1891 & 1901 Census, York Completed with thanks.

[Coxon]

Hello,

I am looking for information on Thomas & Mary Percy.  I have tried looking for Mary Percy on the 1901 census online, but have tried various spellings of Percy & come up with nothing.

I have found them on the 1881 census in York.  RG11 4724/66 12.

Thomas Percy  H M 29 Goole   Porter Flour Warehouse
Mary Percy       W M 27  Easingwold
Amelia Percy     D      8    Easingwold Scholar
Annie E. Percy  D       6  Easingwold Scholar
Gertrude Percy D       2  York
Maud  Percy      D     3m  York
 Address 6 Union St. York   St. George


I have also found a death for Thomas Percy on the FreeBMD, in York, age 44.  So although he will be somewhere on the 1891 census he won't be on the 1901 census.

Mary Percy should be on the 1891 census, age 37 and on the 1901 census, age 47.  I know she was still alive in 1901, in York as I have a newspaper cutting about her nephew and she is mentioned.

I hope this isn't too complicated.  I have tried to give as much information as I have.  I seem to have a lot of trouble with the 1901 census.  I have tried looking for another branch of my familyon the 1901 census , a Lucy Ann Leonard, born in Hunmanby nr. Bridlington about 1882 and I can't find her anywhere.  Yet like Mary Percy, above, I know she is still alive and living in York in 1910.


Thank you in anticipation

Louise

[willow2670]

Hi Louise
all born York except Thomas
1891 RG12/3894 Folio 14
Thomas Percy Head 39 b Goole          Life Assurance Agent
Mary Wife 38
Ann E Dau 16
Maud Dau 10
Harold Son 3
37 Granville Rerrace, St Nicholas, Yorkshire

Sue

[Bee]

Hi Louise

1901 RG13/4447 folio 145 page 19
living at 37 Granville Terrace, York

PERCY
Mary/head/wid/47/Easingwold
Harold/son/10/scholar/York
Kathleen/dau/5/scholar/York
George Pert/boarder/wid/45/joiner/Cumberland Keswick

Bee

[Bee]

Hello again

Could this be your Lucy, a servant in a lodging house.

1901 RG13/4531 folio20 page 32
3 Belvoir Terrace, Scarborough

Lucy Leonard/servant/18/housemaid domestic/Filey

Bee

[Coxon]

Thank you Sue for the information on the 1891 census.  The age of Thomas Percy stays consistant.  This has helped pin down the man I want and more importantly the woman.

Thank you Bee for the information on the 1901 census.  I have spent ages putting in various combinations of Percy & Leonard on the free 1901 census search & I have come up with nothing.  The age matches with my Lucy Leonard.  I will just have to check that by some misfortune (for me) there aren't two Lucy Leonards of that age & area.  I can't think that there will be.  I had been puzzling where she could be.  As I could find her in Bridlington workhouse in 1891 & then nothing until she got married in 1910.

The information that you have both provided has helped me to fill in gaps & confirm that I have the correct family. 

Thanks to you both once again,

Louise

[Coxon]

Just a P.S for Bee,

After receiving your message & writing my reply, I got my file out & looked at all the information I have on the Leonard family.  I thought I should share this with you. 

In the 1891 census RG12/3966 101 8, I have Lucys sister Fanny Leonard age 14, Servant, living at 3  Belvoir Terrace, Scarborough.  The home of Sarah Mason H W 57.  I looked Sarah Mason up when I received the 1891 information & she was the aunty of Fanny & Lucy.  At the time I felt it was very cruel to employ the child of working age & send the younger child to the workhouse.  Fanny obviously left that employment & when she became of working age Lucy was employed.  If this is correct it seems very cruel!

I love trying to find out about my family history.
Thanks to you & also to Sue for making it so enjoyable.

Louise

[Bee]

Just a P.S for Bee,

After receiving your message & writing my reply, I got my file out & looked at all the information I have on the Leonard family.  I thought I should share this with you. 

In the 1891 census RG12/3966 101 8, I have Lucys sister Fanny Leonard age 14, Servant, living at 3  Belvoir Terrace, Scarborough.  The home of Sarah Mason H W 57.  I looked Sarah Mason up when I received the 1891 information & she was the aunty of Fanny & Lucy.  At the time I felt it was very cruel to employ the child of working age & send the younger child to the workhouse.  Fanny obviously left that employment & when she became of working age Lucy was employed.  If this is correct it seems very cruel!

I love trying to find out about my family history.
Thanks to you & also to Sue for making it so enjoyable.

Louise

It does seem rather cruel but maybe due to financial restraints the aunt couldn't afford to look after 2 children so employing the eldest and sending the youngest to the workhouse was the only solution at that time.

happy hunting
Bee