Author Topic: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family  (Read 522 times)

Offline PH54

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #45 on: Sunday 21 February 21 17:37 GMT (UK) »
Thanks to Mabel for her lead, and osprey for your latest. I have been searching through those censuses too. 1841 has Caroline 25 (b 1816) at home with John & Ann Richards (I realise limits of the 1841); interestingly, 1851 states Caroline 28 (b 1823) unm dressmaker at home again. John Griffiths had s James b c1838 & dau Sarah b c1844 at home with him in 1851, status widower (allegedly). Mabel's lead had me thinking she was the most likely too but the sticking point seems to be James' children and their birthdates. Still not sure who he conjugated with and when (the first time around!)

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,596
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #46 on: Sunday 21 February 21 17:46 GMT (UK) »
Still not sure who he conjugated with and when (the first time around!)

I wonder whether that was with Margaret Dawes/Edwards?  Are we thinking that James was born c.1838?  We don't  have them on the 1841 do we?  But perhaps that James' birth was registered (rather than relying on a baptism).

Offline osprey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,510
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #47 on: Sunday 21 February 21 17:52 GMT (UK) »
If that is Thomas Daws, it wasn't his first offence

https://newspapers.library.wales/view/3392419/3392421/16/

We were suggesting Caroline Richards as a candidate for the 1852 marriage to James Griffiths in Trevithin. Unlikely to be younger James as he would have been 14.

Think I've already checked for births under Daw(e)s with no joy.

Cornwall: Allen, Bevan, Bosisto, Carnpezzack, Donithorn, Huddy, James, Retallack, Russell, Vincent, Yeoman
Cards: Thomas (Llanbadarn Fawr)
Glam: Bowler, Cram, Galloway, James, Thomas, Watkins
Lincs: Coupland, Cram
Mon: Cram, Gwyn, John, Philpot, Smart, Watkins
Pembs: Edwards (St. Dogmael's)
Yorks: Airey, Bowler, Elliott, Hare, Hewitt, Kellett, Kemp, Stephenson, Tebb


Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,596
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #48 on: Sunday 21 February 21 18:33 GMT (UK) »
SOmething to be aware of - as I have just discovered! - is that Dawes can look very similar to Davies when handwritten!

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,042
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #49 on: Sunday 21 February 21 19:59 GMT (UK) »
That might be enough

He had previous - I guess this is also him. Monmouthshire Merlin1 April 1837

Thomas Daws (a traverser), for stealing a piece of beef, at Usk. Guilty Three months' imprisonment and hard labour.

Added: this is when she discovers there's another page of posts and she's repeating stuff. Sorry!

Online bbart

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,187
    • View Profile
Re: Emily Griffiths b c1862 Usk[?]Monmouthshire–desperately seeking Emily’s family
« Reply #50 on: Sunday 21 February 21 20:18 GMT (UK) »
- I agree, the first 'Sarah' b c1844 is problematic (did you mean 1851 census? I could not find James Griffiths b c1814-5 on the 1841 census when he should have been 26 yrs old, married and with 3 yr old son, James)

My apologies.... I did mean the 1851... but at some point I thought it was the 1841 (maybe wishful thinking!)  I have edited my prior post so I don't confuse anyone else reading this thread.

Online bbart

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,187
    • View Profile
I have some odds and ends that I need to post, but for now, I am stuck on something:

James Griffiths (the senior) died in 1867 in Trostrey, and as he owned his land, I would have though there would have been a will (hopefully mentioning all his grandchildren, or at least Emily!)

What would have happened to his land if there was no will?  I cannot seem to find any tithe apps. for after his death to find who took it over.  I'm hoping someone has better knowledge of where to look!

This link shows the 6 parcels of land James owned and occupied.  Clicking on the blue bubbles will give two more links, one being a much better map/outline of the numbered parcels.

https://places.library.wales/browse/51.733/-2.895/14?page=1&alt=&alt=&landowner_facet%5B%5D=Griffiths%20James&leaflet-base-layers_70=on

Edited to type the correct death year

Offline osprey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,510
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
burial in Trostrey 16 May 1867 James Griffiths 84 of Trostrey Common.

There's no mention of any acres on the census entries which there usually is, even if it's only a few.

 
Cornwall: Allen, Bevan, Bosisto, Carnpezzack, Donithorn, Huddy, James, Retallack, Russell, Vincent, Yeoman
Cards: Thomas (Llanbadarn Fawr)
Glam: Bowler, Cram, Galloway, James, Thomas, Watkins
Lincs: Coupland, Cram
Mon: Cram, Gwyn, John, Philpot, Smart, Watkins
Pembs: Edwards (St. Dogmael's)
Yorks: Airey, Bowler, Elliott, Hare, Hewitt, Kellett, Kemp, Stephenson, Tebb

Online bbart

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,187
    • View Profile
burial in Trostrey 16 May 1867 James Griffiths 84 of Trostrey Common.

There's no mention of any acres on the census entries which there usually is, even if it's only a few.

There is a tool on that link that allows you to measure the acreage; but it is overlaid on the view with the trees, not that actual map, and some of the lots are strange shapes. It is probably in the area of 5 acres, which yes, you would thing the census would mention it.  Nothing is easy with this family.....

(Edited my prior post to type the correct birth year!)