RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Northumberland => England => Northumberland Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Lynne EnZed on Saturday 20 March 10 07:26 GMT (UK)
-
Hello
Can someone help please with lookups from the Northumberland 1841 Census for James AINSLEY born about 1833 and also for a Jane AINSLEY born about 1831? (They will not be together.)
Thank you very much.
Kind regards and God bless you,
Lynne x
New Zealand
---
God is faithful!
-
Hi Lynne
In 1841 there are two James one born about 1833 the other 1834. One is with a family the other in the workhouse. Which one do you require?
Evie
-
Hi Evie!
The one in the workhouse is probably the most likely but what are the names of the parents of the one born 1833 with the family please? The one born 1834 will be too young.
Thanks!
Lynne x
---
God loves you!
-
Hi Lynne
Sorry I confused you.
The 1833 James is the one in Glendale Union Workhouse at Wooler, an inmate
The 1834 one is with
James Ainsley 30, Labourer
Jane Ainsley 30
Joseph Ainsley 4
Elizabeth Ainsley 5 month
James Ainsley 7
Living Blandford Street, Westgate, Newcastle. All born in County.
What I found interesting on this one is that James was the last named rather than the first i.e. after the other children. Unfortunately the 1841 does not give relationships as you know so James and Jane may not be his parents. Also the ages on census were not always accurate.
These are the two I found bearing in mind that the spelling was correct, there may be others that were transcribed differently.
Evie
-
This is a possible for Jane
HO107 Piece 845 Book: 5 Folio: 31 Page: 15 Line: 16
New ? Street, Newcastle, All Saints
Jane Smith, 40,Widow(crossed out) seamstress
Mary Ann Smith, 5
Isabella Smith, 6 months
Jane Ainsley, 10
All born in County
Evie
-
Hi Evie
It will be James in the workhouse at Wooler! Have tried the various spellings (AINSLEY/AINSLIE/AYSNLEY) on the 1841 index at Ancestry but could not bring up any others that matched.
There is a christening on the IGI for James at Wooler in late 1832 so it is likely to be him at the workhouse. May I have the reference number please from the census (piece, folio, etc).
Looks like the rest of the family may have died. His parents were William and Jane and there were sisters Jane born (late) 1830 and Mary born 1834 but cannot find any sign of them.
The entry you found for Jane is interesting!? :P Hmmm! May have to do some more research!!!
Thank you very much!
Lynne x
---
You matter to God!
-
Looking at the 1851
James is down as the son of James and Jane, born Gateshead - see family above. Living with them is father in law Joseph Green.
The 1833 one could possibly be born Morpeth, Woodman, living with sisters Margaret and Mary Maria (born c1837) Going from your last post he doesn't seem likely.
Ref for the workhouse
HO107, Piece 833, Book 12, Folio 50, Page 2, Line 3
Evie
-
Hi Evie
Thank you for the workhouse reference.
Not sure about the two James' you found in 1851? ???
The one born Gateshead is unlikely to have been in the Wooler workhouse and then appear with parents in 1851? Where were they living in 1851 and what were the birthplaces of other family? What did you mean by "- see family above"?
Re James with sisters Margaret and Mary Maria - would have to find them in 1841 to rule them out.
It is possible James from the workhouse in 1841 had died by 1851 or be under a different spelling?
Thanks for your help!
Lynne x
---
God is good!
-
The one born in Gateshead was just to confirm that he was not your James, as he was actually the son of the family I found in 1841 for you. Reply #3. I agree this is not your James.
I will have a look for a death and/or if the one in the workhouse is around in 1851 under a different spelling etc.
Evie
-
Hi Evie
Got you re James son of James and Jane born Gateshead in 1841/1851 - not mine as you say!
Would certainly be interested if you could find James in 1851 (from the workhouse in 1841) - possibly born Wooler or thereabouts.
I'm trying to confirm or rule out the christenings at Wooler for Jane (1830) and James (1832).
My ancestor is Jane AINSLEY/AYNSLEY who was born in North Sunderland, Northumberland, which is not far from Wooler.
I have Jane from 1851 (working as a servant aged 19) to 1891 (she died in 1893) and am trying to find her in 1841 with her family.
Jane married Robert DIXON in 1858 but am not able to buy the certificate at this time.
The entry you found in Newcastle with the SMITH family is interesting. If my Jane is not the sister of James then she does appear to have lost her family (as well) by 1841.
Hope this explains things?
Thanks again!
Lynne x
---
God is faithful!
