Author Topic: Surrey: Henry GYATT  (Read 11573 times)

Offline keyboard86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 17,056
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:33 GMT (UK) »
Hi if the 1836 Henry is him in 1851 he is the adopted son of Edward & Mary Jackson
HO107/1594/615/34

Keyboard86
Pelly/Pelley/Kingsbury/Challis/Nalder/Rochester/Raydenbow

UK Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:41 GMT (UK) »
I agree it is confusing.

However, looking at the marriage certificate which is on Ancestry, Henry Gyatt was a widower when he married Caroline in 1839. This means that Henry junior could be his son from the previous marriage and therefore could be the son of Henry and Maria and the one who was baptised in 1836.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:47 GMT (UK) »
Here is Maria Gyatt's death

Maria Gyatt
Guildford, Surrey
Volume   4  Page   0159
Registered   July - September 1837
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline suzard

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,197
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:52 GMT (UK) »
This would seem to make sense
there are no sign of children for henry & Caroline

there is the baptism of Henry to Henry and Maria 1836

Marriage of henry & Maria 1836

and now
Burial record
Maria Gyatt
age 22
Buried 20 August 1837
Stoke next Guildford St John the Evangelist

1841 Portsmouth Road Guildford Surrey
Edward jackson 40 Bricklayer J
Mary 40
Fellis Nobes 30
Rachel Nobes 6
Henry Gyatt 5
all b in county
HO107 1082 4 13 21

1851-henry is described as adopted son to Edward Jackson

This is the only Henry of abt correct age I can find

Would be interesting to get Henry and Caroline's marriage cert to see if Henry was a widower?uz?

Suz

Suz
Thornhill, Cresswell, Sisson, Harriman, Cripps, Eyre, Walter, Marson, Battison, Holmes, Bailey, Hardman, Fairhurst Noon-mainly in Derbys/Notts-but also Northampton, Oxford, Leics, Lancs-England
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:54 GMT (UK) »
Quote
Would be interesting to get Henry and Caroline's marriage cert to see if Henry was a widower?uz?

Think we crossed.  ;D  He was a widower. I've come to exactly the same conclusion as you have Suz.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline suzard

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,197
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 22:58 GMT (UK) »
Surrey Advertiser
Deaths
6 July 1867
On the 2nd inst South St Guildford Henry Gyatt age 51 years

1861 census Henry of correct age was a widower

so was this husband of Caroline and previously of maria - and father of henry??

Its getting interesting -over to you groom

Suz
Thornhill, Cresswell, Sisson, Harriman, Cripps, Eyre, Walter, Marson, Battison, Holmes, Bailey, Hardman, Fairhurst Noon-mainly in Derbys/Notts-but also Northampton, Oxford, Leics, Lancs-England
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 23:24 GMT (UK) »
Caroline's death/burial

Caroline Gyett
Birth abt 1820
Burial :   18 Jul 1852
Guildford, St Nicholas

I wonder if she died shortly after giving birth as there is this birth?

Births Mar 1852   
Gyatt    John Robert        Guildford    2a   48

EDIT: Forget that, he was the son of Emma and James
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline suzard

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,197
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday 11 February 15 23:55 GMT (UK) »
I think as you do groom
Henry is the son of Henry Gyatt & Maria Jones
Maria died 1837
Possibly Henry couldn't manage a baby son so the Jacksons looked after him  -"adopted son " would be an informal term
It seems Henry knew his father -at least his name and occupation
Henry remarried to Caroline -there doesn't seem to be any children from that marriage
Henry was a plumber and his father John was a plumber (& glazier)
Henry junior was a bricklayer - so it seems he followed in the occupation of Edward Jackson who Henry lived with from a very young age

1841 census (previously posted) shows Henry with Edward & Mary jackson - also with them are "Fllis Nobes" age 30 and Rachel Nobes age 6
I think "Fellis" is really Philadelphia  -there is a baptism abt correct time for Rachel Phobes -parents John & Philadelphia
you never know they may turn out to be related???

Suz
Thornhill, Cresswell, Sisson, Harriman, Cripps, Eyre, Walter, Marson, Battison, Holmes, Bailey, Hardman, Fairhurst Noon-mainly in Derbys/Notts-but also Northampton, Oxford, Leics, Lancs-England
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline BAC3

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,160
    • View Profile
Re: Surrey: Henry GYATT
« Reply #26 on: Thursday 12 February 15 10:53 GMT (UK) »
Thank you everyone for your contributions. 

I have a mass of information to collate this morning which hopefully will produce a cohesive narrative.   One area that does concern me , however, is the disparity in his age/date of birth, although I appreciate that in the 19th century recording accuracy of that data was not necessarily prime.

I am now going to mark this topic "Completed" as I am delighted with the outcome.

For the moment,

BAC3