Sarah Fielden nee Crossley, Todmorden.

[Althea7]

One of my ancestors, Sarah Fielden nee Crossley, I have down as died 7th May 1849 age 74.  I can't remember where I got those dates from, probably an Ancestry tree or Geneanet.

My ancestor was the widow of James Fielden of Square (Walsden), 1768-1828.

I looked up Sarah's death record on the GRO, but couldn't find anything for 1849.  I searched from 1837 to 1860, and the only death of a Sarah Fielden anywhere near those dates, other than some who died age 0 or otherwise much too young, was 1842, M quarter in Todmorden, age 75, which would make her born 1767, so similar to her husband.

When I ordered the Digital Image from the GRO, which now cost £2.50, it says she was the widow of a John Fielden.

James Fielden did have a brother called John, also born in the 1760's, and I am wondering if there is a marriage between Sarah and John Fielden, after James Fielden's death in 1828?  In Todmorden/Walsden.

[heywood]

There is this person:

1841 552/33/24
Wood Bottom

Sally Fielden 70 yrs Independent
Sally Fielden 35 yrs cotton weaver
Both born in county
The entry below and in the same premises
Thomas Lord 35 yrs labourer
Mary Lord 35 yrs
Betty Lord 15 yrs

[heywood]

In 1851 2289 /323/9
Sarah Fielden 48 yrs is sister in law to Thomas Lord at Wood Bottom.

Not sure if this helps you though.

[heywood]

Possibility for your Sarah?
 1851 2289/543/15

Higher S..out (doesn’t quite look like Scout)
Sally Fielden widow 77 years Annuitant b Walsden
Sarah Sutcliff 11 (?) yrs b Walsden

Death July 16th 1858
Sally Fielden 84 yrs Higher Scout

[Althea7]

Thanks, I am sure all that information fits in somewhere, and Thomas Lord was the Informant on the death certificate.

Maybe her death is listed on the GRO as Sally rather than Sarah?  Edit:  I just checked the GRO and there is no Sally Fielden either of likely age died 1849 + or - 2 years.

James Fielden 1768-1828's brother John I have down as 1765-1806, so he died before his brother.  I must have got these dates from Ancestry or Geneanet trees, so they could be wrong.

These were all extremely common surnames in that area.

[heywood]

I can’t see an 1849 death, the 1858 one looks the best one for your Sarah (Sally) as it is the residence you have and the age fits.

[lancsann]

That extract from the burials register you posted is dated 1842

There is this Sarah

   FIELDEN, SARAH       75 
GRO Reference: 1842  M Quarter in TODMORDEN  Volume 21  Page 594

[Althea7]

That extract from the burials register you posted is dated 1842

There is this Sarah

   FIELDEN, SARAH       75 
GRO Reference: 1842  M Quarter in TODMORDEN  Volume 21  Page 594

That is the one that I got, shown above, and I think it is probably not the Sarah Fielden I am looking for.

It seems as though the names Sarah and Sally were interchangeable, and in this case maybe used to differentiate related individuals named Sarah.

[heywood]

Sally was/is a pet name for Sarah so not necessarily used to distinguish individuals.