Author Topic: Missing birth at Leominster  (Read 652 times)

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,862
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #18 on: Sunday 06 November 22 22:15 GMT (UK) »
I think daughter Sarah is in Yarpole in 1841 - she's indexed on Ancestry as Robert, and just with another teenage girl, but when you look at the image she's a female servant to Richard Moore (a farmer) and family. She's still there in 1851 - born Orleton so fairly sure it's the same person.

I wonder if Richard is a relation of some sort?

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,862
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #19 on: Sunday 06 November 22 22:36 GMT (UK) »
James Roberts looks like he's in Richards Castle in 1851 (correct birthplace) so perhaps he's the James Roberts b c1826 in Richards Castle in 1841, servant to the Coates household


Offline Mhairi28

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #20 on: Monday 07 November 22 16:41 GMT (UK) »
I had not noticed that James Berry was in the 1841 census, above Elizabeth as my image is not very clear. Thank you for pointing it out. Interesting! Is Elizabeth actually Ann - or is she the sister of Charles?

I have found children born to James and Sarah Roberts: Charles 1789 and Benjamin 1791 both born at Aymestry; Elizabeth 1793 born at Elton; Jane born 1803 at Orleton.
The only possible record I have for Charles in 1841 has an Elizabeth there also, as well as Sarah aged 75. They are living at Elton. Is this 'my' Charles?

Sarah, daughter of Charles and Ann, had a daughter Jane, who is listed in the Berry household 1851 census as a visitor aged 2. Sarah later married Timothy Coxall/Coxhall

James can be traced through the censuses to 1881. He does not marry.

I have not found Henry apart from his baptismal record.

Thank you all for your information

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,862
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #21 on: Monday 07 November 22 19:20 GMT (UK) »
What was Charles' occupation (haven't got access t images for baptisms and marriages of the children)

Given there seem to be some Yarpole connections, have you considered  Charles Roberts aged 35 who's living there? He's a waterman. Also resident are William Roberts, 50, and Ann Roberts, 15. If his age has been rounded down in line with practice for that census, could be a possible?


Offline Mhairi28

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #22 on: Monday 07 November 22 20:05 GMT (UK) »
The only mention of his occupation is on Benjamin's marriage certificate where he is described as a labourer. This put me in some doubt about the 1841 census record where Charles looks to be a thatcher, if I have read it correctly.

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,862
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #23 on: Monday 07 November 22 20:12 GMT (UK) »
What about the waterman in Yarpole that I've just mentioned? William in the same household is an ag lab

Offline Mhairi28

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing birth at Leominster
« Reply #24 on: Monday 07 November 22 20:52 GMT (UK) »
It is a possibility. The 1841 census records have so little information and I haven't been able to find this William and Charles in 1851.

I have another waterman in my FT and they are not always easy to track down.