RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Lynne Tann-Watson on Monday 18 February 19 15:56 GMT (UK)
-
My 3xgt grandfather seemed to have had ten children. On the 1841 census, one child was called Nancy aged 15. I can find no other trace of her anywhere, though I have the baptisms of all the others. I found the baptism in 1841, of an Ann but realised that the mother would have been 57 in 1841. Then I discovered that another child, baptised in 1841, was actually born in 1831. I think it's fairly clear that Ann was born much earlier than 1841. In their father's will, he lists the surviving children in order, and in the position where Nancy should be, we find Ann. I know Nancy was sometimes used as a pet name for Ann. Do you think I'm justified in putting Ann and Nancy as the same person in my family tree?
Love Lynne
-
My 3xgt grandfather seemed to have had ten children. On the 1841 census, one child was called Nancy aged 15. I can find no other trace of her anywhere, though I have the baptisms of all the others. I found the baptism in 1841, of an Ann but realised that the mother would have been 57 in 1841. Then I discovered that another child, baptised in 1841, was actually born in 1831. I think it's fairly clear that Ann was born much earlier than 1841. In their father's will, he lists the surviving children in order, and in the position where Nancy should be, we find Ann. I know Nancy was sometimes used as a pet name for Ann. Do you think I'm justified in putting Ann and Nancy as the same person in my family tree?
Love Lynne
Yes - as pet names were also used on the census's - but at that age, Ann if a separate child may have been away from home working as a servant or some other form of work and may have married from there on - the will is important -was there any nancy on the list - if not then you can presume Nancy was Ann - one other thing to check if there was a death of a Nancy after the 1841 census that may then explain why she may have been excluded from the will - just a thought . . .
Other thing noted there was - you claim to have found a baptism in 1831 - that would make them only 10 in the 1841 census - but saying that it works like this - take note of each baptism and when they were registered as Catholics are known as to take their children in groups to be baptized and you could have children ranging from birth to 16 all being baptized in one go - and if the births themselves were not registered leaving you with just the baptisms - it would all depend on the priest if he noted the children's ages to give any indication of birth year . . .
A good starting point would be that 1841 census if you could list the parent's names and ages and work down in order to see if we can help in any way to helping you resolve this problem . . .
-
I agree with Indiana.59
-
I have Ann's in my tree who were known as Nancy so agree with Rena and Indiana. Have you looked for a marriage for Ann/Nancy that might help to sort it out?
Gadget
-
There is no Nancy on the will, nor can I find any baptism, marriage or death for a Nancy. The 1841 census is the single mention of her that I can find anywhere.
Henry Tann born approx 1786 married Sarah Hounslow born approx 1784 in 1811
Sarah Ellizabeth bap 19th January 1812 died January 1828.
Mary Ann bap 5th June 1814.
Elizabeth bap 31st March 1816 died September 1817.
Elizabeth Frances bap 9th August 1818 died December 1837.
Henry born 24th January 1821 (bap 6th May 1821) Died 1852
William Thomas born 16th May 1823 (bap 1st May 1825) died 1891
Nancy born approx 1826
John Walker born 11th March 1828 (bap 30th March 1828) died 1899
James born 12th January 1831 (bap 16th April 1841) Died 1904.
Then there is the baptism of Ann 9th May 1841.
-
There is no Nancy on the will, nor can I find any baptism, marriage or death for a Nancy. The 1841 census is the single mention of her that I can find anywhere.
Henry Tann born approx 1786 married Sarah Hounslow born approx 1784 in 1811
Sarah Ellizabeth bap 19th January 1812 died January 1828.
Mary Ann bap 5th June 1814.
Elizabeth bap 31st March 1816 died September 1817.
Elizabeth Frances bap 9th August 1818 died December 1837.
Henry born 24th January 1821 (bap 6th May 1821) Died 1852
William Thomas born 16th May 1823 (bap 1st May 1825) died 1891
Nancy born approx 1826
John Walker born 11th March 1828 (bap 30th March 1828) died 1899
James born 12th January 1831 (bap 16th April 1841) Died 1904.
