issues.... so be prepared .... and from memory Kingswood 'canteen' facilities are 5 star in comparison , so continue to take packed lunch, and a thermos.... and perhaps a fold up chair.... and make sure you have their fee schedule sorted ..... ;) ;) ;)
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Cheers, JM
-
I once told one of the local BLANCH mob, that they were always in Hot Water, it came as a shock to pour cold water on the idea. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:D :D
-
I just made contact with the Uniting Church at Raymond Terrace and as JM suspected the registers were sent away for proper storage. So they are most likely in Sydney.
Neil
Many thanks for checking for me Neil, much apprecated. Oh well, I shall have to see if I can prove she is one and the same as Emma Maria Hyatt via some other way.
-
I think Ros, our very experienced Archive visitor, is going to try and get through the NEW archives in the New Year?
Neil
-
Yes I will.
-
Thanks Ros, its much appreciated. :)
-
At the new address :) still at North Parramatta, but off the other side of Pennant Hills Road ....
The bulk of the records of the Synod (and its predecessor denominations) for Synod, presbytery and local churches, as well as baptismal and marriage registers, maps and plans, are in storage but will be available for retrieval at a fee and with sufficient notice
http://www.utc.edu.au/campus/synod-archives/
Cheers, JM
-
The bulk of the records of the Synod (and its predecessor denominations) for Synod, presbytery and local churches, as well as baptismal and marriage registers, maps and plans, are in storage but will be available for retrieval at a fee and with sufficient notice
Yes I will.
Ros don't worry about it, its not worth any expenditure as it is, for me, only a sideline. I'm not in a position to be able to cover anything spent on my behalf.
If the fees charged are anything like the parochial fees charged by the Church of England for access to registers still held by incumbants, then they are, in mine and other people's views, somewhat high at £28 for up to an hour.
Before I'm possibly criticised for apparently expecting something to be looked up for free, although they are not public records the vast majority of England & Wales church records of any denomination are held by county or city records offices who do not charge fees for access, only for copies. So if someone is visiting an archives for their own research and can do a quick lookup, then the only cost to them is their time. Many Archives also, and I have been a recipient of this in the past, do a quick lookup for people where something needs to be clarified. Normally something that takes up to 15 minutes maximum, after which fees would be required when the requester isn't onsite. This is why in the circumstances a fee would not be expected to be paid when trying to clarify something in an individual church register where most, if not all, the information is already known because it wouldn't be considered as "research".
I appreciate things are different in Australia, but have to admit I hadn't realised entirely how different in relation to access to historical church registers. I certainly wasn't looking out for a church register lookup when I started this post and, in the circumstances, I don't want anyone having to put themselves out financially for something that is, for me at least, not essential to my own directline research.
Thanks Ros for offering, but please don't worry. I shall have to try and find something else to try and clarify the missing information.
I'm grateful to all for their help and advice, but I don't want to put anyone out any further.
-
NLA has some registers from the Presbyterian church in Raymond Terrace but unfortunately only for mid 20th century.
I can't remember if this has already been suggested but perhaps an approach to the Raymond Terrace Historical Society might be worth a try, although I would think it unlikely as has already been pointed out, the registers seem long gone from the town. :-\
http://www.sketchleycottage.org.au/
Judith
-
Link to RT Historical Society.
http://www.sketchleycottage.org.au/research.html
I will attempt a visit when I can, probably in the New Year.
Neil
-
Thanks Judith for the suggestion and Neil for your kind offer, its much appreciated. There's no hurry this line has been mulling along for some years. :)
-
I emailed the Raymond Terrace Historical society research section today and asked for clarification on their holdings of early church records.
I may get an answer next week sometime.
Neil
-
Thanks Neil. :)
-
After contact with RT Historical Society and getting many new unrelated facts, we are no further along with the parentage of Emily/Emma HYATT/HYETT.
So it looks like a lookup of the now in storage old Wesleyan Church Records, just to refresh.
Marriage 1887 Wesleyan Church Raymond Terrace NSW between Herbert SPRUCE and Emily/Emma HYATT/HYETT.
Neil
-
Thanks again Neil for all your help.
To be honest I'm inclined to leave trying to access the original marriage register and see whether anything else can be found to totally confirm that Emma/Emily Hyett was Emma Maria Hyatt, particularly as she is listed with Maria as a middle name on some of her children's birth certificates. Apart from the fact I suspect the Uniting Church fees may be higher than I'd want to cover the cost for, its also possible that she may not even have known what her mother's name actually was depending on when Emma Birch left the family. If she was very young, and to date I can't find anything to indicate when other than that newspaper advert from 1877 but it doesn't mention any of the children or her husband, then she may not have known for definate and left off the information.
I think for now I'm just going to follow the family, and some of the other Hyatt cousins who emigrated, and see whether anything shows up to completely confirm the connection. Albeit I think now it is very likely they are one and the same.
Thanks to all for their help and guidance.
Nicola
-
..... its also possible that she may not even have known what her mother's name actually was depending on when Emma Birch left the family. If she was very young, and to date I can't find anything to indicate when other than that newspaper advert from 1877 but it doesn't mention any of the children or her husband, then she may not have known for definate and left off the information.
.....
May I assure you that the clergy were not permitted to conduct the marriage ceremony unless they had the required information about the parents of the bride and groom, particularly if either party were not yet 21 years of age. The clergy recorded the information, but until about 1895 the clergy with-held that information from the civil registration processes. One of my elderly rellies reminds me that : If the bride or groom were not yet 21 years of age and sought to marry, but the clergy were not confident of the information being provided, then the clergy could contact the NSW BDM Registrar General's office, who in turn would contact (within their department) the Guardian of Minors.
It is important to remember that from 1 March 1856, the clergy in NSW were not just conducting the sacred ceremony of marriage, but they were conducting the civil ceremony as well. So if the NSW BDM Reg General withdrew their civil authority (licence) to marry ......
If you were to send an email to the Uniting Church Archives, asking for a quote then I would expect them to provide you with a quote.
Here's that 1877 cutting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70597934 Town and Country 6 Jan 1877….
