Author Topic: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)  (Read 227 times)

Offline PAK

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« on: Monday 29 January 24 11:44 GMT (UK) »
I posted about this a few years ago, have now found out more via Familysearch, Ancestry and Findmypast, but there is still a mystery and I am wondering if anyone has access to any other records that could help.

I have traced my ancestors back to my great-great-grandfather Charles Kent, born in Leek, Staffordshire, where he was baptised on 11.9.1803. His parents were shown as Thomas and Ann. I know that at some time Charles moved to Uttoxeter where he married in 1831 and is shown there in the 1841 and 1851 censuses.
I found a marriage on 3.10.1802 at Leek between Thomas Kent and Ann Clewlow, so am assuming that they are the parents of Charles. So far, so good, but then I have been trying to identify what happened to them next.
Meanwhile, I found baptisms of 2 children in Cheddleton in 1808 and 1809 with parents Thomas & Ann Kent. And then another 10 children in Uttoxeter at regular intervals between 1813 and 1832 with parents Thomas & Ann Kent – who are found with several of these children in Uttoxeter in 1841. The 1881 census shows the son of one of the Cheddleton children living with the daughter of one of the “Uttoxeter 10” and shown as cousins. So that means the Cheddleton 2 and the Uttoxeter 10 were siblings.

But it leaves Charles uncertain – were his parents (Thomas and Ann) the same as the parents of the other 12? Effectively, I either have 12 great-great-uncles and aunts – or none!

My instinct up to now has been that Thomas was from Uttoxeter, married Ann in Leek and lived there until after Charles was born, then moved to Cheddleton and then Leek.

BUT then there is a Thomas Kent in Regent Street, Leek, in 1841 (aged 58) and 1851 (aged 68). He was a joiner, said to be born in Leek, but I haven’t yet found any birth records for him in Leek or the adjacent parishes of Cheddleton, Endon, Bagnall, or Norton-le-Moors. He is shown as married in 1851 but no wife recorded, so presumably died.

The gap between his birth in 1803 and the next in 1808 seems unusually wide and it could be that his father Thomas was the one in Leek in the 1841 and 1851 censuses, especially if he married someone named Ann.

So my questions are:
1) Are there any other marriages for Thomas Kent between ,say, 1800 and 1808?
2) Is there any other record of the Thomas found in Leek in  1841-51, between 1783 and 1841?

I guess there is little chance but Rootschat often surprises me!

Offline rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 42,073
  • ALFIE 2009 - 2021 (Rosbercon Sky's the Limit)
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« Reply #1 on: Monday 29 January 24 12:54 GMT (UK) »
There is a marriage of a Thomas Kent to Ann Carr on 25 Oct 1802 at Croxden  :-\
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline ciderdrinker

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« Reply #2 on: Monday 29 January 24 13:10 GMT (UK) »
Hi
I've taken a look and I think there are two couples -
 Thomas and Ann Kent joiner in Leek with one child Charles
Thomas and Ann Kent  Uttoxeter with many children tanner,carter ,labourer.
Charles marries in 1831 and the entry says he is a sawyer .So it fits with a father who is a joiner.
Thomas of Leek is not either of the two baptisms in Endon and Rushton as the boys died.

I'd take a look at James Kent carpenter born 1798 bapt 28 Feb 1798  son of James and Mary Kent  in Leek.I think as they have the same surname and occupation  there may be a link.

As for Cheddleton I'm just not sure which couple are their parents.

Ann Kent of Leek must still be alive in 1851 as Thomas says he is married not widowed but it looks like they split up.Is that  the reason they had no more children?


Ciderdrinker

Offline PAK

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 01 February 24 12:30 GMT (UK) »
Thanks to both. Ciderdrinker - I found a census showing the daughter of one of the Uttoxeter 10 residing with the son of one of the Cheddleton 2, and recorded as his cousin. So these 12 must be siblings.

However, it's a good point about the similar occupations. I'm flogging through all the data I can find about various Thomas Kents in these parts of Staffordshire, in the hope that I can eliminate all but the right one. There is a gap of about 5 years betwene the birth of Charles in Leek, then the first of the Cheddleton two, so I am inclined to agree that there are 2 separate Thomases.

I'll post again if I can pinpoint some proof - thanks again.


Offline PAK

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 21 February 24 20:02 GMT (UK) »
OK - latest on this question.

Charles Kent, sawyer, was married in 1831 to Hannah Heath, and they are found in the 1841 and 1851 census, so not mine. Quite possibly it's his father Thomas who is the joiner in 1841 and 1851 - as suggested by ciderdrinker. That would explain why he is recorded, whilst Ann in Uttoxeter is shown as widowed.

Mine was a boot and shoe maker in 1834, 1841 and 1851 so there is a link of sorts to a father who was a tanner at one time i.e.Thomas as recorded for the father of several of the 12. In fact, the only reference to Leek for my Charles is the 1851 census which shows him as born in Leek, although residing in Uttoxeter by that time.

To recap - the Cheddleton 2 are related to the Uttoxeter 10 because two of their children are shown as cousins later. That still leaves the original questions – is Charles the sibling of the later 12 and, if so, why the gap between his birth in 1803 and Elizabeth, born in Cheddleton in 1808?

In addition, it raises another question. Supposing CK the sawyer was the son of Thomas and Ann nee Clewlow? Where are my CK's parents?

And then there is another possibility. Years ago, someone suggested that my Thomas was baptised in Leigh, Staffs on 18.5.83. I dismissed this at the time as I relied on the 1851 census showing him as born in Leek. I now wonder if this might have been an enumerator error - writing Leek instead of Leigh. As against that, Leigh is much closer to Uttoxeter than Leek so I would have thought that the enurmerator would have got that right.

At present, my plan will be to show them as some sort of dotted line on the family tree with an explanatory note. But, as others will know well, loose ends like this are very frustrating. So any more info / interest will be very welcome.

My second plan is to have a lie down......

Offline PAK

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Kent and his son Charles (Leek and/or Uttoxeter)
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 25 February 24 01:19 GMT (UK) »
Just reporting in case anyone finds this thread when researching the same area in future.
I have now found that Charles and Ann Kent were witnesses at the wedding of Mary Kent, 9th of the the "Uttoxeter 10". That clinches it for me - I am recording that Charles was the eldest child of Thomas and Ann who then had two children in Cheddleton then 10 in Uttoxeter.
There may have been 3 in Cheddleton as I have also found a record of George Kent, who died and was buried there on 17/4/1808 aged 1. Charles' eldest sister was baptised at the same church shortly after. His parents are not recorded so I am simply noting it unless and until I can find proof, which seems unlikely.
I think I can draw this to a close now. Thanks to everyone who helped.