Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Stanwix England

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 24

The Common Room / Mystery of Caroline Charlotte Veasey Dawson

« on: Monday 15 August 22 02:38 BST (UK) »

Hi Everyone,

When looking through the newspapers for something else, I got distracted, as you do, and found myself pulled into the story of this woman who committed suicide in 1851. Her maiden name appears to have been Caroline Charlotte Veasey/Vesey Dawson.

I was particularly struck by her story, as the article included entries from her diary and one of her poems, which is very moving. She really was a good writer in my opinion, and I'm really hoping that we can find more of her work somewhere, as I know she published books.

I've begun to research her life, but I couldn't find any real mentions of her online. I was going to post about it here for help, but there was just so much information I didn't feel like I could fit it all in one post. So I decided to write a blog about it, as I already have a small Twitter account about Victorian history and I thought it fit in really well.

It's long, as the original article was long, but I personally enjoyed reading it. I'm hoping that even if I can't find out anything else about her, I can at least get other people to read her wonderful poem.

The link below is to the master list of posts I wrote. It includes two background posts on her, a rough timeline of what I've found out about her life so far, and also a list of questions I am hoping that we can answer.

https://oldvictoriannews.blogspot.com/p/posts-about-caroline-charlotte-veasey.html

If you do take the time to read this, I'm really grateful to you.

Nottinghamshire / George Hazlewood - Did he change his name?

« on: Sunday 31 July 22 00:14 BST (UK) »

I'm looking at a family, focused round a man called George Hazlewood. I'm putting this here, because Nottingham seems to be where he spent most of his life.

There are some discrepancies in his information that I think are strange and I also can't find him on the 1901 census and I am trying to work out why.

1849

George Hazlewood was born in the first quarter of 1849, in Banbury, Oxfordshire, England.

Registration Date   1849
Quarter of the Year   Jan-Feb-Mar
Registration Place   Banbury, Oxfordshire, England
Volume   16
Page   17

His parents were William Hazelwood and Lucey Adkins. Lucey does appear to have been spelt that way.

1851

On the census. Birth location is given as Fenny Draighton, Leicestershire, which is where his older sister was born. This is Sarah Adkins, who is perhaps her mothers natural child. Sarah was born in 1846, William and Lucey didn't marry until 17th September 1848, in Oxfordshire, so her parentage is less certain. So I'm confused by this.

Civil parish   Cropredy
County/Island   Oxfordshire
Country   England
Registration district   Banbury
Sub-registration district   Cropredy
ED, institution, or vessel   6
Neighbors   View others on page
Household schedule number   31
Piece   1734
Folio   77
Page number   8

1861

Appears on census with family. Birth location also given as Fenny Draighton.

Civil parish   Cropredy
County/Island   Oxfordshire
Country   England
Registration district   Banbury
Sub-registration district   Cropredy
ED, institution, or vessel   7
Neighbors   View others on page
Household schedule number   74
Piece   917
Folio   76
Page number   11

1866

He gets married to Rhoda Neal, on the 18th February 1866, at Foleshill, Warwickshire. He gives his age as 20, but by my calculation he would have been about 17.

1871

Is now living in Derbyshire with his wife and baby. Gives his birth location as Cropredy, Oxfordshire, which is where he was living in 1851 and 1861.

Country   England
Registration district   Chesterfield
Sub-registration district   Ashover
ED, institution, or vessel   17
Household schedule number   83
Piece   3608
Folio   12
Page number   17

1881

Now in Nottingham I think, technically. Still with Rhoda and now has 5 children. Just says 'England' for where born. Name is still Hazlewood, but spelt with an 's' instead of a 'z' here.

The rest of the family are

Wife Rhoda b1843 - Preston, Gloucestershire, England

Ester Laura b1871 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

William b 1872 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

Lizzie H b 1874 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

Edith Martha b 1876 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

Lucy Emma b 1878 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

Jane Matilda b 1881 - Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

Registration district   Basford
ED, institution, or vessel   16
Neighbors   View others on page
Piece   3322
Folio   117
Page number   35

1891 - Unexplained name change

For reasons I can't explain, the entire family are given the name 'Smith' on this census, but it does appear to be them, as many of the details seem to fit. I've seen an image of the census, so it's not a transcription snafu.