Cheers, JM
-
I have just re-read the newspaper cutting, and I read it as
IF this should meet the eye of EMMA BYATT, maiden name Emma BURCH, last heard of at Liverpool or Breeza Plains, write to your mother, Post Office, Binalong.
So I read it as BYATT, not HYATT....
BYATT is a surname :) and of course Liverpool and Breeza Plains are still in the same location and still in the news :)
Cheers, JM
-
NSW ER 1878 LIVERPOOL PLAINS
James HYATT, residence, Tareela Station, in the Tamworth Police District.
Joseph BIRCH, residence, Werries' Creek, in the same PD
Electoral Rolls in that era were prepared by Police under the guidance/direction of the Police Magistrates, and the Police made verbal enquiries. So accents/spelling variations and similar issues need to be taken into consideration.
The 1878 Liverpool Plains electorate covered a vast geographical territory in the northwestern sector of NSW, covering much of three separate Police Districts.
In the 19th Century each NSW government department had their own way of interpreting their 'districts' ... so what was a district at NSW BDM is not the same as say a Pastoral District or a Land Board district or a Police district or an Electorate.
ADD
There's a death that is indexed at NSW BDM as Emma SPRUCE, with father as John, no mention of Emma’s mum. The death was registered in the Newcastle District in 1907. The Ref no. is 14745. If this is your Emma, then perhaps you need to search for her as Emily in the 1900s as well….
NSW ER 1903 HUNTER, polling at Raymond Terrace
Emily SPRUCE, of Raymond Terrace, domestic duties
Herbert SPRUCE, of Raymond Terrace, stockman
Cheers, JM
-
Oh, smudwhisk - many of us are very intrigued by your tantalising puzzle.
Hmmm - careful reading by JM which could just be correct!
There are some relevant mentions on TROVE,
Herbert SPRUCE, 63, (thus b abt 1863/4) was drowned in February 1927, when he was described as a widower with a grown-up family.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/125140070
The NSW index no for this death is 4651/1927 and his age is given there as 62. There are no parents listed in the index.
This article gives the name of the sons of Herbert and Emily SPRUCE: Raymond and William (more children listed in the article below). It also states that Herbert had lived in the area for more than 35 years.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/163409771
William's birth index entry:
NSW 29549/1890 registered at Raymond Terrace
William H SPRUCE, parents: HERBERT EMILY
This article is from the local Raymond Terrace newspaper and gives a list of his children, and states that he had been in the area for abut 30 years, having come from England where he had "some wealthy connections" The funeral was at Raymond Terrace. Unfortunately, according to austcemindex there does not seem to be a headstone. (I could not see a grave there for Emily/Emma either, nor is she listed at Sandgate cemetery which is nearer to Newcastle where the death was registered; not at Wallsend either)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/133107747
Judith
-
Yes, it is a mystery.
May I also note that the NSW BDM online index does NOT have the 1887 Raymond Terrace marriage as SPRUCE=HYATT but rather it has it as SPRUCE=HYETT.
So the index reads
4906/1887
SPRUCE, Herbert
HYETT, Emma
Raymond Terrace.
And, the PDF of that cert is readily Available. :) (Perhaps there's been a recent purchase under the new pdf system introduced in the past 18 months or so .... perhaps there's another family history buff interested in this family :) )
I also checked using the reference no. only option, there's only the one index entry for that marriage.
If I get a spare moment in the next day or so, I will re-visit my offline NSW resources and concentrate on HYETT, I am sure I looked through all the "H" surnames and the "B" surnames and the "S" surnames each time, but I will double check.
I think John HYETT was aged 19, and arrived 1858 on the GrandTrianon, as per NSW State Records Index, and image from the passenger list.
http://srwww.records.nsw.gov.au/ebook/list.asp?Page=NRS5316/4_4795/Grand%20Trianon_20%20Aug%201858/4_479500153.jpg&No=12
While the spelling variations can be insignificant, it seems that Emma and her likely father have both been recorded in official NSW records as HYETT, so across two generations. As the NSW BDM 1887 marriage registration seems to have missed out on being reconciled, the actual registration held by NSW BDM is likely to be written in the clergyman's hand, so Emma's signature would not likely be there. Perhaps though Emma Spruce was informant for some birth registrations of her children. If so, it may be sensible to check how her maiden name was noted on those registrations.....
Cheers, JM
-
There is a public submitted tree that includes the NSW BDM mc 2 Nov 1887. It is issued by NSW BDM and is very typical of those rural certificates that have not ever been subjected to even the first step of an official reconciliation..... so it is full of those elusive blanks. It was issued in 2013.
Here's a snip, that's a bit hard to decipher. Seems Herbert was not old enough to give his own consent. No mention at all as to Emma HYETT's age, so she gave to the Clerby that she was at least 21 years of age, and perhaps years older.
Cheers, JM
-
To me, that section of the mc reads:
The consent of Chas Robert MIDDLETON P Magistrate Raymond Terrace was given for the Marriage of Herbert SPRUCE with Emma HYETT, the said Herbert SPRUCE being under the age of twenty one years. Thos A Stanton, Minister.
I am not as certain of the Rev’d name, but I believe that Chas Robert MIDDLETON was the Police Magistrate at Raymond Terrace in the 1880s. I also believe that he was the District Registrar of Births, Deaths, Marriages, and the Guardian of Minors, and his full name was likely to be Charles Robert MIDDLETON. It is likely that he satisfied himself that Emma HYETT was 21 years of age or more when he was considering giving consent to Herbert's marriage. (District Registrars were authorised to conduct civil marriages, he would be well aware of the regulations and the penalties for wrongly marrying a couple).
Cheers, JM
-
May I assure you that the clergy were not permitted to conduct the marriage ceremony unless they had the required information about the parents of the bride and groom, particularly if either party were not yet 21 years of age.
Am I correct in reading this that if either party didn't actually know for certain the names of both parents, they would not be allowed to marry?
All evidence suggests that Herbert Spruce was illegitimate, if he didn't know the name of his father, would that have been a barrier to him marrying? In England & Wales that information would simply have been left blank if the information wasn't known
-
I have just re-read the newspaper cutting, and I read it as
IF this should meet the eye of EMMA BYATT, maiden name Emma BURCH, last heard of at Liverpool or Breeza Plains, write to your mother, Post Office, Binalong.
