Mysterious married couple (Brick wall)

[RossGillbanks]

There are some missing years in those BTs, 1816-18.
Which would be why James's baptism in 1816 is not on FamilySearch.

The many many months I have put into searching online for him and having no joy was because it simply wasn't there 

[jonwarrn]

Ah, we've all done it! A lot of the indexes on FamilySearch are from BTs, and there are often gaps in them.
Hopefully you can track down the baptism of William at the archives (don't know why we can't find him on the spreadsheet). Hopefully Relph will be correct, and the surname may look something more like Gilbank/s, etc.
There should be an occupation for John as well, which you can cross reference with your 1816 baptism (and with Elizabeth's baptism as well, hopefully)
Good luck!

[jonwarrn]

James and Anne Gillbank were in the Westminster Union workhouse in 1882
Admitted 15* March.
Says born 1804 and 1808
Image, bit more on the next one
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-K93B-G

Discharged 28 March
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-K97M-3

*They seem to have got confused with the dates. Says 14th, but Wednesday was 15th
Confirmed by the Religious Creed register. She is spelt Ann here, two more images
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-KS9T-J

[jonwarrn]

There's a rough settlement exam of James Gilbank in Westminster, dated 20 March 1882.
Does he say he married Ann Read in Lockerbie in 1840?

Not really helpful re his origins. Nice to have though!
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1557/images/31952_a014461-00293

[RossGillbanks]

James and Anne Gillbank were in the Westminster Union workhouse in 1882
Admitted 15* March.
Says born 1804 and 1808
Image, bit more on the next one
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-K93B-G

Discharged 28 March
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-K97M-3

*They seem to have got confused with the dates. Says 14th, but Wednesday was 15th
Confirmed by the Religious Creed register. She is spelt Ann here, two more images
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-P3N2-KS9T-J

I dont trust the years of birth on these. Nor do I trust trust 1881 census either, the ages are miles apart. Compared to the 1851,1861,1871 the ages remain somewhat the same. In a previous post another user suggested that these years of birth might have been supplied by their sons wife who didn't have a clue

[RossGillbanks]

There's a rough settlement exam of James Gilbank in Westminster, dated 20 March 1882.
Does he say he married Ann Read in Lockerbie in 1840?

Not really helpful re his origins. Nice to have though!
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1557/images/31952_a014461-00293

Oh wow! I had never came across that one before. How did you find that one?

[jonwarrn]

Hi
I am frequently rummaging around in workhouse records on ancestry and familysearch. A lot are still unindexed. I knew they had some settlement exams for Westminster, so when I saw they were in the workhouse I had a quick browse!
Didn't really expect to find one, lucky they weren't in St George Hanover Square union, there are none.

James must have given the ages himself for the exam? Doesn't mean they were accurate. He might have lost track. I think it says he is 78 the 27 of next June.
Ann 74 the 22 next August.
Nice to have their birthdays!

[RossGillbanks]

Hi
I am frequently rummaging around in workhouse records on ancestry and familysearch. A lot are still unindexed. I knew they had some settlement exams for Westminster, so when I saw they were in the workhouse I had a quick browse!
Didn't really expect to find one, lucky they weren't in St George Hanover Square union, there are none.

James must have given the ages himself for the exam? Doesn't mean they were accurate. He might have lost track. I think it says he is 78 the 27 of next June.
Ann 74 the 22 next August.
Nice to have their birthdays!

That is very interesting thank you so much!

This now puts me in a bit of a strange situation, because I am unsure to rely on the ages he gave 1881 and after or previous ages which makes his year of birth 1816.

I am curious however as the birthday he gives in the workhouse is the 27th of June, and the baptism I have gives a date of 27th of October 1816. Exactly 3 months apart (excluding the year issue).

Ann's could be very useful if I go on Scotlands people tomorrow on my laptop could I possibly find a birth for her? I know Scottish and English records are different so I could be wrong?.

[jonwarrn]

I'm not up on Scottish records, but Ann might be in them somewhere!
I would still think the earlier ages are more likely to be right.
James's rounded down age in 1841 would have been given by his employer? Unlikely he was ten plus years older.
And those ages would make Ann 42 when she had Benjamin. Perfectly possible, but doesn't seem likely to me, going on the flow of events, other census returns. And they were recorded in a workhouse in 1851.

25 in 1841, which could be the right age anyway!