RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Durham => England => Durham Lookup Requests => Topic started by: billbir on Monday 11 April 16 22:24 BST (UK)
-
In the 1881 census there is a Thomas Connor and his wife Mary Isabel and their two children: Richard 2 and Margaret Ann 2 mths. I can find no marriage and therefore do not know Mary Isabel's maiden name. Thomas was born in Shadforth and Mary Isabel in Crook. Oddly, Richard was born in Wakefield. Thomas is my great grand uncle. I also cannot find any other details of this family in any later census. Any help would be much appreciated.
-
If you search the 1871 for a Mary isab** born Crook 1863+- 1yr - one of the results is surname Moore
Freebmd has a Thomas Connor marriage in Durham 1880 and one of the females is Isabella Moore
-
Hi in 1891 could Thomas Connor be aged 31 Married/Lodger with a John Connor & family at Jackson Street, Whitworth?
Census Ref RG12/4072/148/23
Keyboard86
-
If you search the 1871 for a Mary isab** born Crook 1863+- 1yr - one of the results is surname Moore
Freebmd has a Thomas Connor marriage in Durham 1880 and one of the females is Isabella Moore
Hi again, I think you will find that Richard was registered as Richard Smith Moore June qtr 1879 Wakefield 9c 49
The 1891 census John Connor aged 40 with wife Isabella and daughter Mary Jane 8 b Wheatley Hill, maybe billbir can confirm is the brother of Thomas, as tracking back it would appear so, Mary Jane Connor 18 b Wheatley Hill in 1901 is with a Jane Brown 76 Widow b Shiney Row and son James 50 b Elemore shown as Grandaughter at 6, Wylam Street, Craghead, Lanchester
Census Ref RG13/4674/10/12 Mary Jane marries a Frederick Davenport Mather in 1907 Lanchester, and unfortunately dies June qtr 1910 Lanchester 10a 185 aged 28
Keyboard86
-
Hi Carole/ Keyboard
Thank you for your excellent help. Thomas was the younger brother of John. I think what has confused me , is that the wife was "Mary Isabella" on the 1881 census, so I expected to see that name, not just Isabella.
The Jane Brown referred to by Keyboard, is the mother in law of John Connor, who was married to the daughter, Isabella. So Mary Jane Connor, was staying with her grandmother and uncle James, in 1901.
Keyboard, you have given me a bit of a bombshell, as you say 'I think you will find that Richard was registered as Richard Smith Moore June qtr 1879 Wakefield 9c 49' Why Wakefield? I guess as she was so young and the pregnancy was out of marriage, they wanted her out of the way. Then in 1880, Thomas does the right thing and marries her. I guess that he was the father, as he would not have married someone so young, who had someone else's child, but you cannot be sure, without DNA. It is a coincidence that both John and Thomas married girls of about 16.
I have got Mary Jane Connor marrying Frederick Davenport Mather, so that checks.
Thanks to both of you, for your very considerable assistance. It is much appreciated.
-
Hi Carole/Keyboard,
Just thought that I would let you know, that Richard was registered in Wakefield, as that was where Isabella's father, Christopher Robert Moore and her stepmother? Thomasine lived according to the 1881 census.
-
Hi their must be some significance in the middle name of Smith, normally a way of indicating the surname of the father, possibly?
Keyboard86
Just where did John Connor marry Isabella Brown?
-
Hi keyboard,
I hope that your theory is wrong, as it then starts to affect the Connor bloodline, as it would actually be Smith. In my experience, it is often the maiden name of say the grandmother, who wants her name to carry on. I will have to delve a little more.
You say, 'Just where did John Connor marry Isabella Brown?'
This is what I gleaned:-
Marriage- England & Wales, Free BMD Marriage Index 1837-1915
Name:
John Connor
Registration Year:
1871
Registration Quarter:
Jan-Feb-Mar
Registration district:
Auckland
Parishes for this Registration District:
View Ecclesiastical Parishes associated with this Registration District
Inferred County:
Durham
Volume:
10a
Page:
259
Records on Page:
Name
Isabella Brown
John Connor
Jane Seymour
James Walton
-
Hi again, so as to keep things tidy, Christopher Robert Moore married Thomasine Willoway September qtr 1872 Durham 10a 437
It is correct that a well loved Granny can indeed be the reason for an "Odd" middle name, but I have got to admit on the times the wonderful fellow RC's have offered advice, the possible father of the child seems to be to the fore?
Keyboard86
EDIT you should have known this, in the 1871 census for Christopher Robert Moore is a Richard SMITH Moore b 1871!