So I read it as BYATT, not HYATT....
Yes it does look like Byatt the more closely you look at it, but then Trove have misindexed a number of Byatt entries as Hyatt (as I've been submitting corrections). That said, I can't see any Emma Byatt death that would tie in other than an Emma Mead marrying a John Byatt. The Emma Byatt death ties in with an Emma Mead born to a Lewis and Charlotte.
As you have said yourself, what was written was often down to what was heard (especially if someone was illiterate) so its possible that Emma Birch's mother was illiterate when placing the newspaper advert and the person taking the advert thought they heard Byatt and not Hyatt, as with Burch instead of Birch. I still think it refers to Emma Hyatt nee Birch. I can find no sign of an Emma Burch marrying a Byatt in Australia or the UK, although that said there may not have been a marriage. Its possible the 1877 notice is a red herring but it is also possible its just an error on the part of the newspaper.
-
NSW ER 1878 LIVERPOOL PLAINS
James HYATT, residence, Tareela Station, in the Tamworth Police District.
Joseph BIRCH, residence, Werries' Creek, in the same PD
Electoral Rolls in that era were prepared by Police under the guidance/direction of the Police Magistrates, and the Police made verbal enquiries. So accents/spelling variations and similar issues need to be taken into consideration.
Interesting, John Hyatt's father was James. It seems quite possible that was him, his brother Richard was residing at Uralla at the time so in the same area. They both ended together in McLeod's Creek at the time of their deaths working as miners.
-
There's a death that is indexed at NSW BDM as Emma SPRUCE, with father as John, no mention of Emma’s mum. The death was registered in the Newcastle District in 1907. The Ref no. is 14745. If this is your Emma, then perhaps you need to search for her as Emily in the 1900s as well….
No the death certificate does not include Emma's mother's name as I have purchased a copy of it from one of the transcription agents.
when she died in 1907, her death certificate lists her father as John Height and her birth place as Tamworth in 1869.
There is a public submitted tree that includes the NSW BDM mc 2 Nov 1887. It is issued by NSW BDM and is very typical of those rural certificates that have not ever been subjected to even the first step of an official reconciliation..... so it is full of those elusive blanks. It was issued in 2013.
Here's a snip, that's a bit hard to decipher. Seems Herbert was not old enough to give his own consent. No mention at all as to Emma HYETT's age, so she gave to the Clerby that she was at least 21 years of age, and perhaps years older.
From my original post:
An Emma Hyatt married Herbert Spruce at Raymond Terrace Weslyan in November 1887. The entry contains no parent's details and as far as I can see, none of the witnesses are members of the Hyatt family. However, when she died in 1907, her death certificate lists her father as John Height and her birth place as Tamworth in 1869.
I've not seen a copy dated 2013, the one viewable on an ancestry public tree is dated 2008 but was uploaded to the tree in 2013.
-
While the spelling variations can be insignificant, it seems that Emma and her likely father have both been recorded in official NSW records as HYETT, so across two generations.
Why? The John Hyett who arrived on the Grand Trianon in 1858 would appear likely to be the John Hyatt who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903. His death certificate states he had been in the colony for 45 years and the informant was his brother Richard. Similary there are several newspaper adverts/notices in 1863 from a James Burton trying to contact the John HYATT who arrived on the Grand Trianon in either 1858 or 1859. As far as I can see, only one John Hyett or Hyatt arrived at that time, although of course its possible that any other lists are just missing.
The Passenger Lists state that the John Hyett who arrived in 1858 aged 19 years was born in Middlesex. There are only two John Hyett or Hyatt's whose births were registered in Middlesex between 1838 and 1840. One is a John Hyett whose birth was registered Jun qtr 1838 in Westminster St Margaret Registration District. The other is John Hyatt whose birth was registered March qtr 1840 in Edmonton Registration District and who was baptised at Enfield St Andrew in Feb 1840. The latter is the John Hyatt who married Emma Birch (Emma Maria Hyatt's birth certificate confirms he was from Enfield) and who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903 and whose death certificate states he had been residing in New South Wales for 45 years.
I've not looked closely at what happened to the John Hyett born 1838 in Westminster, albeit that he would have been 20 in August 1858. Further research would be needed to eliminate him as the John Hyett who arrived in August 1858.
However, and I accept that John Hyatt born 1840 would only have been 18 years old and not 19 in August of 1858, there is other evidence to suggest that the Grand Trianon passenger was the Enfield John. Also travelling on the same ship was a Joshua Holland, who was John Hyatt born Enfield's first cousin. It seems likely they both emigrated together, following John's brother Richard who had arrived in the colony in May 1856 aboard the Phoebe Dunbar. Joshua's sister Sophia and brother in law Robert Haydon (who was also Joshua, John and Richard's second cousin) followed the others to New South Wales arriving in 1875.
Going back to your comment that Emma and her father John were more likely to be registered as Hyett. As you have obviously seen yourself on Emma Spruce nee Hyett's marriage certificate, she was illiterate and therefore its likely her surname was written as a literate person thought it was spelt. Herbert Spruce, who could write his name, listed her father's surname as Height on Emma's death certificate. Similarly, one of Richard Hyatt's granddaughter's surname was listed as Highatt on her marriage in 1920. And for that matter Maria Hyatt, Richard's daughter, is listed as Hiet on her marriage in 1889, her daughter Elizabeth's birth certificate in 1889 and her son Robert's birth certificate in 1896.
The same name variations appear in the records in England for the family too. I think the fact that Emma's marriage and the name on her children's birth certificates (of which the one I purchased and the one I found on ancestry both list it as Hyett) I really don't think is evidence that her birth would only be registered as Hyett.
Perhaps what is more of a mystery is why she is entered as Emily or Emily Maria on all of her children's birth registrations? Her marriage is as Emma and her death is registered as that, and hers and Herbert's death certificates confirm the birth registrations are the correct family. Even a later death certificate for one of her son's lists her as Emily. And its not just down to Herbert Spruce getting the information wrong. Herbert registered the birth of their son Herbert Harrington in 1904, he lists his wife as Emily Maria (there is a copy of that certificate on an ancestry public tree). Emma herself registered the birth of their son William Herbert in 1890 and obviously told the registrar (or whoever else registered the birth) that was her name. I have recently purchased a transcript of that certificate to see whether a different birthplace was listed for her, but, as with the 1904 certificate and her death certificate, it was listed as Tamworth.
