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.


Messages - Dulciebun

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 29
1
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

2
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

3
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


4
I think it all very favourable. Easington was the registration district, the church might be closer as you will know so it might be possible to check Johnís marriage.
Ages are often not reliable - did it matter then? Similarly spellings of names - would people know if their name was misspelt.
Perhaps Elizabeth was just an old lady so make up an age  ;)
Unfortunately civil records did not begin until 1864 to look for a death in Ireland and Catholic records are usually baptisms and marriages. I have looked at English records but did not find a death for Mathew.
Perhaps she wasnít asked if her father was dead - just his name.
However, there is much there to tie the various characters to the one family.

heywood
I'm finding it all very favourable too.
I agree, we need to go for the Big Picture and not fret about one or two details which don't quite fit.

The Easington marriage (1860) is between John MURPHY and Winifred DAGAIN which could well be 'Daigan' (I've also seen Deighan, Daygan). Winifred was born in Sligo 1840 (census 1861, as Murphy). Her family was probably in Co. Durham for the coal, and met her husband (also coal) this way.

Please can you assist with the other part of the puzzle, the bridegroom Henry McATAMINEY, the mariner ?
 The church register for the 1862 Sunderland marriage McATAMINEY + our Bridget MURPHY says the groom's father James (farm labourer) was from County Derry.
Henry was 28 in Feb 1862, so born in 1834-ish, most probably Derry too.
I haven't found him anywhere on English soil or on the sea. No emigration record; he's not even on a USA census and he was gone by about 1870. Is he visible in Ireland? I know it's early...

Also, how would the son of an Irish farm labourer have learned to write so beautifully?

D

5
I think you have discounted Bridget in 1861 3751/75/43 but I just offer this to consider:

Beauparc parish, Meath. https://registers.nli.ie/parishes/0910

Michael Murphy 1st November 1838 - parents Mathew and Elizabeth Cartin

Bridget Murphy baptised 21 May 1841 - parents Matthew and Betty Carty

Ann Murphy 13th June 1847 -parents Mathew  and Betty Carton

There is also a nephew in the household - Michl Shanley 27 yrs

There is a Bridget Shanley in that parish with parents  William and Rose Cartin. She may be sister to Michael.

https://registers.nli.ie/parishes/0910

There is also this:
1861  3751/75/41
John 24 yrs and Winnifred Murphy - a marriage for them in Easington district 1860

Back in the parish in Meath
John Murphy baptised 26th November 1833 - parents Mathew and Elizabeth Cartin

heywood, bless you
I think you've hit on something here... I'm getting excited...

Cartin/Carty/Carton, same surname I should think.

There aren't as many Mat(t)hews as I thought, when looking at the Irish registers, so a Matthew + Elizabeth is a very useful find.

I seem to remember, though, that on one of the USA censuses that the American family have provided via Ancestry, the Elizabeth Murphy who was living with Bridget  Murphy/McAtaminey/Downey (Deviney) was 82 at that point, which would have given this Elizabeth-in-the-USA a birth year of 1798, far too old for the Elizabeth at Seaton Colliery. I could be wrong. I'll go back and look again.

Remembering the Seaton Colliery census entry 1861, [Post] Office Row: a few doors down from Elizabeth + Bridget + Michael Murphy I do remember a John Murphy also from Meath... and I did wonder if this is Elizabeth's son who's recently got wed. It feels so, doesn't it. Thank you for finding the marriage entry for John + Winnifred, I will have a look; Easington is next to Seaham, it has a church with square tower on a hill; big mining community (as was), all landscaped into a Country Park now.

The Bridget who was baptised in Meath seems suspiciously similar to the Bridget who's at Seaton Colliery, don't you think? If it's all the same girl, it's the given ages which don't tally: baptised 1841 in Meath, but then only 18 on the 1861 (why?), and a leap to 22 in Feb 1862 (marriage)...

If this is the right (one and only) Bridget, where is her father Matthew, when his family are at the Seaton mine? Has he died before the family came to England?
The Elizabeth at Seaton is a widow on the 1861, however the Bridget who wed in 1862 didn't state 'father deceased'.

Just thinking aloud! Heywood what do you feel?

D

6

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


7
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


8
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

9
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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 29