What happened to Selina Warner?

[Framesmiths1816]

Hi Lissa,

Great work again I think. It certainly looks promising doesn't it. Where did you find the Thomas 1840 census info? I wasn't even sure if there had been an 1840 US census.

Is Thomas in the UK in 1870, may be but I guess he could be missing from the US 1870 and the UK 1871 is he travelled at the right times. I will have a look. There might be a later passenger entry for a journey around 1870.

I have a suspicion that Thomas might have been married twice and that he had a daughter Sarah in 1842 by that marriage. I would be interested to know about the "one female under 30" reference for 1840.

I have been looking for evidence that John travelled to the US but I have not found much. There is a John travelling in 1842 and a Sarah in 1848 but I don't think they are heading for Philadelphia and the gap seems a bit big.

Anyway I have stared at this screen for long enough today.

Thanks for all your effort and hard work.

Best regards - Mark

[johnnyboy]

Hi all: I disappeared for several hours. I have reappeared now. Time flies when you disappear. And LissaM found the true spelling of Falconbridge, which led me to...

Here's marriage in Philadelphia between Eliza W. Falconbridge (Thomas and Eliza Warner's granddaughter) and Crawford W.  Hooven in 1918, license #385786.

I googled Crawford W. Hooven and found these Genforum messages concerning Thomas Warner's son in law Joseph Falconbridge.

http://genforum.genealogy.com/falconbridge/messages/18.html

Here is Crawford W. Hooven in the 1900 census.

http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#eventPlace=Philadelphia%2C%20Philadelphia%2C%20Pennsylvania%2C%20United%20States;surname=Hooven;searchType=standard;collectionId=1325221;placeId=1114603;p=1;givenName=Crawford
John   

[murphy60]

Hi again Mark,   Yes,  there is an 1840 census (actually the 1st US Census is 1790)  BUT there's is not much info.  They are only headcounts by age grouping and a counting of free persons and of slaves.  That's why my 1840 recap is the way it is.  I wasn't being lazy!!

I didn't find anything promising for John being in the U.S.

Yes,  I agree that Thomas' dau Sarah is from a 1st wife  --   see below

1860 Philadelphia Ward 7, Philadelphia, PA
Thomas Warner  40  1820  b. England    Machinist
Eliza Warner 27  b. England
Sarah Warner 18   b. PA  Saleswoman


1900  Philadelphia Ward 22, Philadelphia, PA   297 Ashmead St.
Head Joseph Falkenbridge 56  b. England Parents:  England  Machinist
Wife Emily B Falkenbridge 30 
Dau Eliza W Falkenbridge 9 
FIL Thos Warner 80  1820  b. England Parents;  England  Years Married:  47 (1853)    Occ:  Watchman
MIL Eliza Warner 66   3 children born/living

I think PA vitals recordings begin at a much later date than would capture dau Sarah's mother's death and Thomas remarriage to Eliza.  I'll double check that .  Regardless,  they may not be searchable on-line.

I need a break too!!! 

lissa

[murphy60]

EXCELLENT, JOHN!!   

I almost didn't post the Falconbridge bit ---  thought either insignificant or maybe Mark already had it!!! 

lissa

[murphy60]

Mark, Here's info on how to get Pennsylvania Vital Records.   

http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/health/cwp/view.asp?a=168&Q=202338


lissa

[murphy60]

1910 Philadelphia Ward 22, Philadelphia, PA    Ashmead Street
Joseph Falconbridge   70  b. 1840   England  Parents:  England  Widow [on index]   Immigration: 1862    Knitter @ Hosiery Mill
Emily Falconbridge 48   b. PA   Married 20 years  1 child born/living
Elizabeth Falconbridge 19  b. PA    Stenographer @ Drug House   

* Actual image is hard to read but it says “M” for married  not a Widow and spouse Emily is present


1890 Philadelphia Directory
Falconbridge Joseph
Profession: Foreman 
Address: h 172 Ashmead 

[Framesmiths1816]

Hi all: I disappeared for several hours. I have reappeared now. Time flies when you disappear. And LissaM found the true spelling of Falconbridge, which led me to...

Here's marriage in Philadelphia between Eliza W. Falconbridge (Thomas and Eliza Warner's granddaughter) and Crawford W.  Hooven in 1918, license #385786.

