RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: guest259648 on Friday 28 May 21 20:16 BST (UK)
-
Regarding UK Census 1861.
If a person [crew, or passenger,] was on a boat in a UK harbour for Census night, will they appear on the UK census and, if so, where?
Also, if in 1861 they were staying at a small UK Harbour which had cabins in the harbour area for passengers [they got off the boat, to avoid fire risk, but didn't go to lodgings in the town], where would they be recorded on a Census?
While I'm here; I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.
Thank you.
-
People on boats (+ tents, caravans, outhouses &c.) should be at the end of the enumerator's book as far as I know. That's providing the enumerator knew where to look and the people were present when he turned up. If they arrived late at night and left early next morning and didn't stay in lodgings with a lodgings-keeper, they may have gone uncounted. Another complication is that an enumerator may have got details about them from a third party who had incomplete or inaccurate information.
-
I've got an ancestor who was recorded twice on census night.
He is recorded at home in Sunderland, Co. Durham, with his wife and several children.
He is also recorded as a captain on a small ship in Monkwearmouth, Co. Durham, together with his wife and their new baby plus the captain's brother.
I think this probably came about because the house census was previously filled in and a few days later the captain and his wife took their new baby to introduce the baby to family in North Yorkshire. The harbour/port census was filled in by an official who was responsible for making sure all boats in the harbour were accounted for.
-
Type 'vessels' in the 'lived in' box on the search form. If they were on a boat in port in England or Wales, they should have been recorded.
On land, they should be findable by age and birthplace in the usual way.
As to your second enquiry, Sunderland, Durham seems fairly specific, and not somewhere you'd name unless you had at least some association with it. Have you found them on censuses?
-
People on boats (+ tents, caravans, outhouses &c.) should be at the end of the enumerator's book as far as I know. That's providing the enumerator knew where to look and the people were present when he turned up. If they arrived late at night and left early next morning and didn't stay in lodgings with a lodgings-keeper, they may have gone uncounted. Another complication is that an enumerator may have got details about them from a third party who had incomplete or inaccurate information.
Maiden Stone, thank you.
'Gone uncounted'... I was afraid of hearing this, but I'm sure you're right, it did happen.
I have checked at what I believed to be the end of the Seaham censuses but was surprised that there seemed to be so little mention of boats, especially when accounts from the period in question mention a great deal of activity in the docks etc. So I guess I must be looking in the wrong place... or the Harbour Master was lazy and didn't keep his records, or the enumerator didn't know where to ask for details of passengers... or?
D
-
I've got an ancestor who was recorded twice on census night.
He is recorded at home in Sunderland, Co. Durham, with his wife and several children.
He is also recorded as a captain on a small ship in Monkwearmouth, Co. Durham, together with his wife and their new baby plus the captain's brother.
I think this probably came about because the house census was previously filled in and a few days later the captain and his wife took their new baby to introduce the baby to family in North Yorkshire. The harbour/port census was filled in by an official who was responsible for making sure all boats in the harbour were accounted for.
Rena
Thank you for sharing your story.
I'd say that was a stroke of great good luck, there being two records instead of one: it enlarges your picture of this family and what they were doing.
Was it common for women and babies to be on board boats in the 1860s? Many of the boats around Seaham etc were coal boats and I'd always (probably wrongly) assumed that seamen couldn't bring their wives along - but maybe they could?
D
-
Type 'vessels' in the 'lived in' box on the search form. If they were on a boat in port in England or Wales, they should have been recorded.
On land, they should be findable by age and birthplace in the usual way.
As to your second enquiry, Sunderland, Durham seems fairly specific, and not somewhere you'd name unless you had at least some association with it. Have you found them on censuses?
Galium, I'm grateful for your thoughts.
The (Irish) mariner and his lady were wed in Sunderland, I have the marriage certificate. The name Sunderland has gone down through the family, and the 2 daughters born in the UK believed they were born in Sunderland... so I'm wondering if they came into the world on a boat?
I'm asking about Harbours, and where harbour-dwellers/temporary visitors get recorded in a general sense, because the bride gave her address as 'Seaham Harbour' - no street, no nothing, just 'Seaham Harbour'.
I have enquired at Seaham, and have been told that this very probably means she was actually AT the harbour, at the time of her wedding, rather than in lodgings or with any family in the town.
Which also suggests she arrived by boat? and then got married in Sunderland - and then what?
This couple emigrated to the USA in about 1868, after having 2 children (the daughters whose birth records I'm seeking). But I can't find the couple on any UK census, nor can I find the daughters' births.
D
-
I've got an ancestor who was recorded twice on census night.
He is recorded at home in Sunderland, Co. Durham, with his wife and several children.