-
I can't scan and include documents at the moment but from Raymond Terrace historical society Coronial record of death of Herbert SPRUCE his wife's name was Emily Maria HYATT he married at age 23 :o or she was, the entry is a bit ambiguous. He was born Newcastle on Tyne England and had been in NSW for 44 years at death in 1927 so entry 1883.
My reading of that is that the magistrate was to rule on Herberts age from other sources as he most likely did not have a BC with him and possibly looked quite young. His age at 1887 of 23 makes his birth year 1864. Cannot find him on any English census ??? ??? ???
Neil
RED FLAG
::) Neil
-
I am not as certain of the Rev’d name, but I believe that Chas Robert MIDDLETON was the Police Magistrate at Raymond Terrace in the 1880s. I also believe that he was the District Registrar of Births, Deaths, Marriages, and the Guardian of Minors, and his full name was likely to be Charles Robert MIDDLETON. It is likely that he satisfied himself that Emma HYETT was 21 years of age or more when he was considering giving consent to Herbert's marriage. (District Registrars were authorised to conduct civil marriages, he would be well aware of the regulations and the penalties for wrongly marrying a couple).
I accept that the certificate only suggests that Herbert was underage. However, just because the Minister or District Registrar both didn't think Emma was underage, is not conclusive evidence that she was 21 or over. It just means that she didn't say otherwise or they assumed from her appearance that she was and perhaps didn't query that. I've come across many an example in the UK or underage people marrying as if they were over the age of 21. Either deliberately to avoid the need for parental consent or simply because they weren't asked specifically and appeared to be of that age. Would there have been a restriction on them marrying if both had been minors without any parental consent? Herbert does list his wife as being 38 years old in 1907 when she died which would have made her only 18 when she got married.
The more I look at this, the less I'm inclined to think the original marriage entry held by the Uniting Church would possibly solve the mystery. Its quite likely that there could be ommissions or possibly a few untruths on it and for that reason, I'm uninclined to persue that line of research.
-
I can't scan and include documents at the moment but from Raymond Terrace historical society Coronial record of death of Herbert SPRUCE his wife's name was Emily Maria HYATT he married at age 23 :o or she was, the entry is a bit ambiguous. He was born Newcastle on Tyne England and had been in NSW for 44 years at death in 1927 so entry 1883.
My reading of that is that the magistrate was to rule on Herberts age from other sources as he most likely did not have a BC with him and possibly looked quite young. His age at 1887 of 23 makes his birth year 1864. Cannot find him on any English census ??? ??? ???
Neil
RED FLAG
::) Neil
The birth certificate for Herbert Harrington Spruce, of which his father was the informant, lists Herbert's birthplace as Norfolk, his age as 35 years and Emma's as 33 years. Similarly, the birth certificate of their son William Henry Spruce in 1890 lists his birthplace as Norfolk and his age as 23 years and Emma's as 22 years.
There is a Herbert Thomas B Spruce birth registered Jun qtr 1867 Henstead Registration District. He would appear to be the Herbert Spruce born and residing as nephew in Wreningham, Norfolk, on the 1881 Census. I've yet to find him on the 1871 Census or any later, its quite possible, in light of the information on the birth certificates that that is the correct Herbert and one or other of the family got his birthplace incorrect when giving information on his death. I think Newcastle upon Tyne is a the Red Herring.
Familysearch have an extract baptism in 1871 of a Herbert Thomas Baldwin Spruce with mother Emma. I've not yet gone to see if they have the original in amongst their online records but there is a marriage of a John Moore and a Sarah Ann Spruce in Henstead RD in 1856 which would appear to be the uncle and aunt that this Herbert Spruce is with.
I've so far not been able to trace what happened to Emma Spruce the mother but I'm wondering, but cannot prove it, whether she emigrated with her son under a different surname and perhaps settled in Raymond Terrace too and perhaps that's why her daughter in law was known as Emily so as not to get the two confused. My grandmother had an unmarried sister in law with the same first name as her, they were both differentiated by my grandmother being refered to by her maiden name by the rest of the family. Similarly she had another unmarried sister in law named Ivy and a brother in law's wife was also Ivy, both again obviously having the same surname. The brother in law's wife was refered to with her maiden name by the rest of the siblings to differentiate who was who in a conversation.
Just to Add the Register of Coroner's Inquests is viewable on ancestry, it has the same information that was contained on the death certificate and was probably the source of that information as the informant isn't one of the family.
-
To add to my pervious comment about the birthplace on Herbert's death certificate being a Red Herring, its therefore follows that Emma's age could also be on her death certificate but then it was her husband who was the informant and neither was that elderly at the time so you would have hoped he would have known.
-
Just to Add the Register of Coroner's Inquests is viewable on ancestry, it has the same information that was contained on the death certificate and was probably the source of that information as the informant isn't one of the family.
[/quote]
Well probably no need to forward on any of the other documents from RT Historical Society as it is all most likely on ancestry anyway.
Neil
-
May I assure you that the clergy were not permitted to conduct the marriage ceremony unless they had the required information about the parents of the bride and groom, particularly if either party were not yet 21 years of age.
Am I correct in reading this that if either party didn't actually know for certain the names of both parents, they would not be allowed to marry?
All evidence suggests that Herbert Spruce was illegitimate, if he didn't know the name of his father, would that have been a barrier to him marrying? In England & Wales that information would simply have been left blank if the information wasn't known
The Police Magistrate gave consent for Herbert to marry, therefore whether Herbert knew the name of his father or not was NO barrier to him marrying. It is important to recognise that in New South Wales that from 1823 (Chief Justice Forbes of the NSW Supreme Court), an English statute law was without effect unless it specifically stated that it was to operate in New South Wales. So English Marriage Law was not effective in NSW.