George Smith b 1848 Banbury, Oxfordshire

Rhoda Smith b 1844 Preston, Warwickshire, England

William Smith b 1872 Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, England

Lizzie Smith b 1874 Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, England

Lucy Smith b 1878 Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, England

Jane Smith b 1881 Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, England

Bertha Smith b 1883 Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, England

1901

Haven't been able to find a record that I believe is him.

However, on the 19 March 1892, his daughter Lizzie gets married to a Henry Bestwick, in Aldcar, Derbyshire. She gives her father's name as George Hazlewood on her marriage banns.

1911

In Nottingham with Rhoda and a grandson, George Waller Hazlewood. Says they had 8 children and one died. Place of birth Cropredy, Oxfordshire.

Registration District Number   429
Sub-registration district   Greasley
ED, institution, or vessel   02
Piece   20357

Conclusion

So I'm just really thrown by that 1891 record. What was going on there?

Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / What actually happened to James Ellerby/Ellarby?

« on: Saturday 09 July 22 18:25 BST (UK) »

Hello All,

I'm currently looking at a James Ellerby, sometimes spelt Ellarby.

I know that he was born in approximately 1806, around Keyingham in Yorkshire.

On the 30th October 1830, he married Rachel Bonfrey (although the record I have has been transcribed to Ponfrey)

He appears on the census with his family, in 1841, living in Keyingham. Working as a 'smith' it doesn't specify what as.

Piece   1222
Book   21
Folio   5
Page number 4

The couple appear to have had at least 4 children, George (b 1832), John (b 1837), Ann (b 1838), Elizabeth (b 1842).

I've lost track of him after that, he doesn't appear on any census with his family ever again.

What's strange to me, is that his wife Rachel appears on another 4 census, each time claiming that she is married, even though James is nowhere to be seen.

1851 - says married, working as grocer, living with her mum and her two daughters - Household schedule number 65
Piece   2364
Folio   71
Page number 21

1861, says married, working as grocer, living with two daughters and a lodger
Household schedule number 69
Piece   3598
Folio   59
Page number 13

1871, says married, working as dressmaker, living with a boarder and 4 year old grandson
Household schedule number 87
Piece   4798
Folio   60
Page number 17

1881, says married, on pension, living with the same grandson from above
Neighbors   View others on page
Piece   4785
Folio   54
Page number 9

I suppose James could have been somewhere else, but I can't find anyone on the census that matches up.

There is a death record for a James Ellerby, for September 1851, which is in that area which could be him.

But if he was dead, why did Rachel keep saying she was married? Maybe she misunderstood?

Another family tree on Ancestry says that he died in the Crimea in 1854, but they don't offer any sources to support that - and even if that was him, it doesn't really explain why Rachel kept saying she was married.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, is there something I have missed. Thank you

The Lighter Side / Jewellery Find - Mourning brooch

« on: Saturday 18 June 22 02:27 BST (UK) »

I love looking at old jewellery online, and when I find a mourning brooch, if there is information about the person, I try to look them up.

I found this one, but I think it's been transcribed incorrectly.

https://www.gatsbyjewellery.co.uk/product/georgian-garnet-mourning-brooch-dated-1817

Elizabeth Kenoul ? Died 21st May 1817, aged 56 (so 1761 birthday or there abouts.)

I can't find anyone with that name though. It might be her married name, or not obviously.

Just wondering if anyone else has any better luck.

Durham / Maria Ann Day - 1904 GRO record?

« on: Friday 10 June 22 23:03 BST (UK) »

UPDATE

I just went back to double check, and I noticed something on the 1921 census. Maria is named there as Maria Ann G , and it's either Jodd or Todd, but I am leaning towards Todd

End of update

Hello,

I don't think I've written about this person before, at least a search didn't turn it up. Apologies if I have, memory like a sieve.

I'm trying to find a birth record for Maria Ann Day. I'd like to be able to look up her mother's maiden name in the GRO records.

There is a bit of a cloud over the circumstances of her birth, as I believe her 'parents' were in a bigamous relationship.

I'm not even 100% sure her surname was Day.

1911

Registration District Number 555 Sub-registration district Sunderland East ED , institution, or vessel 26 Piece 30207

On this census, she's living with Frank Metcalf Day, and Elizabeth Day (nee Grayton). They are living as a married couple, but Elizabeth was actually still legally married to another man, Joseph Stuart. He was still alive and living in another part of Sunderland.

