Mary Laidler - Missing Years

[Valda]

I would concur with Ambly apart from the fact Mary was recorded as unmarried on the 1861 census. If she were a widow even a widow with illegitimate children there is no way she would have given her status as unmarried since widowhood would give her a more respectable position. I have often seen on censuses proven single women (from other records) falsely informing the census enumerator they were widows and being enumerated as such.

Regards

Valda

[alisporter]

Thank you for all your suggestions and comments.

I do have Mary Jane's birth certificate. It does not show any details for a father.

I could understand if she were harder to find in 1861 with two illegitimate children. Seems strange she can't be found on any other census, when the children would have left by 1871 (Mary Jane was then a servant).

Valda would you presume Talkin Tarn could be a red herring then?  After all, I have other ancestors who gave all manner of birth places, none of which were the actual ones!



 

[Valda]

I think every time family historians say or write either of these two words they should take a deep breath and stop.

Assume (dictionary definition = to take for granted; to claim unduly)

Presume (dictionary definition = to take for granted; to suppose to be true without proof)

I cannot presume or assume anything without the evidence to do so. Yes you can get factual inaccuracies in any record including censuses and certificates, but at this point the 1861 census is the only evidence we have for Mary's origins (the rest as you've stated before is assumption and not evidence). Until you explore the evidence you do have, which is a possible Cumberland origin and not in itself unreasonable, it is not really possible to know whether it is a red herring?

When we assume and presume we should do it on the basis of known probability. In asking me the question whether I would presume Talkin Tarn is a red herring, in reality you are asking me to calculate the probability. I don't think I have enough sound evidence to make the calculation and therefore you are really requesting me to speculate - the third word in family history to watch out for. It is not so often said, but it is very often poorly done.

Speculate (Dictionary definition = to make theories or guesses; to consider a matter from every point of view).

I've tried here to answer your question using the second definition of the word and not the first, but in reality as I have said before I have very little actual evidence to go on. Having said that why would someone (if the enumerator has not got it wrong and he might very well have) pick 'Talkin Tarn' of all places to say they were from. If you weren't born there what would be your chances of ever having heard of the place?

You really need to follow the lead through before you can dismiss it as a red herring.

As to why Mary was easier to find in 1861 then the earlier and later censuses, it is probably dependent on her circumstances. If she was living with a man in 1851 then she and her children may very well be there, but in another name. Ditto the later census but include the possibility of her death. If anyone was in an institution at the time of the census then they will often merely be enumerated in their initials. Mary could have been missed off the 1851 census when life was perhaps much more of a struggle for her (many people paid their rent daily and moonlight flits ahead of the rent man were common - and if the rent man couldn't catch families, the census enumerated would have had little chance). The poor living at the margins were and are often missed off censuses. I would be thankful, under the circumstances in a very large city, that the census enumerator caught Mary at least once, in the surname and place you expected her to be.

If you have Mary Jane's birth certificate have you searched the address and the surrounding area on the 1851 census, concentrating on any possible candidates no matter what there surnames are?

Regards

Valda

[alisporter]

I did look at the address, 28 High Bridge on the 1851 census and there is a servant there called Mary Brewe, but no sign of Ellen who would have been 2 years old.

Interesting, John Laidler the Joiner's mother was Jane Brewis, who also appears to have been a single Mum before she married John Laidler and this made me wonder whether Mary was actually Mary Brewis, her daughter, as her son Henry used both Brewis and Laidler as surnames.

John Laidler's parents were from Haltwhistle, Northumberland but moved to Cumbria around 1808. He had a sister Eleanor who had a daughter called Mary pointed out by  Ambly. Eleanor later married Septimus Forster and moved to Hexham and later Gateshead.

If this is my Mary, it makes John Laidler the Joiner her cousin. We could assume he may have fathered these children (he certainly didn't get married himself until 1858) or presume he was like a father figure, being related and living nearby - the rest of the family stayed living in Waterhead.  As he is the only John Laidler, Joiner, that I can find in the area, who I can see also has a link with Cumberland and Northumberland............speculation?

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, I am ordering Mary's death certificate now to see if that sheds any further light on the family. Somehow I doubt it will.

[Geoff E]

I think your assumption that Jane BREWIS was a single mum is probably at fault ... there is a baptism for a Henry BREWIS at Wooler 17 Sept 1813, son of William and Jane.

If Eleanor LAIDLER married Septimus FORSTER, there is the possibility that Mary may appear on a census as FORSTER.