The bride being 21 years or more was able to give her own consent to her own marriage. Because Herbert was not yet 21 years, he required someone else to be his 'voice'. Whether his father was known to him nor not, it is obvious that neither his mother nor father provided that consent, and that he had relied on the Police Magistrate to provide that consent. This particular Police Magistrate, Charles Robert MIDDLETON was also the then Clerk of Petty Sessions at Raymond Terrace, and also the Births Deaths and Marriages Registrar at the Raymond Terrace Court House. He was also the son of a Church of England Minister. I am quite sure that he took his responsibilities seriously, and would not have allowed Herbert to marry Emma if there was any doubt as to Emma's underage status, or any question of consanguinity, or if Emma had entered into a prior marriage.
Cheers, JM
-
How has it been established that the John HYETT who arrived 1858 is Emma's Dad .... Is this based on the given name of her father as per her dc? John is perhaps the most popular of given names in NSW 19th Century official records.
There were many ways that people entered New South Wales, and not all arrived from Britain. In the 1850s and 1860s with Gold Fever there were arrivals from many foreign ports, not just from British ports. California is a good example. Each of the colonies were separate jurisdictions (and as states they still are), and so it was possible for a person to disembark at Melbourne and then make their way overland to the Colony of South Australia or New South Wales in the 1850s. Queensland was hived off NSW in 1859. Passenger lists for Coastal trading vessels can be harder to find, and have less details anyways. And of course, Inter-colonial trading must include movements between New Zealand ports and the eastern seaboard boards of Qld, NSW, Vic and Tas. So just because there's only one apparent candidate for Emma's dad (John HYETT, arriving 1858) does not mean that the John HYETT, brother of Richard HYETT,) was a relative of Emma's.
Cheers, JM
-
John Hyatt senior died at McLeod's Creek nee Drake in 1903 with his brother Richard the informant on his death certificate. Richard listed his brother as being single with no children. John may have been up at McLeod's Creek in 1901 when his brother Richard is listed on the Census as residing there with one other adult male. They appear to have both been mining in the area according to both death certificates
and
While the spelling variations can be insignificant, it seems that Emma and her likely father have both been recorded in official NSW records as HYETT, so across two generations.
Why? The John Hyett who arrived on the Grand Trianon in 1858 would appear likely to be the John Hyatt who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903. His death certificate states he had been in the colony for 45 years and the informant was his brother Richard. Similary there are several newspaper adverts/notices in 1863 from a James Burton trying to contact the John HYATT who arrived on the Grand Trianon in either 1858 or 1859. As far as I can see, only one John Hyett or Hyatt arrived at that time, although of course its possible that any other lists are just missing.
The Passenger Lists state that the John Hyett who arrived in 1858 aged 19 years was born in Middlesex. There are only two John Hyett or Hyatt's whose births were registered in Middlesex between 1838 and 1840. One is a John Hyett whose birth was registered Jun qtr 1838 in Westminster St Margaret Registration District. The other is John Hyatt whose birth was registered March qtr 1840 in Edmonton Registration District and who was baptised at Enfield St Andrew in Feb 1840. The latter is the John Hyatt who married Emma Birch (Emma Maria Hyatt's birth certificate confirms he was from Enfield) and who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903 and whose death certificate states he had been residing in New South Wales for 45 years. ......
Can you please type up all the information on Emma Maria HYATT's NSW birth cert. I should mention that there's Enfield in NSW, and it is a suburb of Sydney. The Post Office was established there in 1853, and that would be a good indicator of officialdom recognising the area by that name.
Add
See my reply #73 re the 1901 Census, as I do not see "Richard" recorded there.
Cheers, JM
-
NSW ER 1878 LIVERPOOL PLAINS
James HYATT, residence, Tareela Station, in the Tamworth Police District.
Joseph BIRCH, residence, Werries' Creek, in the same PD
Electoral Rolls in that era were prepared by Police under the guidance/direction of the Police Magistrates, and the Police made verbal enquiries. So accents/spelling variations and similar issues need to be taken into consideration.
The 1878 Liverpool Plains electorate covered a vast geographical territory in the northwestern sector of NSW, covering much of three separate Police Districts.
In the 19th Century each NSW government department had their own way of interpreting their 'districts' ... so what was a district at NSW BDM is not the same as say a Pastoral District or a Land Board district or a Police district or an Electorate. ......
It seems likely there was more than one James HYATT in NSW in the 1870s….
NSW ER 1878 PADDINGTON
James HYATT, household, Pitt Street, Waterloo
Cheers, JM
-
The NSW State Records Office has a partnership arrangement with Ancestry. The 1901 Household Returns for 1901 Census are available as images there.
In the County of Clive, in Census District no. 70, Tenterfield, in the Sub District of E Wunglebung, in the Locality of McLEODS CREEK,
Name of Householder: R. HYATT (it does NOT record the given name for this householder, although other householders have their given names recorded).
Total number of persons 2 M (two Males, none are marked as either Chinese or Aborigines)
Remarks Bark Hut
There was no provision for occupation, or for names of others in the household.
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-7/short-guide-7#about-this-guide This is the link to the Short Guide re the 1901 NSW Census Collectors' Books.
Cheers, JM
-
Just to Add the Register of Coroner's Inquests is viewable on ancestry, it has the same information that was contained on the death certificate and was probably the source of that information as the informant isn't one of the family.
There is something that is confuddling me still.
I have searched the images of the Register of Coroner’s Inquests from the beginning of October 1907 until end of December 1907.
I cannot find any entry giving “Tamworth” under the heading “Where Born” and I cannot find Emma’s inquest. Most likely I have missed it.
NSW BDM has her DD as 3 November 1907. The death registration should at least give burial details.
ADD
An Emma Hyatt married Herbert Spruce at Raymond Terrace Weslyan in November 1887……. when she died in 1907, her death certificate lists her father as John Height and her birth place as Tamworth in 1869.
and
the informant on her death certificate (her husband Herbert) may have got the information wrong. However, I cannot find anything that places John and Emma Hyatt at any point in Tamworth
To add to my pervious comment about the birthplace on Herbert's death certificate being a Red Herring, its therefore follows that Emma's age could also be on her death certificate but then it was her husband who was the informant and neither was that elderly at the time so you would have hoped he would have known.