In theory, she could be the biological child of Joseph Stuart, but I believe Elizabeth split up from her husband in around 1891, as they were living seperately by then. Elizabeth also bigamously married Frank in 1904. So I don't think that is likely. That of course doesn't mean she wasn't given his surname legally at some point.

In the relationships column, it says 'adopted'.

It says she was born in Sunderland.

1921 census

She's still living with Frank and Elizabeth. On this form (I've seen the original) she is described as Frank's step-daughter.

She is described as being 17 years and 6 months old, so I guess that would make her born around December 1904?

This census also said she was born in Sunderland.

Issue

I can't find a GRO record for her, and I would love to turn one up. Maybe she was genuinely adopted, but if so, I don't know the circumstances of why that would have come about.

The fact that Elizabeth and Frank took the risk of having a bigamous marriage around the time she was born does lend me to believe she may have been their biological daughter - but obviously that is not concrete evidence.

Elizabeth and Frank married again, this time legally, in 1927, after Elizabeth's husband had died.

Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Richard Gleadhow

« on: Sunday 05 June 22 00:45 BST (UK) »

Hello,

I'm trying to find a baptism in Snaith, for a Richard Gleadhow.

There are loads of Gleadhows in the area, yet for some reason, I can't find a baptism for him. I've tried constructing a tree out of the baptisms etc, I have found, but to no avail.

So I think I'm going to give up, but I thought I'd put it out here just in case one of you geniuses can find it. If not, I'll feel like I can rest having tried everything.

Birthdate: Unknown, but likely around 1690 (on the basis of the birth dates of his children)

Marriage: Unknown, but likely around 1714

Known Children: Richard - B:1714 - D:1716
John - B:1715
Richard - B:1718
Charles - B:1719
Luke - B:1721 - D:1723

Thank you all.

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Vine street open? Sunderland

« on: Friday 03 June 22 19:38 BST (UK) »

Hello,

I'm trying to work out what this snippet says, regarding Sunderland.

I think it says 'vine street xxxxx and vine street high xxxx'

It looks like 'open', but I can't find anything online that matches that. There was definitely a Vine Street, but I can't make sense of the last part.

Thank you

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / A what labourer?

« on: Friday 03 June 22 18:33 BST (UK) »

I'm looking at this census return, for a David Cawood.

Registration district Goole Sub-registration district Swinefleet ED, institution, or vessel 2a and 3a Neighbors View others on page Household schedule number 33 Piece 2350 Folio 366 Page number 11

I've attached the bit I'm interested in. I think it says agricultural labourer, but it's a bit of a mess.

There are at least three different hands on that page, it almost looks like each household filled it in themselves.

I'd be really grateful if anyone who is good at this sort of thing could give me a second opinion. Thank you.

The Common Room / Any Shakespeare fans here? I need some help with this quote.

« on: Thursday 02 June 22 22:03 BST (UK) »

Basically, I'm looking at a newspaper article which is likely about a relative of mine called Daniel Graham, from Carlisle Journal - Saturday 19 February 1842.

He was being accused by a friend of his, Thomas Lusk. They were all once part of an amateur theatre company, where they all paid in a fee to buy scenery and other bits and bobs. Lusk claimed there was a rule that if you stopped paying in, you forfeited your right to your share in the scenery that had been bought, and that as he was the last man to pay in, it all belonged to him. That company of actors shut down.

At some point later in the future, they all joined another company, perhaps at different times. Daniel Graham and his other friend John Fish, took some of the scenery from the previous company. Lusk was claiming this was not right, as it belonged to him.

The article goes on to say

Quote

Lusk was cross-examined by Master Graham, who seemed to think (like Master Nick Bottom) “that he could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in” in order to show the co-partnership in the disputed properties; but before he had finished extracting the secrets of the club from Mr Lusk (which was a very lengthy and wordy proceeding), the magistrate put an end to the play, by declaring that the evidence of partnership was too strong to allow of any interference by the Magistrates and that Lusk must go the Equity Courts for redress.

I get that they are comparing him to Nick Bottom from "A Midsummer Night's Dream", and I get that the 'he could play Ercles bit' is from the play.

I also get that they are implying that Daniel Graham was being pompous, confused and silly.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Nick Bottom is a weaver and so was Daniel Graham.

I'm just not sure I understand exactly why they quoted that particular bit of the original Shakespeare. Is there something I am missing?

Here is the original speech from the Shakespeare play.