If Mary's mother was Eleanor, this could explain the naming of a child Ellen.

More questions.

[alisporter]

I did notice that Henry, but further checking on the census showed another Henry Brewis, born around that time. Perhaps William was Jane's brother? 

[Valda]

As well as the actual address did you search  the area around the address in 1851? What was the 'piece number' (HO107 ........) for the 1851 census because a search could be done in the index of that piece number and adjoining piece numbers for likely candidates.

What evidence do you have that proves Eleanor the sister of John Laidler was the Eleanor Laidler who had an illegitimate child called Mary in 1824? Did the family live in the vicinity of Talk Tarn?
Was Eleanor the sister of John Laidler the Eleanor born Ovingham Northumberland who was in Gateshead on the 1851 census, aged 42, and therefore circa 15 in 1824?

If Mary was the daughter of Eleanor then John would be her uncle not her cousin. If Mary was the illegitimate daughter of John and Eleanor's mother Jane nee Brewis  then she would be John and Eleanor's half sister, but I would have thought older than John and Eleanor since she would need to have been born before Jane's marriage to Mr Laidler?

Regards

Valda

[alisporter]

The piece number is HO107 2406.

The only evidence for Eleanor Laidler being Mary's mother is that she was registered at Hayton By Brampton. These Laidlers were from Northumberland although they lived in Cumberland close to Talkin Tarn. All the family stayed in cumberland except John and Eleanor.

Eleanor had married Septimus Forster by 1851 and was a widow living with her brother Henry Laidler at Waterhead.

Mary is older than John (census shows 1824 and 1829). Jane married John Laidler 30/03/1820, Henry was born around 1817).

[Valda]

Using the IGI and the Waterhead censuses 1841-1881 this is the information that I have pieced together on the family – does it all connect with them? (There were other Laidlers present in Waterhead on the censuses)

John Laidler married Eleanor Atkinson 1791 Haltwhistle Northumberland


John Laidler baptism 1791 Allendale Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

Jane Laidler baptism 1793 Allendale Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

Joseph Laidler baptism 1796 Lambley Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

Mary Laidler baptism 1797 Lambley Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

William Laidler baptism 1799 Lambley Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

Eleanor Forster nee Laidler (present Waterhead 1851-1871/Gateshead Durham 1841 with husband and John Forster born circa 1837 not Durham) Eleanor born circa 1802-1805 ‘Whitwham’ Northumberland, Haltwhistle Northumberland or ‘Lawley’ Northumberland, baptism 1802 Lambley Northumberland parents John & Eleanor . Married Hexham Northumberland 1834.

Henry Laidler (present Waterhead 1851-1881 farmer) born circa 1803-1807 Lanercost Cumberland x2 Haltwhistle Northumberland x 1 and’ Whitwham’ Northumberland x1 baptism 1805  Lambley Northumberland parents John & Eleanor

Dorothy Laidler baptism Lanercost Cumberland 1808 parents John & Eleanor

Thomas Laidler (present Waterhead 1851-1881 farmer) born circa 1802-1812 Lanercost Cumberland – baptism 1810 Lanercost Cumberland parents John & Eleanor

Elizabeth Laidler (present Waterhead 1851) born circa 1814 baptism Lanercost Cumberland 1813 parents John & Eleanor

Eleanor Laidler (present 1851 relationship unspecified) born circa 1821 Castle Carrock Cumberland

John (present 1851-1861 servant and farm labourer) born circa 1824-1829 Castle Carrock nephew to Henry

1841 census The Hill Waterhead Abbey Lanercost Cumberland
William Laidler 30 Farmer not born Cumberland
Henry Laidler 25 not born Cumberland
Elizabeth Laidler 20 born Cumberland
Thomas Laidler 20 born Cumberland
John Laidler 15 born Cumberland
Eleanor Laidler 20 female Servant born Cumberland

From these census entries in Cumberland I'm still not certain who John Laidler the joiner is - the son of the oldest Laidler sibling - John baptised Allendale Northumberland in 1791? Did he marry Jane Brewis who had had an illegitimate son Henry before her marriage? Have you found them on censuses with John senior specified born Allendale?

JOHN LAIDLER 
JANE BREWIES
Marriage:  30 MAR 1820   Wooler, Northumberland
 
Eleanor Forster appears to have lived on her brother Henry Laidler's farm in Cumberland from at least 1851 to 1871.

Regards

Valda