Please unconfuddle me.
Cheers, JM
-
I accept that the certificate only suggests that Herbert was underage.
Smudwhisk, please don't ..... You see .....
The Police Magistrate is not suggesting that Herbert was underage. There's no suggestion. The Rev'd clearly records that The PM stated that Herbert is under 21 years. The Police Magistrate has clearly informed the Reverend that "the said Herbert SPRUCE being under the age of twenty-one years" ....
"being" is used there as a present particple of the verb TO BE .... and 21st century wording would read " Herbert SPRUCE is not yet 21 years of age" .... "being" in that sentence is constructed in a legal sense. There is no suggestion, it is a positive statement, and frequently used in that sense on NSW BDM registrations. It continues to be used in that positive sense in statute law in NSW even in this century.
Cheers, JM
-
Can you please type up all the information on Emma Maria HYATT's NSW birth cert. I should mention that there's Enfield in NSW, and it is a suburb of Sydney. The Post Office was established there in 1853, and that would be a good indicator of officialdom recognising the area by that name.
There may well be an Enfield in NSW. However, Emma Maria Hyatt's birth certificate states that her father was born in "Enfield England", aged 29 years, and her mother in "Picton". I have, of course, assumed that Picton was in NSW. There is no doubt, as there is only one John Hyatt born in Enfield at that time, that he IS the John Hyatt who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903 and whose brother Richard was the informant listing his birthplace as Enfield, Middlesex, that he had resided in NSW for 45 years and listed their parents' names (albeit Richard got their mother's maiden name wrong but that is another long story).
-
The details on NSW BDM birth certificates is quite extensive.
May I ask some further questions....
Who was the informant on Emma's birth cert? On the 1873 birth certificate for Emma's younger brother, who was the informant? Does it mention his older siblings ..... if so, what is recorded there.
Cheers, JM
-
I accept that the certificate only suggests that Herbert was underage.
Smudwhisk, please don't ..... You see .....
The Police Magistrate is not suggesting that Herbert was underage. There's no suggestion.
JM, rather than leave out the subsequent sentences to quote with your post, if you had perhaps left the subsequent ones in, or, for that matter, actually read them all together, it would have made more sense. I accept it perhaps isn't written as clearly as it should, but the subsequent sentences do suggest that what you are suggesting I said was not what I was saying.
I accept that the certificate only suggests that Herbert was underage. However, just because the Minister or District Registrar both didn't think Emma was underage, is not conclusive evidence that she was 21 or over. It just means that she didn't say otherwise or they assumed from her appearance that she was and perhaps didn't query that.
My comment was that just because Herbert was the only party listed as being underage, does not, in any way, confirm that Emma was definitely over the age of 21 years. It was just that the Magistrate and Vicar obviously assumed she was or she just told them that.
Or are you telling me they had to carry around copies of their birth and, where appropriate, marriage certificates to prove their age and marital status in 1887 because frankly I would very much doubt that was a pre-requesite to getting married in those days. And in any case, how would Emma knows that's what the piece of paper said anyway since she was illiterate?
Considering I posted in reply to Neil's post that the two birth certificates of Herbert and Emma's children which I have seen suggest that the most likely candidate for his birth, although not the same as the birthplace on his death certificate, indicate he was only 20 years old and therefore quite obviously under 21 years of age.
-
The details on NSW BDM birth certificates is quite extensive.
May I ask some further questions....
Who was the informant on Emma's birth cert? On the 1873 birth certificate for Emma's younger brother, who was the informant? Does it mention his older siblings ..... if so, what is recorded there.
Cheers, JM
I do not have a copy of the Emma's brother's birth certificate and I am not intending to purchase it. I have already purchased quite a few certificates on what is a sideline and I really do not see how purchasing a copy of John T Hyatt's birth certificate is likely to shed any more light.
Unless, of course, you are hoping it will dispute the birthplace of her father?
The informant on Emma's birth certificate was her father so I'm sure he knew where he was born, especially as he appears on the 1851 Census in Enfield with his parents and siblings.
So unless the Registrar who recorded the details made a mistake and assumed he was an English immigrant when perhaps he wasn't; or the Transcription Agent who produced the Transcription for me, and has numerous years of experience, couldn't read the handwriting properly; or, for that matter, you are suggesting I can't read properly and am just assuming it says Enfield, England, perhaps you would be kind enough to actually accept that that is what it says and stop disputing everything I post please.
-
And no there are no other children mentioned, nor is there a section on the transcript for this. But as I have absolutely no intention of purchasing an original from the NSW BMD to double check, that is what I take as being correct.
-
How has it been established that the John HYETT who arrived 1858 is Emma's Dad .... Is this based on the given name of her father as per her dc? John is perhaps the most popular of given names in NSW 19th Century official records.
So just because there's only one apparent candidate for Emma's dad (John HYETT, arriving 1858) does not mean that the John HYETT, brother of Richard HYETT,) was a relative of Emma's.
Cheers, JM
I'm sorry, I thought you were suggesting that here:
I think John HYETT was aged 19, and arrived 1858 on the GrandTrianon, as per NSW State Records Index, and image from the passenger list.
http://srwww.records.nsw.gov.au/ebook/list.asp?Page=NRS5316/4_4795/Grand%20Trianon_20%20Aug%201858/4_479500153.jpg&No=12
While the spelling variations can be insignificant, it seems that Emma and her likely father have both been recorded in official NSW records as HYETT, so across two generations. As the NSW BDM 1887 marriage registration seems to have missed out on being reconciled, the actual registration held by NSW BDM is likely to be written in the clergyman's hand, so Emma's signature would not likely be there. Perhaps though Emma Spruce was informant for some birth registrations of her children. If so, it may be sensible to check how her maiden name was noted on those registrations.....
Cheers, JM
You say "I think John Hyett", not that "there was a John Hyett who arrived in 1858".
In any case, as per my previous post, John Hyatt who died in McLeod's Creek in 1903 is listed as having spent 45 years in New South Wales, putting an arrival date of 1858 or 1859. As I mentioned, previously, also aboard the Grand Trianon in August 1858 was John and Richard Hyatt's cousin Joshua Holland.