He is also recorded as a captain on a small ship in Monkwearmouth, Co. Durham, together with his wife and their new baby plus the captain's brother.
I think this probably came about because the house census was previously filled in and a few days later the captain and his wife took their new baby to introduce the baby to family in North Yorkshire. The harbour/port census was filled in by an official who was responsible for making sure all boats in the harbour were accounted for.
Rena
Was it common for women and babies to be on board boats in the 1860s? Many of the boats around Seaham etc were coal boats and I'd always (probably wrongly) assumed that seamen couldn't bring their wives along - but maybe they could?
D
I went to school in a Yorkshire seaport during the 1940s-1950s and we were told by our school teachers that it was a fact that officers wives would travel on ships (boats sail on rivers; ships sail on the high seas). Ancient Sailing Ships with sails were known to be temperamental and were classed as "she", many ordinary seamen thought having a woman on board was unlucky. It isn't known when the superstition started, as with Friday 13th being an unlucky date - nobody knows why and when that started either.
The ancestor was born in a small east coast place named Filey and the owner of the ship was a Mrs Coggins, her ship was named the "Jack Coggins" after her son who had died at sea. Her ship was registered in the large port of Sunderland and as was usual in those days, there were hundreds, if not thousands of small ships sailing from the northern waters to Europe and beyond carrying exported wool and bringing back tea, sugar, precious gems, smuggling Scottish whisky, etc. I suspect the ancestor did a bit of smuggling, as his son had a tobacco shop and that son gave his wife an enormous ruby and diamond engagement ring.
-
I'm asking about Harbours, and where harbour-dwellers/temporary visitors get recorded in a general sense, because the bride gave her address as 'Seaham Harbour' - no street, no nothing, just 'Seaham Harbour'.
Addresses recorded in the marriage register in the 1860s aren't usually very specific. You will sometimes find street addresses, but more often it's only the parish or town. If the couple are marrying in Sunderland and the bride says she lives in 'Seaham Harbour', then most likely she means the town of Seaham Harbour (which began in the 1820s as a new town separate from the village of Seaham; today the two together are just known as Seaham) and that would be all anybody would think it necessary to write down.
-
While I'm here; I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.
It was not unusual at that time for births to go unregistered, I understand that it was the responsibility of the registrar at that time. On 1 January 1875 the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1874 came into effect and registration became the responsibility of the parents or the householder where the birth took place or they faced a fine
-
I've got an ancestor who was recorded twice on census night.
He is recorded at home in Sunderland, Co. Durham, with his wife and several children.
He is also recorded as a captain on a small ship in Monkwearmouth, Co. Durham, together with his wife and their new baby plus the captain's brother.
I think this probably came about because the house census was previously filled in and a few days later the captain and his wife took their new baby to introduce the baby to family in North Yorkshire. The harbour/port census was filled in by an official who was responsible for making sure all boats in the harbour were accounted for.
Rena
Was it common for women and babies to be on board boats in the 1860s? Many of the boats around Seaham etc were coal boats and I'd always (probably wrongly) assumed that seamen couldn't bring their wives along - but maybe they could?
D
I went to school in a Yorkshire seaport during the 1940s-1950s and we were told by our school teachers that it was a fact that officers wives would travel on ships (boats sail on rivers; ships sail on the high seas). Ancient Sailing Ships with sails were known to be temperamental and were classed as "she", many ordinary seamen thought having a woman on board was unlucky. It isn't known when the superstition started, as with Friday 13th being an unlucky date - nobody knows why and when that started either.
The ancestor was born in a small east coast place named Filey and the owner of the ship was a Mrs Coggins, her ship was named the "Jack Coggins" after her son who had died at sea. Her ship was registered in the large port of Sunderland and as was usual in those days, there were hundreds, if not thousands of small ships sailing from the northern waters to Europe and beyond carrying exported wool and bringing back tea, sugar, precious gems, smuggling Scottish whisky, etc. I suspect the ancestor did a bit of smuggling, as his son had a tobacco shop and that son gave his wife an enormous ruby and diamond engagement ring.
Rena
I'm really enjoying your contribution here!
'Officers wives would travel on ships', I didn't know that... Did this extend to other crew members, too, or was it a privilege for the men in charge, to have their lady with them?
I know Filey and it's quite a long way from Sunderland, so you have taught me that ships can get registered in Sunderland but operate a long way away.
(I live very close to a working North East harbour which accepts cargo boats, and some of these are registered in Russia and Gibraltar.)
I am still thinking that this Mariner's family must have spent a lot of time on the boats, whether or not he was Captain. At least one of his daughter's sons was born on the High Seas (according to Ancestry), which must mean open sea, not harbour.
