Double marriage?

[ijl]

Hello again Paul. Yes Ralph was born in Seatondelaval, Northumberland but residing in Stoke-On-Trent
in 1881. Living with his family at the time were Ralph B Harrison and Sarah A Harrison who were 2
of George and Marys kids.
Note they are Harrisons in 1881 but become Ralph and Sarah Bradbury in 1891 .
Im confused about this!!!!!!

      regards  IJL

[Paul E]

Hi IJL

From the 1881 (which you have got), living at 9 Thomas St, Stoke Upon Trent, Staffordshire

Ralph B. Harrison abt 1874  Hanley, Staffordshire, England Grandson   
Sarah A. Harrison abt 1879  Hanley, Staffordshire, England Granddaughter 
Caroline Urwin abt 1841  Hanley, Staffordshire, England Wife 
John Urwin abt 1861  Hanley, Staffordshire, England Son 
Margt. Urwin abt 1862  Hanley, Staffordshire, England Daughter 
Ralph Urwin abt 1825  Seatondelaval, Northumberland, England Head -  (Retired Colliery Manager)
Mary Whitehouse abt 1865  Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, England Servant 

I can find a marriage for Ralph Urwin and Caroline Weston in the Dec Qtr of 1880 at Stoke on Trent, which matches the 1881 census details for the Urwins.

1871 is more problematic.  The 1881 family looks to be a mixed one: John and Margaret are *probably* children of Caroline's from a previous marriage (going by their place of birth).

That really only gives us Ralph to go on in 1871... and looking for a Ralph born in Northumberland c 1825 is drawing a blank.  These are the Ralphs showing in 1871:

Ralph Urwin abt 1865  West Moor, Northumberland, England Son  Chapwell  Durham   
Ralph Urwin abt 1820  Backworth, Northumberland, England Head  Backworth  Northumberland  Ralph Urwin abt 1861  Backworth, Northumberland, England Son  Backworth  Northumberland   
Ralph Urwin abt 1837  Capen, Northumberland, England Head  Benwell  Northumberland   
Ralph Urwin abt 1855  Wallsend, Northumberland, England Son  Benwell  Northumberland 

1820 Ralph is a farmer and can probably be ruled out
1837 Ralph is a miner, married to Mary A, with a daughter Mary A born 1866 - so no good for an 1871 marriage - although both Mary's were born in Seatondelavel.

Other Mary A or Mary Anns in 1871:

Mary A Urwin abt 1870  Hexham, Northumberland, England Daughter  Benfieldside  Durham   
Mary A Urwin abt 1863  Backworth, Northumberland, England Daughter  Backworth  Northumberland   
Mary A Urwin abt 1825  Stamfordham, Northumberland, England Daughter  Hawkwell  Northumberland   
Mary A Urwin abt 1839  Haydon, Northumberland, England Wife  Haydon  Northumberland   
Mary A Urwin abt 1860  Howdon, Northumberland, England Daughter  Howden  Northumberland   
Mary A Urwin abt 1866  Newbiggin, Northumberland, England Granddaughter  Newbiggin  Northumberland 

Only two of these are of the right age for an 1871 marriage but one is already married and the remaining one is born Stamfordham.


(PAUSE FOR DEEP THOUGHT)....

Back to the Harrisons and Bradbury's

Are you sure you have the same George going back in each of the censuses?

It may be worth posting what info you have here to let an experienced eye (and I don't mean me!) have a look at it...

cheers

Paul








 

[Paul E]

Although there's an intriguing marriage of a Ralph Urwin in June Qtr of 1860 in Gateshead, with a Margaret HARRISON on the same page, which you might want to think about...

Paul

[ijl]

Hello Paul you have been busy! Im impressed. As for the other info i have, well here goes

1901 census

george bradbury  head   wid   50  fishmonger   b. hanley
ralph bradbury      sn               25       :              b.     :
mary  j    :              d                2o                       b.     :
maggie    :             d                 19                      b.     :
alice        :              d                 15                      b.     :
fred         :             sn                13                      b.     :

Fred is my grandfather and his sisters Margeret and Alice are who my mother is named after.

1891 census

george bradbury   head    m    39   fishmerchant  b. hanley
mary a     :             wife            38                         b.    :
ralph        :              sn              17         :               b.   :
john         :               :                14         :              b.     :
sarah a    :               d               12                         b.    :
jane          ;              :                 10                        b.     :
margeret  :              :                 9                          b.    :
alice         :               :                 5                          b.    :
fred          :               sn              3                          b.    ;


1881 census

george a  harrison    head    m      29  fishdealer     b. hanley
mary a          :            wife              28                      b.    :
samuel b       :             sn               5                        b.    :
john     b       :              :                 4                         b.   :
mary j           :              d                2mths                 b.    :


1871 census

samuel bradbury       head     m     44   fishmonger    b. hanley
sarah        :                wife              41                        b.     :
george     :                  sn               20         :              b.     :


1861 census

samuel bradbury        head    unm   34    fishdealer    b. hanley
sarah harrison           serv        :       30                       b.     :
george harrison        nephew           9                         b.     :


Thats your lot. By the way the address is 30 Piccadilly Hanley for the 1871, 1881, 1891,1901 census,s
and 25 Broad St in 1861

      regards IJL                                  

[Paul E]

Well - it seems to stack up, doesn't it?  (Particularly with the same address each time).

Wonder whether the George Bradbury (aged 34), born Hanley, Staffordshire working as a fishmonger in Berwick on Tweed fits into the picture anywhere - this in 1881.

Was the Bradbury's a big family firm by any chance?

Paul

[ijl]

I too  found this George in Northumberland (with adifferent wife) but theres a 5 year age discreppancy,and
i followed this line until i found him as Harrison in 1881 at 30 Piccadilly.

As to the size of the business, i was led to believe it was just a small family one.

   regards   IJL

[Paul E]

Hi IJL

Just wondering now about George in 1861 and 1871.

Is it conceivable that these are two different George's?  There's a slight age discrepancy and the relationship is son in one case and nephew in another.

There's also an intriguing mixture of Harrisons and Bradburys at Town End in Longnor, Staffs in 1871 that is worth looking at.  It includes a 19 year old George Harrison working as a servant.  (RE10/2885 Folio 12 Page 18)
cheers

Paul

[ijl]

Hows this for a scenario . Samuel Bradbury around 1852 got his housekeeper pregnant but did the right
thing in looking after her, but not marrying her until after 1861.
George is born, and calls Sam uncle until Sam and Sarah marry.(am i clutching at straws here?)
 
    regards IJL

[Paul E]

As a seasoned straw clutcher myself, its hard to say! 

Its always a possibility, but there is such a confusion of Bradburys and Harrisons that anything could have happened.  The 1851 census might (just) help as, if there's an infant George showing the relationship might become clearer.  If Sarah is also there in 1851, all the better.

Worth trying a posting on the Staffordshire Lookup board for 1851, giving the full census details you have for 1861 and 1871.

On the face of it, though, there may well be a George Harrison b1852 Hanley and a George Bradbury b1851 Hanley to contend with, each of them away from home in one of the 1861 /71 censuses.

cheers

Paul