While it is not conclusive proof that the John who arrived on that ship was the one born in Enfield in 1840, it seems more likely that it was him in light of the information on his death certificate and the fact he is listed on the Passenger List as born Enfield and his cousin was on the same ship.
Granted that the age is wrong, but, then, that could just be down to who actually took the details down for the passenger list.
-
I am not disputing everything you post. I am sure you are misunderstanding my questions.
I have offered to help, and I have offline resources to help. But please accept that although I have very little knowledge of how to research 19th Century English records, I have decades of experience in researching NSW 19th Century records, and I have living elderly relatives who include a retired Minister, several retired senior officers of NSW BDM, first cousins who are retired senior officers from what is now the NSW State Records Office, and the National Archives of Australia. The questions are not posed to undermine your research but to assist in developing it.
Cheers, JM
-
And no there are no other children mentioned, nor is there a section on the transcript for this. But as I have absolutely no intention of purchasing an original from the NSW BMD to double check, that is what I take as being correct.
Perhaps it was a partial transcription. NSW BDM birth registrations includes the heading:
" Date and place of marriage - previous issue"
ADD live link to NSW BDM sample of birth certificate.
http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Documents/b1867-11928.pdf
I confirm that Official Transcription Agents record the information as per the registration.
Cheers, JM
-
No. XXX.
An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws affecting the Solemnization of Marriage .
[ 30th November, 1855]
Consent in case of minority
10. If either party to any intended Marriage not being a widower or widow shall be under the age of twenty-one years such Marriage shall not take place without production to the Minister or Registrar about to celebrate the same of the written consent of the father of such party if within the Colony or if not within the Colony then of a guardian appointed by the father or if there be no such guardian in the Colony then of the mother of such party if within the Colony or where there is no such parent or guardian in the Colony or he or she is incapable of duly consenting by reason of distance habitual intoxication or mental incapacity then the written consent of some Justice of the Peace appointed for that purpose as hereinafter mentioned Provided that such Justice shall make inquiry on oath as to the facts and circumstances of the case before giving such consent.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ma1855n30112.pdf
ADD
Penalty (on the Minister or District Registrar conducting the ceremony etc ) £500 / 5 years for marrying a minor without consent.
The P.M. would have checked out Emma.
No Police Magistrate would have wanted to be sent to gaol.
Likely he would know too many offenders.
NSW had an interesting checks and balance system in the second half of the 19th Century :)
and
Act No. 15, 1899.
An Act to consolidate the Acts relating to Marriage. [20th November, 1899].
In the case of Minors.
9. If either party to any intended marriage not being a widoweror widow is under the age of twenty-one years such marriage shall not take place without production to the minister or registrar about to celebrate the same—
(a) of the written consent of the father of such party if within New South Wales or if not within New South Wales then of a guardian appointed by the father or
(b) if there be no such guardian in New South Wales then the written consent of the mother of such party if within New South Wales or
(c) where there is no such parent or guardian in New South Wales or he or she is incapable of duly consenting by reason of distance habitual intoxication or mental incapacity then the written consent of some justice of the peace appointed for that purpose. Such justice shall make inquiry on oath as to the facts and circumstances of the case before giving his consent.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ma1899n15112.pdf
There are plenty of NSW BDM marriage registrations where it seems that the groom was under 21 years of age and NO consent is recorded on the registration. This is usually attributed to the summary nature of much of the admin process until the NSW BDM commenced the reconciliation process in 1912. But with the registration showing that the Police Magistrate has established that Herbert was not yet 21 years of age, and that he is without either parent available to provide consent, then Chas Robert MIDDLETON has obviously made inquiry on oath as to the facts and circumstances of Herbert's intention to marry Emma, and has been satisfied and thereby given consent in accordance with the law. Remember please that Chas Robert Middleton was the District Registrar of Births Deaths Marriages, and as such was licenced to conduct civil marriage ceremonies (Registry Office Marriages). He could have performed the marriage ceremony, but they chose to be married in a Church. To me that choice in itself is significant. It shows both Herbert and Emma endeavouring to be as truthful as possible. Raymond Terrace in the 1880s was not a huge township where no one knew anyone else. I do not doubt that Emma believed she was at least 21 years of age, and that the clergyman and the Police Magistrate both believed her, as did Herbert.
ADD
I accept that the certificate only suggests that Herbert was underage. However, just because the Minister or District Registrar both didn't think Emma was underage, is not conclusive evidence that she was 21 or over. It just means that she didn't say otherwise or they assumed from her appearance that she was and perhaps didn't query that.
My comment was that just because Herbert was the only party listed as being underage, does not, in any way, confirm that Emma was definitely over the age of 21 years. It was just that the Magistrate and Vicar obviously assumed she was or she just told them that.
Or are you telling me they had to carry around copies of their birth and, where appropriate, marriage certificates to prove their age and marital status in 1887 because frankly I would very much doubt that was a pre-requesite to getting married in those days. And in any case, how would Emma knows that's what the piece of paper said anyway since she was illiterate?
As an aside, just because a woman makes her mark on an official document does not mean she was not able to read or write. Was she asked to "make your mark here" or was she asked to "sign here". There's threads about this at RChat .....
Cheers, JM
-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/piao1880n9275.pdf
Public Instruction Act 1880
Required 70 days (ie 14 school weeks) attendance per year at school for children aged from 6 to 14 (inclusive).... It was secular, it was compulsory and it was free.
Perhaps Emma was more than 14 years of age in 1880, or perhaps she was not in New South Wales at that time, but if she was in NSW and if she was not yet 14, then she was to attend school for 70 days of the year. The critical task for the teachers was to teach the three Rs .... Reading, Riting, Rithmatic and in the first few years, regardless of the pupils chronological ages, those that needed to learn to read were classed together and instruction given for learning to read .....
Some of my family members attended school for half days for 140 days in that decade. But I am sure that all learnt to write, as I have trunk loads of their school work. Despite that, when marrying, many of the lasses used a mark rather than their autograph signature. Uncle Bert who is alive and very alert, and was born in Feb 1910, and who reads my threads, knows for certain that his mum could read and write from a young age. But she made her mark on the parish register when marrying, and she made her mark at the Court House when registering his birth, and she wrote letters to her parents long before she married, and she signed these with her autograph signature.