Do you know what became of that enormous ruby and diamond ring?
D
-
While I'm here; I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.
It was not unusual at that time for births to go unregistered, I understand that it was the responsibility of the registrar at that time. On 1 January 1875 the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1874 came into effect and registration became the responsibility of the parents or the householder where the birth took place or they faced a fine
rosie99
Many thanks for this.
So after 1875 it's highly likely every birth will show up, because you'd lose money if you didn't do it! (Money talks.)
But before that, the records are not complete.
I will bear that in mind.
x
-
I'm asking about Harbours, and where harbour-dwellers/temporary visitors get recorded in a general sense, because the bride gave her address as 'Seaham Harbour' - no street, no nothing, just 'Seaham Harbour'.
Addresses recorded in the marriage register in the 1860s aren't usually very specific. You will sometimes find street addresses, but more often it's only the parish or town. If the couple are marrying in Sunderland and the bride says she lives in 'Seaham Harbour', then most likely she means the town of Seaham Harbour (which began in the 1820s as a new town separate from the village of Seaham; today the two together are just known as Seaham) and that would be all anybody would think it necessary to write down.
Galium, thank you
It could be that the bride wasn't local (Seaham was full of newly-arrived immigrants and visitors, especially Irish, and she has an Irish name) and she didn't know where she was, other than the name of the town.
You may be surprised to know that 21st century Seaham locals are very keen to distinguish between Seaham and Seaham Harbour, and there is not the amalgamation you may think. "I was born in Seaham Harbour" says a man aged 44. The bit of the town up the hill is referred to as New Seaham. They pronounce it almost "Sayham", half way between Sea and Say.
But I still haven't found this lady, the bride. She's there in the USA (and her mother emigrated with them), but not a trace of any of them so far in the UK, not the Mariner either. I guess a lot of people spend their lives 'passing through' and at some points they are lost to history, we can't see them at all.
D
-
Rena
Was it common for women and babies to be on board boats in the 1860s? Many of the boats around Seaham etc were coal boats and I'd always (probably wrongly) assumed that seamen couldn't bring their wives along - but maybe they could?
D
I'm really enjoying your contribution here!
'Officers wives would travel on ships', I didn't know that... Did this extend to other crew members, too, or was it a privilege for the men in charge, to have their lady with them?
I know Filey and it's quite a long way from Sunderland, so you have taught me that ships can get registered in Sunderland but operate a long way away.
(I live very close to a working North East harbour which accepts cargo boats, and some of these are registered in Russia and Gibraltar.)
I am still thinking that this Mariner's family must have spent a lot of time on the boats, whether or not he was Captain. At least one of his daughter's sons was born on the High Seas (according to Ancestry), which must mean open sea, not harbour.
Do you know what became of that enormous ruby and diamond ring?
D
[/quote]
I've never really looked into which officers were allowed to have their wives with them. The crew would be tightly packed sleeping in hammocks below decks, thus they would be ruled out. If you look in old newspapers you will see adverts from ship's captains/owners who advertise they have a ship with X type of cannon gun and will receive customers in the pub named X on X date. Presumably those owners who became extremely successful would open up trading centres in other countries, which meant they would organise for a ship's officer to go live in that country, which means the officer's wife would be shipped to the new business destination.
As for the ruby and diamond ring. It was eventually given to one of her two daughters. I next saw it when my daughter came home from uni and was sorting out her bedroom. Thirty years later she admitted she'd thought it was a cheap "dress ring" and had given it to a uni pal who admired it. (I tried not to weep - and succeeded).
-
hahaha and Oh Dear, Rena, life is so cruel, sometimes. Cheap dress ring.
I wonder if the (hugely lucky) Uni pal realised what it was?
I was once given a string of orange plastic beads. Except I always had a niggling doubt that they weren't quite what they seemed... so I took them along to an expert, just to rule out my suspicions, and found they were 2000 year old amber and probably belonged to a Roman centurion (they wore jewellery). The beads were tested by a lighted match (!!) and smelled of resin, not plastic. I still have them. I adore them, they carry 2000 years of history. What stories they could tell us, eh?
D
-
While I'm here; I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.
It was not unusual at that time for births to go unregistered, I understand that it was the responsibility of the registrar at that time. On 1 January 1875 the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1874 came into effect and registration became the responsibility of the parents or the householder where the birth took place or they faced a fine
Take into account as well that the parents were Irish.
Civil registration of births and deaths began in Ireland in 1864. Your mariner and his wife may have been unaware that births in England were supposed to be registered.
Alternatively the girls may have been born in Ireland. Their mother may have returned to her family to be cared for during and after birth. Sunderland may have been the first place the daughters remembered living.