-
Possible James for 1851
HO107 Piece 2420, Folio 138, Page 10
Living North Sunderland
James Lutch (or Leitch), Head, Mar, 39, Berwick on Tweed, tailor (master)
Margaret Lutch, Wife, 48, Scotland
John, son, 14, Carlisle, Scholar
Dorothy, dau, 12, Bamburgh
Ellen, dau, 8, Bamburgh
James Ansley, servant, 19, Wooler, App to tailor
Evie
-
Hi Evie
Sorry for the delay. Thank you very much for the 1851 record for James - definitely looks like him! Another spelling variation as well!
Now, how to prove he is the brother of my Jane?
Will see if someone can help with burials to find out what might have happened to the rest of the family. :P
Thanks for your help!
Lynne x
Hi to Barnaby! :D
---
You matter to God!
-
Burial Wooler: Jane Aynsley 25 Aug 1819, Wooler, no age
Janis
-
Burial Wooler: Jane Aynsley 25 Aug 1819, Wooler, no age
Janis
Thank you Janis, possibly an earlier ancestor, were there any burials after about 1834 at all?
Do you happen to have transcripts for Tynemouth marriages 1858 Q2 for Jane Aynsley and Robert Dixon please?
Evie
-
That was the only Aynsley in Wooler and I also checked North Sunderland. Sorry no transcript of anything that late.
Janis
-
Hi Janis and Evie
Thank you both for your interest!
James and Jane were definitely on their own by 1841 so what became of their family/ies? ???
Looks like this branch of our family tree will have to go back on the backburner again for now?!
Thanks again for your help tho' ~ have made a little progress!!! :D
Lynne xx
---
God bless you!
-
You are welcome, sorry we didn't get it sorted.
Hope I am not going to confuse you here but.....
One thing that is niggling me - in the census where Jane is married to Robert (if I have been looking at the correct ones) she keeps to Allendale or Allenhead as her place of birth. In addition, of the census I have seen, not one of their sons is called William. I know there is no hard and fast rule, but quite often the grandfather's name is used.
Was she the family that ended up in Westmorland with a child called Jonathan Shield Dixon? I have been looking at Shields from Allendale lately and they were Quakers. Some of mine were baptised as an adult before they were married in a C of E church.
Evie
-
Hi Evie
Thanks for that, your help is much appreciated!
No, that is not the right family in Westmorland! ::)
Jane was pretty consistent giving her birthplace as North Sunderland, Northumberland (1851, 1861, 1891) but in 1871 it is just Northumberland and in 1881 it was Sunderland, Durham (Jane and the younger children were living in Horsley, Ovingham and Robert and eldest dau Dorothy were visiting relatives in Jarrow).
What varied was her age - born anywhere from 1830-1835. Her husband Robert Joseph DIXON was several years younger (born 1838 in Longframlington, s/o John DIXON and Dorothy nee REED).
Jane and Robert DIXON's children were:
Dorothy born 1858 Annitsford, Northumberland (my ancestor)
John born 1860 Annitsford
William born 1862 Annitsford
Mary Jane born abt 1864 Annitsford
Isabel born abt 1866 Annitsford
Robert born abt 1867 Annitsford
Nicholas born 1871 Ryhope, Durham
Margaret Ann born 1875 Horsley, Northumberland
John Joseph born 1877 Horsley
--
It is possible it is the wrong family in Wooler with the births and christenings for Jane 1830, James 1832 and Margaret 1834 to parents William and Jane but there is no other match for Jane in the right time period and general location. The IGI is not complete, of course, which is why I put the query in the hope of either confirming or eliminating this family. I've now heard from someone who has access to the records for the Wooler Presbyterian Church and she says the children of William and Jane were born at Lilburn Grange, Wooler.
I obtained the various census records 1851-1891 some time ago but do not now have a subscription to A ncestry and had then put the family on the back burner. I only had a "best guess" at that time that Jane's surname was AINSLEY/AYNSLEY as she was the only one who came up in 1851 (aged 19, working as a servant in Cartington, Nbl) as having been born in North Sunderland. (I think the 1851 index at A ncestry has her age as 29 but the image looks like 19.)
It was only this weekend that I decided to revisit FreeBMD and see if the marriage to Robert DIXON had been transcribed (marriage records for the late 1850's have been incomplete) and found Jane AYNSLEY on the same page as Robert DIXON marrying just a few months before Dorothy's birth (cannot buy certificates for now).
When I tried to check there were no other AINSLEY's or variations coming up on the censuses in the time period of Jane's approximate birth (to be her siblings) so began to wonder if she had got it wrong and decided to take a look at the Wooler family ~ turned out not to be as easy as it first appeared!! :o
I would say, giving the children's names, that William is a strong possibility for Jane's Dad's name but not sure about her Mum as Isabella could also be a possibility rather than Jane.
[The name Nicholas comes from Robert Joseph DIXON's maternal Grandfather Nicholas REED.]
