Author Topic: Confusing marriage  (Read 3343 times)

Offline Duodecem

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #18 on: Sunday 28 September 14 17:42 BST (UK) »
No Luck with 1861 but this looks like them in 1871
Name:   Margaret McLeese
Age:   53
Estimated Birth Year:   abt 1818
Relation:   Wife
Spouse's Name:   John McLeese
Gender:   Female
Where born:   Ireland
Civil Parish:   Liverpool
County/Island:   Lancashire
Country:   England
Registration district:   Liverpool
Sub-registration district:   Howard Street
ED, institution, or vessel:   11
Household schedule number:   138
Piece:   3768
Folio:   86
Page Number:   27
Household Members:   
John McLeese   49
Margaret McLeese   53
Margaret McLeese   26
Mary Ann McLeese   23
James McLeese   16
Jessie McLeese   12
John Rock   1
Thos Cullen   1 Month

John and James are both Corn Porters, Margaret a Washerwoman and her daughter Margaret a servant, Mary Ann is a dressmaker. John Rock and Thomas Cullen are both grandchildren-no record of their parents.
Cooper- Berks, Herts, Wrexham,Birmingham
Garrett- London, Berks
Morton-Berkshire
Harvey- Essex
Hambling, Royal,Dale,Jackson, Tann, Boatwright Edridge/Etheridge/Uttridge -all Norfolk
Osborne-Norfolk and Northumberland/Durham

Offline Bentham

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #19 on: Sunday 28 September 14 18:19 BST (UK) »
Thanks Jan. I have this one and subsequent ones relating to the family.
Of the two young children John Rock is the son of Mary Ann Mcleese although he was baptised as John McLise. The other child, Thomas, is Margaret's son. Neither were married although Margaret did marry the father of her child, John Cullen,

Mary had other children but the first three were baptised McLise and born in Liverpool Workhouse.
The later ones were christened Rock although I can find no evidence she ever married Micheal Rock the father.

Thanks

Bentham

Offline Daisypetal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,374
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #20 on: Thursday 02 October 14 16:14 BST (UK) »

Hi,

About the 1861 census, if I'm looking at the right family in 1851 they are living at 7 Amelia Place, Tithebarn Street and in 1871 John is a Corn Porter. I have found this family in 1861 living at the same street as in 1861 and John has the same occupation as he does in 1871.

Transcribed and looks like MCALEEN but remember the enumerator would be transcribing from the forms he was given so mistrancriptions could, as you know from all the different spellings you have uncovered so far :), be quite common.


1861    RG9/2669    f.21    p.35    Liverpool   
Tithebarn St
5 Court

MCALEEN
John         Head    38    Corn Porter    Ireland
Margaret    Wife    42                       
Mary A      Daur    12    Scholar        Lancash Lpool
James        Son     7                            "        "
Jane M      Daur     3                            "        "
Andrew      Son     8m                          "        "


What do you think?

Regards,
Daisy

   
All Census Data included in this post is Crown Copyright (see: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)

Offline Bentham

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #21 on: Thursday 02 October 14 17:12 BST (UK) »
Daisypetal I think, no I am sure, you have cracked it!!

Strangely I found an Andrew Mcsomething  in the births and deaths but dismissed it as I had no other leads to this name in this family. Margaret the daughter was a servant so would probably be staying elsewhere that night.

Brilliant.

My thanks and best regards

Bentham


Offline Bentham

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #22 on: Thursday 02 October 14 17:14 BST (UK) »
I must add that I have just typed up all the notes on this part of the tree with the 1861 missing and glossed over. This now gives a different dimension.

Regards

Bentham

Offline Daisypetal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,374
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing marriage
« Reply #23 on: Thursday 02 October 14 17:31 BST (UK) »

Glad to have helped :)
All Census Data included in this post is Crown Copyright (see: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)