My 3 female Irish ancestors who lived in Lancashire in 19thC. each had at least 1 child born away from home. One had 1st known child in Lancashire, 2nd in Newcastle, then back to Lancs. for the 3rd + subsequent children. One had her 1st child in another part of Lancs. because her parents had moved there. Another went back to Ireland to care for her elderly, sick, widowed father and gave birth while there.
If born in England, surname may have been incorrectly recorded. That happened with 2 of my Irish ladies. Roscommon-born parents of one of my aunts had several spelling variants on birth registrations of their large brood.
Surnames of all except one of my Irish families were incorrectly transcribed on at least 1 census. I found one household recently. The exception was a family named Smith. :)
-
While I'm here; I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.
It was not unusual at that time for births to go unregistered, I understand that it was the responsibility of the registrar at that time. On 1 January 1875 the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1874 came into effect and registration became the responsibility of the parents or the householder where the birth took place or they faced a fine
If born in England, surname may have been incorrectly recorded. That happened with 2 of my Irish ladies. Roscommon-born parents of one of my aunts had several spelling variants on birth registrations of their large brood.
Surnames of all except one of my Irish families were incorrectly transcribed on at least 1 census. I found one household recently. The exception was a family named Smith. :)
Maiden Stone, thanks for the chuckle.
And incorrect transcriptions, they send you crazy. Or spelling-it-as-you-think - and you get e.g. MURFY or even MURTHEY (and that's an easy name).
Thank you for sharing your own family's details, they are valuable. It's so useful to know what actually happened (not what was believed to happen, or was supposed to happen)...
It's entirely possible that these 2 daughters were born in Ireland, yes, or their surname has been mistranscribed, or a name variant used (it's a complex Irish name); and I have no way of telling, unless I buy a lot a Birth certificates and look for a mariner father.
You say Newcastle - presumably On Tyne? What were your ancestors doing in the NE?
D
-
You say Newcastle - presumably On Tyne? What were your ancestors doing in the NE?
The only thing I can be sure of is that the baby's mother was in Newcastle. She was in Lancashire in 1868 and 1871 (births of a daughter and a son + census) but was in Newcastle for long enough between those years to give birth to a son there.
England had good rail connections and 3rd-class tickets.
-
I have a couple of ancestors who were sailors.
In the 1841 census, one is missing totally, so I have to assume he was at sea, as he became a ships master and was voyaging to and from the Far East regularly.
The other, his brother was recorded in 1861 as "dwelling" at "On board the S. S. Rhone at Holyhead, Anglesey, Wales", along with two other engineers and 8 firemen
AC
-
I have a couple of ancestors who were sailors.
In the 1841 census, one is missing totally, so I have to assume he was at sea, as he became a ships master and was voyaging to and from the Far East regularly.
The other, his brother was recorded in 1861 as "dwelling" at "On board the S. S. Rhone at Holyhead, Anglesey, Wales", along with two other engineers and 8 firemen
AC
AC Thank you so much.
I think sailors did/do 'dwell' on their boats, it's a good word. The boats are their home, psychologically.
My partner's late Dad was a Royal Navy sailor, he had to stop sailing because of age but he was never at home in his little flat, it was a torment to be permanently on land.
It's a pity that seamen can be 'missing totally' from our records, frustrating! However, the problems of recording all land-dwellers are almost insurmountable, so to find those on the seas was quite impossible. Shame, though, because their lives are so interesting - and we need them, for our family history tree!
D x
-
You say Newcastle - presumably On Tyne? What were your ancestors doing in the NE?
The only thing I can be sure of is that the baby's mother was in Newcastle. She was in Lancashire in 1868 and 1871 (births of a daughter and a son + census) but was in Newcastle for long enough between those years to give birth to a son there.
England had good rail connections and 3rd-class tickets.
You're right :-)
The National Railway Museum gives the pre-1914 '3rd class' charge for 100 mile train journey as 42p in today's money.
If only!
D x
-
I am not currently knowledgeable what local libraries provide, but they did used to provide free access to the British Library newspapers.
I could follow the progress of my OH's ship's captain by entering his name in the search box and found many entries. The reason for this is that practcially every newspaper up until WWII published the daily Arrivals and Departures of every ship in all British ports and the entry would give the ship's name & also give the surname of the captain, plus where the ship had come from or was going to. One time I thought I'd "lost" him because there were two captain's with the same surname and one day the ship's name I was expecting didn't show in the results. At the time there were a few places to check (for free) who was captain of what ship and Lloyds shipping was one place.
A few weeks ago, after a long absence, I went onto the British Newspaper website and found all procedures had changed. Good luck to anyone who tries to find information, because I failed miserably with this new "enhanced" programme.