Then there is the baptism of Ann 9th May 1841.
HENRY TANN marries SARAH HOUNSLOW 1811
Henry Tann is on 1841 census 55 B: 1786
His wife is up as MARY TANN 50 B: 1791
JOHN IS 12 B: 1829
JAMES IS 10 B: 1831
NANCY IS 15 B: 1826
Has Sarah wife to Henry Tann also changed names too . . . ?
HENRY TANN + SARAH HOUNSLOW
MARRIAGE 1811 - 17 Mar 1811 - Saint Martin in The Fields, Westminster, London, England
N = No and Y = Yes in the column indicates neither Henry or Mary were born within the county of Westminster - but all of their children were . . .
We now need that will . . . :)
1) To see if Henry's wife was still alive and what was her name . . .
2) To see if there is an address/s and how this relates to Henry Tann and possible to any of the children places of births or Henry's trade in life as sometimes this is also mentioned in the will . . .
-
I agree with the others. I have a collateral ancestor always referred to as Nancy or Nan in every record except for the marriage where she is Ann. Luckily for me her husband's name was very distinctive so there was no doubt.
-
I am a little bemused by the appearance of Mary on the 1841 census too. All the children shown on the census are baptised as child of Henry and Sarah, he married Sarah 10 months before the first child was born and she is still alive at his death, and mentioned in the will as "My dear wife Sarah". Henry's mother was Mary, so the only thing I can think is that whoever told the census enumerator the names, got mixed up...perhaps the enumerator said something about mother's name and they thought it meant Henry's mother? There is no other mention of a Mary at all.
Sarah comes from Oxfordshire according to the 1851 census. I can't find a baptism for Henry, but his parents were living in various places before they settled in Chelsea, most of them only a few miles away, but technically in Surrey, so I think that may be why his birth is not in Middlesex.
Yes, his wife is still alive at the time of the will (she dies in 1852. She is on the 1851 census and I have her death certificate.) He leaves everything to his "Dear wife Sarah for the duration of her life.)
I do have Henry's death certificate, not long after the date of the will so have his address and trade on that, and his address is also shown on the will. This is not the one where he spent most of his life but appears to be where he moved to several years before his death. Most of the children were born at the same address in Chelsea (the previous one to that on the will and death cert) and he is also shown in trade directories as being at that address. Usefully, this is also where his father, also Henry, lived and is shown in directories, linking the two together beautifully.
After leaving everything to his wife in the will, he then says that after her death, everything should be divided equally between any children that survive her, then listing the children alive at the time as Mary Ann, Henry, William Thomas, Ann, John Walker and James.
Most pieces of the puzzle fit together nicely. There are just the couple of bits that throw things into a bit of confusion. The more I look at all the info, and other people on here saying that their Anns and Nancys are interchangeable, the more likely it seems that Ann and Nancy are the same.
Thank you and everyone for your input. So shall I mark Ann and Nancy as one on my FT?
-
Am always surprised that fsmilies gave shortened or pet names to the official census man.
I have a Florence down as Florrie and a Beatrice as Beetee.
-
You people are very lucky to be able to access census info. Here in NZ, all we can get is logistical data of the different regions! All we can count on to assist with our NZ research is Electoral Rolls, which are available in libraries in each region and are published online after an election. Of course, until recently, someone would only be on the roll if they were over 21, but since the voting age is now 18, we should be able pick up some extras on there!
Genealogy clubs have been battling to have the census records on line, which would give much more scope for finding more family names, ages, occupations etc! Still no go though, as yet, but as ever, hope springs eternal, even if we do have to wait for years before they are released. Hopefully our children will take up the research, and be able to add new information to our trees!
-
Australian census records have always been destroyed never kept, apart from some early NSW ones.
-
I only just discovered this about Australian census records when doing some family history stuff for an Aussie friend. How awful that is! The census here is such a valuable source of information. I don't think I could have got nearly as far as I have without it.
-
That's really interesting, I didn't realise that Australia didn't release their's either!
-
They are not just "not released" in Oz, but physically destroyed.
