Views needed please

[Chelsea]

Gennig,

Many thanks for your response.

The more I think about this ~ the more I struggle with finding an answer lol 

Re: the '2' Sarah's:

I am definitely coming to the conclusion that they are one and the same! Especially as there is no record that I can find of a Sarah ROGERS marrying anyone by the name of Fernihough ~ only a Sarah HALL.

However, I am still a little suspicious of this and therefore I am looking through the 1841 census for Leek (as the family didn't seem to move much) to see if I can spot a Sarah Hall (with or without Mary) in order to try and prove this theory one way or another.

There are a few Sarah Hall's (& Marys) but, at the moment, they all seem to tie in with other families and not mine.

I had seen the information from familysearch, and was interested to see the Daniel Rogers & Mary thing! There are a few "Rogers" in the Leek area on the 1841 ~ again I may try to tie these all up as families to try and get a possible lead.

The 2 fernihough boys I am sure are brothers. Although Joseph does not seem to appear on the 1851, it could be for a number of reasons ~ the Goddards & their surrounding family members tended to "field" their children out to other members of the family. It could be that he is with another relative and perhaps his surname has been wrongly transcribed. Or maybe just he and the family that he is with just didn't complete the census form!

I believe Joseph Fernihough died in1869 ~ have yet to find what happend to Andrew Fernihough or, for that matter, Henry Goddard ~ Thomas & Ann's eldest son. He too seemed to just "disappear"!!

I think my question regarding Emma is 'sadly' pointing in the direction of her being Thomas & Sarah's daughter. I say sadly, because I seem to have "gotten to know" the family quite well over the last year or so ~ if you know what I mean     However, they are still all relevant, as they would be Emma's half brothers & sisters.

The thing is though ~ if the 2 Sarah's ARE the same wouldn't that make her Thomas's niece?? (Mary Hall being Ann Goddards sister?) ~ was that allowed?

If anyone else has any other info or "ideas" that they feel may help to clear this up (?), I would love to hear from you.

Thanks

Chelsea 

[heywood]

Hello again Chelsea,

I agree that Parish records might be very useful here -still a few puzzles.

Joseph isn't with them in 1851 but there is a suitable birth 1849 - perhaps he was overlooked in the list of inhabitants of the house?
There is also a death for a Joseph, aged 19 yrs in 1869- that could be followed up.
best wishes
heywood

[heywood]

sorry - I posted same info as you Chelsea re Joseph and Andrew.

Yes he was allowed to marry his wife's niece - so that  least was ok.
If you are able I would go for Parish records- they might extend the picture a bit - or indeed close in on your subjects!

If you are not in the area- you can order them through a local Family History library (Latter Day Saints) - very cheap to hire them for a month.

[Chelsea]

Hi again,

Just wanted to give you an update!

Dont know if I am helping or confusing the issue furthetr (!) but there is a Mary Goddard born Jul/Aug/Sep 1858 in Leek area.

This could be either:
a) Emma registered under a different name but for some reason then went through life being called Emma
OR
b) another child of Thomas's second marriage, meaning Emma was not the youngest as you thought
OR
c) a complete red herring nothing to do with your famliy at all!!

I didn't believe that Mary Goddard was part of my tree ~ I did indeed think she was a red herring! However, I sent for the birth cert and guess what!

Not only is she the daughter of Thomas Goddard and his 2nd wife Sarah.....it also had something very interesting on the certificate:

Sarah Goddard, late Fernihough formerly HALL! 
(if you remember, her marriage cert to Thomas showed her as formerley ROGERS sparking a whole debate as to whether the two Sarah's were one and the same person).

Well they are!!
Aand that wonderful birth certificate arriving today proves it without a shadow of a doubt!! 

The good thing is ~ even though I still haven't "proved" whether Emma belongs to Thomas & Ann or Thomas & Sarah, my tree stays the same! It all still traces back to the HALLS......albeit a "slightly" different route 

Don't ya just love it when the pieces of the puzzle fall nicely into place?

Chelsea 

[heywood]

Hi Chelsea,
there's another bit sorted- well done. (and it was all within the family!)
best wishes
heywood