I googled Crawford W. Hooven and found these Genforum messages concerning Thomas Warner's son in law Joseph Falconbridge.

http://genforum.genealogy.com/falconbridge/messages/18.html

Here is Crawford W. Hooven in the 1900 census.

http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#eventPlace=Philadelphia%2C%20Philadelphia%2C%20Pennsylvania%2C%20United%20States;surname=Hooven;searchType=standard;collectionId=1325221;placeId=1114603;p=1;givenName=Crawford
John   

Hi John,

Fantastic!!!  This is the first indication that I have family alive in the US. The genform link seems to imply that at least one of the contributors is related to Falconbridge.  The second message has some more info as well. It's a few years old but I will see if I can contact the contributors.

Thanks for 1900 census as well.

Cheers - Mark

[Framesmiths1816]

Hi again Mark,   Yes,  there is an 1840 census (actually the 1st US Census is 1790)  BUT there's is not much info.  They are only headcounts by age grouping and a counting of free persons and of slaves.  That's why my 1840 recap is the way it is.  I wasn't being lazy!!

I didn't find anything promising for John being in the U.S.

Yes,  I agree that Thomas' dau Sarah is from a 1st wife  --   see below

1860 Philadelphia Ward 7, Philadelphia, PA
Thomas Warner  40  1820  b. England    Machinist
Eliza Warner 27  b. England
Sarah Warner 18   b. PA  Saleswoman


1900  Philadelphia Ward 22, Philadelphia, PA   297 Ashmead St.
Head Joseph Falkenbridge 56  b. England Parents:  England  Machinist
Wife Emily B Falkenbridge 30 
Dau Eliza W Falkenbridge 9 
FIL Thos Warner 80  1820  b. England Parents;  England  Years Married:  47 (1853)    Occ:  Watchman
MIL Eliza Warner 66   3 children born/living

I think PA vitals recordings begin at a much later date than would capture dau Sarah's mother's death and Thomas remarriage to Eliza.  I'll double check that .  Regardless,  they may not be searchable on-line.

I need a break too!!! 

lissa

Hi Lissa,

Lazy? I should say not! I just haven't seen one for the US. You have added other messages as I am writing this.

I will look at your vital records link. I must admit to being puzzled about what they contain or the periods that they cover. Is there no index of vital records like in the UK?

Always post the smallest thing please. Sometimes I haven't got the complete picture. For example I had not picked up some of the finer detail from later census like years married.

I think John is not going to come up. There are other children of Isaac who I cannot find as well. Isaac and Sarah had 10 children in total. I can give you some other names and details if you are interested? I have been trying some myself yesterday but I didn't have any luck. Only two lines are known in the UK, mine, descended from Isaac 1816 and the descendent's of John 1808.

Once again let me say how much I appreciate all your time and effort.

Best regards - Mark

[murphy60]

Good afternoon, Mark  --  tho' still very early morning for me!  Desperately seeking coffee!

There is no central BMD registry in the US.  It's state-by-state and what can be found varies enormously.  The  date range for accessibility varies and will not be continuous. It can often be county-by-county.  Urban counties usually being better than rural ones.  What is searchable on-line varies except when  you get lucky with a particular county for a specific time frame.  Sometimes you can find the whole document on-line and print it off  (Like Missouri Death Certs) and sometimes you can't even find a good index! Process for requesting certs will vary as well.   And then there are state privacy laws to contend with ..... and then records got caught in a fire, flood, famine or an infestation of locusts  in 1920, etc etc etc  .......... so you accumulate your own resource library of where to look for what during what time frame.

Census info progresses and changes as the years go by.  Moving from headcounting to much more specific info,  Also the census questions vary and could have been asked in different ways so the information could have been given a different way.  For instance,  1900 asks  "number of years married"   it does not ask for the "year married".  The year is a mathematical calculation in the indexed information.  1900 also asked for the month and year of birth not just age on last birthday.  So sometimes you do have to go back and re-evaluate past census takings when new info becomes available.   

ALSO,  as you know,  always best to look at the actual image and not trust the indexed version.  I found a consistent anomaly in the Philadelphia records with huge multi- family groups be indexed together --  4 or 5 large families all together as if they lived in the same household .  On the actual image however,  all those families weren't even on the page!!

Yesterday I looked on the IGI and found Isaac and Sarah's marriage in 1807 which lead to the "discovery" of the older children.  I assumed you knew they had not emigrated so were not part of this inquiry.  But, yes please post them and will take a look for them.   Not an expert in U.K. but I do have "World" access  membership and I have tracked (most) of my own lot fairly successfully so will have a go at it.  ALSO others on the board with greater expertise will certainly pickup and run with it too!!  This family seems to stay pretty closely associated to one another which helps.

Your search has been great fun!!  Glad to have been a help to it!   Won't be able to work on this today  --  going on a little Autumn adventure trip --  but will check back in tonite to see what's going on.

Happy hunting today!!!

lissa