Kyloe/Lowick, John BURNS, Ann BURNS nee CLARK

[AllanUK]

An English death certificate will show the following:

When and where died
Full name
Sex
Age
Occupation
Cause of Death
Informant name and address
When registered
Registrars Signature.

[brooksburns]

An English death certificate will show the following:

When and where died
Full name
Sex
Age
Occupation
Cause of Death
Informant name and address
When registered
Registrars Signature.

Great, so I guess I'll identify John by his occupation, then use his address to find them both in the census(es), then use Ann's approx age to narrow down her death cert possibilities (and maybe her death cert has the same address as his).

[AllanUK]

Good luck with your research. Please think about posting an update with your findings.

AllanUK

[brooksburns]

Please think about posting an update with your findings.

Of course.  Thanks

[brooksburns]

After a LOT of census work (with more to go), I currently think the most likely John Burns death is 1848 Apr-Jun in Chatton (Glendale Union registration district).

That matches the following:
1841 census, John and Ann at New Hall, Chatton, Northumberland with children Margaret, Mary, Isabella.
1851 census, Ann widow at New Hall, Chatton, Northumberland with children Edward, Isabella.

In the process I seem to have found a lot more children.  Here's the full set (work in progress - still quite tentative):

William     b1811 Kyloe         m Jane Alcorn 1836             d1901
John         b1811-14                                                           d1838 [as per news item mentioned in this thread]
Thomas    b1814 Kyloe         m Eliza
Jane         b1816 Twizell       m Thomas Heslop 1845       d1918
Martha      b1817-19 Kyloe    m Robert Percy                    d1874
Edward     b1820 Kyloe         m Ann Mole 1862
Mary         b1821 Kyloe         m Thomas Fulton, no children
Margaret   b1826 Kyloe         m William Bolton 1848
Isabella     b1827-33 Kyloe    m Thomas Crozier

The main thing I'm lacking is birth records for the above (except Jane).  That would be very welcome confirmation.  Can anyone help, please?  The parents should be John Burns and Ann Clark.

And a key mystery is where most of the children were in 1841, if I'm right about the list above.  William was probably the only one already married; Jane, Edward and Margaret were not, and the others probably weren't (based on children's ages in later censuses).  And yet only Mary, Margaret and Isabella were with their parents.

Some additional findings which add evidence for family connections:
- Two of the Percy children (Martha's children) were with grandmother Ann in 1861 at Chillingham.
- Isabella's unmarried daughter Anne Crozier was with uncle Thomas Burns in 1881 in Duddo.  (Not to be confused with Jane's married daughter Anne Crozier.)
- William's son John, and Thomas's son Ralph, and Margaret's daughter Mrs (Ann) Cook, all appear in newspaper articles about Jane Heslop in 1916-18.

Another thing that bothers me is that in the 1916-18 Jane Heslop newspaper articles, Margaret seems to be described as Jane's "youngest sister" - that put me off accepting the 1841 census which includes Isabella, and I'm still unsure about it.

My census work made a lot of use of Ancestry automatic suggestions (though I am critical of them).

[Tickettyboo]

Another thing that bothers me is that in the 1916-18 Jane Heslop newspaper articles, Margaret seems to be described as Jane's "youngest sister" - that put me off accepting the 1841 census which includes Isabella, and I'm still unsure about it.

I always believed my Dad was an only child. I didn't start looking into family history till many years after his death and discovered he'd had 3 siblings all of whom had died quite soon after being born.I had no idea, no one ever mentioned this.

Isabella, bless her, was born and died too soon over 80 years prior to that newspaper article, its highly possible that whoever gave the info for the article wasn't aware of her brief life.

Boo

[brooksburns]

Another thing that bothers me is that in the 1916-18 Jane Heslop newspaper articles, Margaret seems to be described as Jane's "youngest sister" - that put me off accepting the 1841 census which includes Isabella, and I'm still unsure about it.

Isabella, bless her, was born and died too soon over 80 years prior to that newspaper article, its highly possible that whoever gave the info for the article wasn't aware of her brief life.

Thanks for this, it's a useful point that they may simply have not known.  Although the level of detail makes me feel quite confident in the report generally.

I'm not sure why you say over 80 years?  It was less than 30, I think - certainly a large period of overlap with Jane and her nephews who visited at the time of the articles.
Edit: Ah, perhaps because I put "b1827-33" - that's actually a range of possible birthdates, rather than a lifespan!  She married and had kids and her husband is shown as "married" in 1881 although she's not present (and nor is any other wife!)

[Tickettyboo]

I'm not sure why you say over 80 years?  It was less than 30, I think

I looked at your list which gave Isabella's dates as 1827-33 and the newspaper report (which hand in the air I haven't seen) in 1916-1918 named Margaret as Jane's youngest sister.

So 1833 to 1916 is more than 80 years, unless you meant that Isabella died in 1933?
EDIT:
just seen 'your' edit, sorry I misunderstood.

Boo

[brooksburns]

just seen 'your' edit, sorry I misunderstood.

Not at all, I could have been clearer.

the newspaper report (which hand in the air I haven't seen)

My fault, I was too lazy to look it up yesterday.  Here are the relevant quotes from Berwickshire News and General Advertiser 01 August 1916:

"Her sister, also of old age, died some time ago in Wooler.  She was the widow of Mr Thos. Fulton"
(This must be Mary.)

"Mrs Heslop's youngest sister (Mrs Bolton, North Shields), is now 97."
(This must be Margaret.  There's some clash on the age: the censuses have her as:
1841 15
1851 25
1861 33
1871 44
1881 54
1891 65
1901 74
1911 84
so she should be about 88-90 in 1916 - that's quite a leap from 97.)