Author Topic: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery  (Read 380 times)

Offline johnhood

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,286
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:14 BST (UK) »
Yes rosies inspired finds made this very easy. Lucy born c1858 at first marriage, so death age 38 in 1895 fits very well.

Deaths Sep 1895   (>99%)
Wilkinson    Lucy    38    Rotherham    9c   459

John
HOOD- STAFFORDSHIRE/LONDON/AUSTRALIA
WALKER-LONDON
HIGGS-LONDON
GOSLING-DEVON

Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,017
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:24 BST (UK) »
William Howard Litemore 11
Arthur Litemore 9
Florence May Litemore 3
all born Staffs.

If you look closely at the original it says Ashmore. The enumerator writes the letter 'A' with an extremely long cross- stroke, which makes you think that the third letter is a 't' when it's actually an 'h'.
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline arthurk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,488
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:26 BST (UK) »
Also re 1891 census: Lucy's age has an enumerator's mark through it. On a quick look it might be 21, but the first digit is more like Florence May's 3 than the 2 in Henry Ernest's 21, making her 31.
Researching among others:
Bartle, Bilton, Campbell, Craven, Emmott, Harcourt, Hirst, Kellet(t), Kennedy,
Meaburn, Mennile/Meynell, Metcalf(e), Palliser, Robinson, Rutter, Shipley, Stow, Wilkinson

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


Offline Dundee

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,034
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:28 BST (UK) »
William Howard Litemore 11
Arthur Litemore 9
Florence May Litemore 3
all born Staffs.

The name on the census is Ashmore, not Litemore.

Lily Lucy Luxton born June Q 1895 in West Ham!

You left one out of the 1891 census transcript which makes posting that birth seem a bit random. Lily Lucy Ashmore, aged 5, born Lichfield.

Debra  :)

Offline johnhood

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,286
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:29 BST (UK) »
The gro has quite a few Wilkinson/Cutts births between 1891-1896 and beyond so need to be careful.

John
HOOD- STAFFORDSHIRE/LONDON/AUSTRALIA
WALKER-LONDON
HIGGS-LONDON
GOSLING-DEVON

Offline johnhood

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,286
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:40 BST (UK) »
Laura the daughter in 1901 census aged 9 was a child of Henry & Lucy but when registered mmn given as Ashmore not Cutts

WILKINSON, LAURA       ASHMORE 
GRO Reference: 1891  D Quarter in ROTHERHAM  Volume 09C  Page 726

john
HOOD- STAFFORDSHIRE/LONDON/AUSTRALIA
WALKER-LONDON
HIGGS-LONDON
GOSLING-DEVON

Offline philipsearching

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,868
  • I was a beautiful baby, - what went wrong?
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:49 BST (UK) »
Trying to identify Lucy, Rootschatters have found:
1879 Marriage to Howard Ashmore age 21
1891 Marriage to Henry Wilkinson age 30
1891 Census - age 21? or 31
1895 Death age 38

which gives a birth range c1857-61

She is on the 1881 Census (found on FamilySearch):
RG11/2767/75 p20 - Winshill, Derbyshire
Howard ASHMORE, head, 20, Brewer's labourer, born Swadlincote
Lucy ASHMORE, wife, 22, born York
William H ASHMORE, son, 1, born Burton, Staffs


The marriage record found by rosie99 names her father as Joseph, a fork grinder.  This gives us a family on the 1861 Census (found on FamilySearch):
RG09/3457/60 p36 - Oaks Fold, Ecclesfield, Yorkshire
Joseph CUTTS, head, 42, Table fork grinder, born Sheffield
Phebe CUTTS, wife, 38, born Shire Green, Yorkshire
with children all born in Shire Green:
William 14, Sarah 12, Mary 9, Emma 5, Lucy Ann 2.


So, her birth would be (found on GRO):
Mar qtr 1859 Wortley & Penistone vol 9c p180 CUTTS Lucy Ann, mmn PLATTS
which could fit with a marriage (from FreeBMD)
Jun qtr 1841 Rotherham vol 22 p336 CUTTS Joseph on same page as PLATTS Phoebe.

Philip
Please help me to help you by citing sources for information.

Census information is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Gillg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,413
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 08 October 20 15:55 BST (UK) »
This is amazing and explains everything!  Thank you so much, everyone.  I was taking the spelling Litemore from the 1891 on Family Search and it had clearly been mistranscribed in that version.  I imagine the census enumerator must have assumed that Lucy was a similar age to her husband when he put her age as 21.  Quite something for Henry to take on four children at the age of 21 and then lose his new(-ish) wife.  No wonder he married again so quickly. 

Just seen that new replies have flashed up.  Thank you again.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

FAIREY/FAIRY/FAREY/FEARY, LAWSON, CHURCH, BENSON, HALSTEAD from Easton, Ellington, Eynesbury, Gt Catworth, Huntingdon, Spaldwick, Hunts;  Burnley, Lancs;  New Zealand, Australia & US.

HURST, BOLTON,  BUTTERWORTH, ADAMSON, WILD, MCIVOR from Milnrow, Newhey, Oldham & Rochdale, Lancs.

Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,017
    • View Profile
Re: Henry, Lucy & Jane Wilkinson 1891 mystery
« Reply #17 on: Thursday 08 October 20 16:09 BST (UK) »
I imagine the census enumerator must have assumed that Lucy was a similar age to her husband when he put her age as 21.

The enumerator would have copied what had been written on the household schedule.

As Arthur said in reply #11 there is a line through her age and it could very well read 31 rather than 21.
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk