Mystery about Great Great Grandfather

[mikegh1109]

Following this one with interest… quite a mystery!

Here’s another possibility to throw into the mix.  In 1841 there is a Hannah Hollis (Mollis on Anc*) aged 15, a servant at Elvaston, Shardlow, and in the same household is Elizabeth Pegg 50, shown as visitor but then crossed out. 

With the 1841 roundings Hannah’s age could be anything up to 19, so a possible baptism for her is at Radbourne, St Andrew on 26 Jan 1823, Hannah, spurious daughter of Margaret Hollis.

I notice that Sarah Pegg [nee Bottom] was also born in Radbourne, and there is a marriage in Radbourne in 1821 of a Hester Bottom to Joseph Appleby, with one of the witnesses being Margaret Hollis.

Hester Bottom b1804 & Sarah Bottom b1807 were sisters, their parents being Henry & Ann

Unfortunately I completely lose track of Margaret Hollis after Hannah’s birth, but she does seem to provide a link between the Hollis, Bottom & Pegg families.

ADDED: Possible baptism for her at Dudleston, Shropshire:
5 Dec 1802 Margaret d/o Thomas & Hannah Hollis

Well that's introduced another dimension.  However, forgive my ignorance, but in your third paragraph you say:

"With the 1841 roundings Hannah’s age could be anything up to 19, so a possible baptism for her is at Radbourne, St Andrew on 26 Jan 1823, Hannah, spurious daughter of Margaret Hollis".

What do you mean by 1841 roundings and how can these mean she could be up to 19yo? Also by "spurious daughter" do you mean that Margaret could have falsely presented Hannah as her own daughter?

[Jomot]

In the the 1841 census ages of adults were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5, so a 19 year old would be recorded as 15.

Spurious daughter means illegitimate.

[josey]

In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as age 20, and a person age 59 would be listed as 55. In practice, many census officials either did not round down at all or only rounded down for higher ages, such as over 20, or (less frequently) rounded down ages below 15. In general, the age of a person under 15 is probably accurate to within a year or two. For persons over 15, any age that is not a multiple of 5 is likely also to be accurate – for example, if a person is listed as 27, he or she probably really is 27 or thereabouts, rather than 25. The area you have to be careful of is persons over age 15 whose age is a multiple of 5 – they may be up to 4 years younger than their census listing shows – so if your ancestor is listed as 50, remember that he or she is likely actually between the ages of 50 and 54. This, of course, does not even take into account the errors made by census officials and family members reporting the ages of others ! Finally, if the age of a person was unknown, children were supposed to be recorded as “under 20” and adults as “over 20”.

As for 'spurious daughter' it seems to imply illegitimacy; would be worth looking st the actual parish register to see if other 'mother only' baptisms were marked as 'spurious'. Ministers/vicars had various ways of indicating the fact [and their opinions] on illegitimate births.

Crossed in the post Jomot but decided to post anyway....

[Jomot]

Just in case Margaret Hollis is the correct mother for Hannah, I’ve found a possible candidate for her.  In 1881 she’s at Oak Cottage, Oswestry, Shropshire, aged 78, unmarried, born New Marton & living as aunt to a family called Richardson.  Children of the family include Margaret Hollis Richardson 1871 (mmn Hollis) and Mary Hannah Richardson 1868.

Working back, 1841-1871 she is working for the Park/Yates family in Ince, Cheshire
In 1841 aged 30, not born in county
In 1851 aged 45 & born Newmarton
In 1861 aged 55 & born Ellesmere
In 1871 aged 65 & born Ellesmere

Searching for baptisms for Margaret Hollis in Shropshire 1806 +/-5 years brings up only the one mentioned previously, in Dudlestone, which Google tells me was in Ellesmere parish.

Margaret died in 1881 leaving a will, one of the executors (Edward Wynne Griffith) being the husband of one of the Park family.
 

[mikegh1109]

In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as age 20, and a person age 59 would be listed as 55. In practice, many census officials either did not round down at all or only rounded down for higher ages, such as over 20, or (less frequently) rounded down ages below 15. In general, the age of a person under 15 is probably accurate to within a year or two. For persons over 15, any age that is not a multiple of 5 is likely also to be accurate – for example, if a person is listed as 27, he or she probably really is 27 or thereabouts, rather than 25. The area you have to be careful of is persons over age 15 whose age is a multiple of 5 – they may be up to 4 years younger than their census listing shows – so if your ancestor is listed as 50, remember that he or she is likely actually between the ages of 50 and 54. This, of course, does not even take into account the errors made by census officials and family members reporting the ages of others ! Finally, if the age of a person was unknown, children were supposed to be recorded as “under 20” and adults as “over 20”.

As for 'spurious daughter' it seems to imply illegitimacy; would be worth looking st the actual parish register to see if other 'mother only' baptisms were marked as 'spurious'. Ministers/vicars had various ways of indicating the fact [and their opinions] on illegitimate births.

Crossed in the post Jomot but decided to post anyway....

Thanks to you and Jomot for the explanations.  We live and learn!

[josey]

Yes, I'm pleased that we all do; and much of the 'learning' for me comes from wonderful RC people and their experience!!

[iolaus]

it may be that his father was George and the registrar just assumed the surnames matched

My great great grandfather (George Fido) was illegitamate, his father (from baptism) is Thomas Williams however one of his marriage certificates the father is down as Thomas Fido (who doesn't exist) on another it's Thomas Williams (George was widowed) - all I can think of is on one marriage he was asked for his father's name and said Thomas and they wrote it down assuming they had the same Surname

Thanks.  More food for thought! That's possible. But I've been unable to find a George Hollis who fits.

I was meaning that the father could be George something else - maybe even the George Pegg he's with on two censuses as a child

[Maiden Stone]

In the 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round up ages, see
https://durhamrecordsonline.com/updates/2010/09/added-explanation-of-1841-census-age-rounding/
In the 1841 census, the age of persons over 15 was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, a person aged 19 would be listed as 15, a person aged 22 would be listed as 20 ...

Instead of "round up" in the first sentence it ought to have been round down, as the rest of the post explained.
My 3xGGM, then aged 19 years and 2 months, was recorded on 1841 census as 15. Her future husband and father of her baby was down as 20 years old but may have been 23.

[iolaus]

How old was Hannah Hollis when William was born?