Maybe the decision was made by a lot of ex-convicts wanting to cover their tracks. ;D ;D
-
I think it's more to do with privacy issues, although they were never kept right from when they were first collected.
Andrewwalston, you may have something there; it's only been in the last 30 or so years that it has become "fashionable " to have convict ancestry. Strangely even I do, despite having a mostly South Australian ancestry. Two of my ancestors moved here from Tasmania/Van Diemen's Land. They may have even come across together; I have yet to track their crossing.
-
America seems to be one of the best Counties for releasing records. However it varies from state to state for the more recent records. No one in England/Wales should have to pay for a Birth/Marriage/ Death Certificate for someone Born/Married/Died in 1837.
-
You should see the cost of Australian certificates; and despite being one country, each state has its own fee system. The information on them varies from state to state as well.
-
:)
Both my parents, all four of my grandparents, all eight of my great grandparents, and back through the earlier generations ... many were born, raised, married, and died in New South Wales. Both my parents attended primary schools in NSW in the 1920s, and I am well aware that among the 'Social Studies' topics they were taught were lessons on Convicts. It was not considered something to be hidden away. When I commenced my schooling in the 1950s, in rural NSW, among my school teachers were many who were proud to tell us about their 'forebears' who had come to NSW as 'Convicts' and who had been 'emancipated' because of 'Good Behaviour'. We even went as a school group for trips to various Central West NSW cemeteries .... in daylight ... to be shown headstones, footstones, memorials to their 'forebears' including a) convicts b) ship deserters c) bushrangers c) Pillars of Society d) children who died of diseases which we now could get injections to stop catching measles, diptheria, etc...
It was not until I finished secondary school and came down to Sydney (so in the 1960s) that I discovered that it was not socially acceptable IN SYDNEY to discuss having any kind of interest in a NSW heritage at all, and as to having a convict heritage ... it was a no no. And one must never mention any background other than which Eastern Suburbs you and your parents live in if you were in the Menzies Piano Bar on a Friday evening.... drinking a Coca Cola with some Barcardi. :) When I then spoke with my Infants and Primary school teachers, they laughed and shook their heads ... Sydneysiders are in their own prison.... I left Sydney when I married in 1974. I visit it, and sometimes stay for weeks ....
Have you read Babette Smith's books ... including Australia's Birthstain I recommend it.
Re the convict records ... please have a read through here ... https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/collections-and-research/guides-and-indexes/stories/new-south-wales-convict-records-lost
Re the early census records ... these were lost because of a fire https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/107996854 Evening News 23 September 1882
Post Federation Census records https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/earlycensus/after1901 so from 1996 to the latest census ... there is a choice to opt in to having the individual information retained and restricted for 100 years.
JM
-
You should see the cost of Australian certificates; and despite being one country, each state has its own fee system. The information on them varies from state to state as well.
This is brought about because Australia is a Federation. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, just that because Australia was once SIX separate British colonies, that were federated as at 1 Jan 1901 into one British colony, that its federating document (the written constitution) allowed each of those former colonies (ie the present six states) to retain their own parliaments, and the institutions that they had already put in place ... eg their own Registrar Generals Departments covering the registering of land, person, businesses, etc...
Add :D
I don't have an 'Australian Certificate' in my family history records. There's no ONE issuing body responsible for such... I do have various Certificates issued by each of the eight jurisdictions that make up that Federation.
JM
-
They are not just "not released" in Oz, but physically destroyed.
Maybe the decision was made by a lot of ex-convicts wanting to cover their tracks. ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D I suspect the decision originated from those who came to the Colonies as Assisted Migrants in the years after convictism had ceased, particularly post the gold rushes of the 1850s and 1860s ...... so those families whose menfolk were actually 'born overseas' and who populated the public service, including many who found clerical work in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, and 1900s with the NSW Registrar General's Office and thus whose penmanship I and many other family history buffs have tried to decipher for many many years.... ummm.... ::) ::) :P :P
We should also remember that the population of the various colonies grew exponentially with the gold rushes and then with the masses of emigrants leaving Britain once sail gave way to screw steamer ships...
JM