Cheers, JM
-
The birth certificate for Herbert Harrington Spruce, of which his father was the informant, lists Herbert's birthplace as Norfolk, his age as 35 years and Emma's as 33 years. Similarly, the birth certificate of their son William Henry Spruce in 1890 lists his birthplace as Norfolk and his age as 23 years and Emma's as 22 years.
There is a Herbert Thomas B Spruce birth registered Jun qtr 1867 Henstead Registration District. He would appear to be the Herbert Spruce born and residing as nephew in Wreningham, Norfolk, on the 1881 Census. I've yet to find him on the 1871 Census or any later, its quite possible, in light of the information on the birth certificates that that is the correct Herbert and one or other of the family got his birthplace incorrect when giving information on his death. I think Newcastle upon Tyne is a the Red Herring.
Familysearch have an extract baptism in 1871 of a Herbert Thomas Baldwin Spruce with mother Emma. I've not yet gone to see if they have the original in amongst their online records but there is a marriage of a John Moore and a Sarah Ann Spruce in Henstead RD in 1856 which would appear to be the uncle and aunt that this Herbert Spruce is with.
I've so far not been able to trace what happened to Emma Spruce the mother but I'm wondering, but cannot prove it, whether she emigrated with her son under a different surname and perhaps settled in Raymond Terrace too and perhaps that's why her daughter in law was known as Emily so as not to get the two confused. My grandmother had an unmarried sister in law with the same first name as her, they were both differentiated by my grandmother being refered to by her maiden name by the rest of the family. Similarly she had another unmarried sister in law named Ivy and a brother in law's wife was also Ivy, both again obviously having the same surname. The brother in law's wife was refered to with her maiden name by the rest of the siblings to differentiate who was who in a conversation.
Just to Add the Register of Coroner's Inquests is viewable on ancestry, it has the same information that was contained on the death certificate and was probably the source of that information as the informant isn't one of the family.
Re Norfolk .... does it state the colony/country ....
could it be Norfolk Is, NSW,
Re Herbert having a mum with given name as Emma .... and they emigrated under a different name and settled in Raymond Terrace ....
If so, then did she die before Herbert married Emma HYETT, or did she decline to give consent .... or was she incapacitated and not qualified to give consent....
https://familysearch.org/search/collection/location/1927080?region=Australia
And in NSW in the 19th Century, I find that Emily and Emma were often interchangable given names and in family circles were both shortened to "Em". :)
Here's some women at Raymond Terrace, alas back in 1875.
From Grevilles PO Directory 1875, Raymond Terrace
Mrs BAKER
Mrs CARPENTER
Mrs CHEERS, Dressmaker
Mrs DALYELL
Mrs John DOHERTY
Mrs GILBERT, Storekeeper
Mrs GLOVER, settler, Nelson Bay
Mrs GRANT, storekeeper
Mrs HOLDSTOCK, boardinghouse
Mrs LONG
Mrs MACKAY
Mrs McMAHON, charwoman
Mrs RENNIX, seamstress
Mrs ROSE, dairy
Mrs N RUSSELL
Mrs R RUSSELL
Miss E SNODGRASS
Mrs WILKINSON, charwoman.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QKKQ-N9W9 SPRUSE, Herbert
Cheers, JM
-
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QKKQ-N9W9 SPRUSE, Herbert
Re 1891 document
Census date was 5 April 1891 ….. If that is ‘your’ Herbert SPRUCE, then there’s 4 males and 1 female in the household. Assuming the female is ‘your’ Emma, then who are the two remaining males….
There’s Herbert, and there's their son, William H, born 16 June 1890 (#29549) … perhaps there was a male boarder and/or a male visitor or two to Herbert’s household on that evening.
Re Emma BYATT (from the 1877 newspaper cuttings) …. There’s several births for John and Emma BYATT at NSW BDM that were registered Waterloo district from 1881 to 1886 …. ….
Sands Sydney Directories has a John BYATT, carpenter in Waterloo
Here’s the link for the free to search Sands Directories….
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/search-our-collections/sands-directory
Not sure if I posted the following info earlier in this thread, if so, I apologise for duplications...
Grevilles PO Directory 1875 BINALONG (in the LACHLAN electorate)
William BIRCH, carpenter
NSW ER 1870 THE LACHLAN
James BIRCH, residence, Wombat
NSW ER 1878 THE LACHLAN
James BIRCH, residence, Wombat
To save going back through the thread, here's a live link to the cutting.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70597934 Town and Country 6 Jan 1877.
NSW ER 1870 CAMDEN
William BIRCH, residence, Town of Upper Picton in the Police District of Picton
James BIRCH, freehold, Town of Upper Picton in the Police District of Picton
John BURGH, residence, Nepean Towers, East Bargo in the Police District of Picton
Cheers, JM
-
Hi there,
From a partial official transcription of the 1906 birth for Clarence. NSW BDM #38426
Clarence George Edward, 22 October 1906, Raymond Terrace
Father as Herbert SPRUCE, labourer, England
Mother as Emily Maria HEILE, Tamworth
Informant E M SPRUCE, Mother, Raymond Terrace.
Cheers, JM
-
NSW ER 1870 THE WILLIAMS
John HILE, leaseholder, Johnson’s Creek
NSW ER 1878 THE WILLIAMS
John HILE, leaseholder, Johnson’s Creek
Boldes HILE, leaseholder, Johnson’s Creek
State Records NSW Naturalisation Index
John HILE, Germany, cert 13 Sept 1862 Reel 130
State Records NSW
Johann and Catherina HEIL on the Parland with infant arriving Sydney 1849.
NB
NSW BDM online index has Elizabeth HEILE married John GANDRON in 1876, marriage registered Dungog NSW #2501. Not to be confused with the other #2501 of that year, also registered at Dungog (indexed as Liggins=OKeeffe).
Perhaps Emma/Emily Maria HEILE is not an ancestor on Smudwhisk’s elusive HYATT line.
Cheers, JM