RG10/4958/27/53
And also the Richard Smith Moore b June qtr 1879 Wakefield 9c 49
-
Hi Keyboard,
On this occasion, I am glad that you are not correct. See below:
Name: Christopher Robert Moore
Registration Year: 1857
Registration Quarter: Jan-Feb-Mar
Registration district: Durham
Parishes for this Registration District: View Ecclesiastical Parishes associated with this Registration District
Inferred County: Durham
Volume: 10a
Page: 242
Records on Page:
Name
Sarah Gladden
Christopher Robert Moore
Elisabeth Smith
In the 1861 census, Christopher Robert Moore 25 was married to Elisabeth ( now we know ) Smith. So that was the reason he was named Richard Smith, after his grandmother. As you say, subsequently Christopher Robert married Thomasine Willoway, (what a great name!).
Regarding your last points, I would have known them, if I had known that Thomas had married Mary Isabel Moore, but discovering that, was the purpose of the topic. Thank you for helping me do that.
-
:) Glad the bloodlines are now stable!
So Richard Smith Moore 1879 Wakefield, where did he get to?
Keyboard86
-
:) Glad the bloodlines are now stable!
So Richard Smith Moore 1879 Wakefield?
Keyboard86
Correct!!
-
:) Glad the bloodlines are now stable!
So Richard Smith Moore 1879 Wakefield, where did he get to?
Keyboard86
Consett in 1911
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWHT-4WJ
-
:) Glad the bloodlines are now stable!
So Richard Smith Moore 1879 Wakefield, where did he get to?
Keyboard86
Consett in 1911
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWHT-4WJ
So he married a Elizabeth Ann Mullen December qtr 1908 Lanchester 10a 537
Keyboard86
-
1891 - Broomside, Durham
Anthony Holborn 27
Jane Ann Holborn 31 - b Bishop Auckland
Albert E A Holborn 6/12
Richard S Moore 12 - nephew b Wakefield
RG12, 4104, 43, 22
Anthony Holborn married Jane Ann Moore in 1890
-
Marriage was 2nd November 1890 Sacriston
Keyboard86
-
Marriage was 2nd November 1890 Sacriston
Keyboard86
Thanks.
-
Hi again. Death Richard S Moore September qtr 1959 Gateshead 1a 620 aged 80
Death Susan Moore June qtr 1950 Gateshead 1a 732 aged 64
Richard S b 16th March 1879
Susan b 14th August 1885
Marriage possible in Birkenhead but a Richard S Moore dies in Birkenhead?
Keyboard86
-
1939 suggests the Birkenhead one was b 1870
Marriages Dec 1936 Gateshead Vol 10a p1899
EMERY Matilda Leadbitter
Leadbitter Susan Moore <<<
Leadbitter Thomas L Emery
Moore Richard S Leadbitter <<<
-
1939 suggests the Birkenhead one was b 1870
Marriages Dec 1936 Gateshead Vol 10a p1899
EMERY Matilda Leadbitter
Leadbitter Susan Moore <<<
Leadbitter Thomas L Emery
Moore Richard S Leadbitter <<<
;D What an idiot, found this but for some reason chose to ignore/forget!
Thanks must have another glass of wine!!
Keyboard86
-
1939 suggests the Birkenhead one was b 1870
Marriages Dec 1936 Gateshead Vol 10a p1899
EMERY Matilda Leadbitter
Leadbitter Susan Moore <<<
Leadbitter Thomas L Emery
Moore Richard S Leadbitter <<<
Hi Mabel /keyboard
Thanks for that. I am a bit confused as to why Richard Smith Moore, did not continue to use the name Connor. Perhaps there was a family fallout?
-
:) Maybe he knew from the start he was a Moore and not a Conner?
Keyboard86
-
Have you found Mary Isabel on 1891? That might give a clue as to what is going on - and the fact he reverts to his birth name could suggest a splitting up (and again a question over his parentage)
-
:) Maybe he knew from the start he was a Moore and not a Conner?
Keyboard86
Keyboard/Mabel
I still cannot understand why Thomas would marry a very young Mum Mary Isabella and take on someone else's son. Maybe they did split up and Richard took his Mums side. I will need to look at more census details to see when he changed from Connor to Moore.
Thanks for continuing to take an interest in this topic.
-
Hi again, not many census returns to check out 1881 as Connor, 1891 Moore, 1911 Moore so 1901?
Keyboard86
-
No obvious sign in 1901, but he is of an age to be serving in the Boer War
-
No obvious sign in 1901, but he is of an age to be serving in the Boer War
Hi Mabel,
That's an interesting observation, thanks.