However, even knowing for sure if William is the name of Jane's Dad is not really going to help at the moment as there appears to be only the one match in 1841 that you found for Jane with Jane SMITH (widow) in Newcastle.
They may not have been in Newcastle long though as checking FreeBMD for a birth for 6-month old Isabella SMITH there is only one possibility in Belford registration district (which includes North Sunderland). Isabella's christening is not on the IGI either. Trying to follow up on the SMITH family in case there is a connection has also drawn blanks.
Burials for the Wooler family would be nice to rule them out completely as it appears that only James (1832) survived and he was in the workhouse as you found in 1841.
There appear to have been no other AINSLEY/AYNSLEY children in 1851 born circa Jane's birth so was she too the only survivor of her family?
So, that's the current situation in a [rather large] nutshell! :D
Thanks again for your interest and findings!
Lynne x
---
God is good!
-
Picking up on this thread with some interest, there's some points that need remarking. The Jane and James (1830 & 1832 bapts) in Wooler are of course AINSLIEs. At this period, my experience is that the AINSLIEs (with clear Scots ancestry) were starting to guard the name quite carefully, unlike the AYNSLEYs and AINSLEYs who often swapped names in the same family and from day to day it seems! It's entirely possible that the ...LIE spelling was *only* adopted for the baptism - to prove Scots ancestry so to speak - but without further evidence all remains unclear.
The other thing to be born in mind is that there were more flavours of Presbyterianism in that part of Northumberland, than there were sheep - at least it seems so - Wooler for instance had several varieties of Presbyterian Church in one small town! Because of this, people travelled quite some distance to get the precise flavour of religion they wanted, so while North Sunderland is some 14 miles by road from Wooler, its at least conceivable that a family might have travelled there for special occasions like a baptism especially if there was a family connection with the area.
Now turning to the James AINSLEY in Wooler workhouse in 1841: he my have been a resident from any one of 45 parishes and townships in the Glendale Poor Law Union (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Glendale/) - or possibly waiting on a removal order! So there is not too much reliance to be placed on this record without further data - although he does look like a suitable candidate, and the later James's apparent reluctance to say where he came from offers another clue, since respectable people didn't come from the workhouse!.
When looking for the Wooler baptised James, you should also not neglect the James AINSLIE of the same age listed as being in Norham, Durham in the 1841 with his family (but no Jane) - Norham, on the banks of the Tweed, was of course an exclave of Co. Durham at that time and there are A*N*SL*'s (several spellings!) in Norham and Ford to the south at the time and a bit later on.
Looking at the 1851 James AINSLEY, tailor's apprentice, he appears in the 1861 married to Margaret and giving a birthplace as Newcastle, but in 1871 he's still with Margaret (and the same children - so its him!) but now having been born Wooler, NBL. In 1881 & 1891 he's back to coming from Newcastle...sigh! (And he has a typical Ancestry mis-transcription of AMSLEY - i must have corrected hundreds of them!)
None of which helps much with Jane. At this stage you really need to see the entry for her marriage to get any further: its entirely possible you'll have a witness entry as well as - hopefully - her father. Do you have a clue as to which parish she was married in - there are a lot of them in Tynemouth district! If not, its the certificate or nothing I'm afraid...
If you do find out more please let me know - these guys aren't on my database (60,000 AINSLEY related items!) and it would help to know more - equally if you'd like to let me know about Jane's descendants I can create a "treelet" for them which will hopefully one day extend further back.
(as a minor aside - remember that censuses were help in April normally - so the probability is close to 70% that someone aged 10 in the 1851 census was born in 1840 - NOT 1841! So on principle, start by subtracting 1 from the birth year given by the transcribers...!)
hugh
-
Hi Hugh
Thank you very much for your interesting reply!!!
As you say, getting the relevant certificate is probably going to be the best way to make progress but still not in a position to do that at the moment.
Your comment about the various Presbyterian churches is interesting as I have other branches from the Wooler area who were Presbyterian and have not been able to locate records, but from what you say it is possible they may have travelled further afield!
Thank you very much for your comments. I might have to get back to you about Jane's descendants. Do you have a website?
Thanks again.
Kind regards and God bless you,
Lynne x
New Zealand
-
Picking up on this thread with some interest, there's some points that need remarking. The Jane and James (1830 & 1832 bapts) in Wooler are of course AINSLIEs. At this period, my experience is that the AINSLIEs (with clear Scots ancestry) were starting to guard the name quite carefully, unlike the AYNSLEYs and AINSLEYs who often swapped names in the same family and from day to day it seems! It's entirely possible that the ...LIE spelling was *only* adopted for the baptism - to prove Scots ancestry so to speak - but without further evidence all remains unclear.
The other thing to be born in mind is that there were more flavours of Presbyterianism in that part of Northumberland, than there were sheep - at least it seems so - Wooler for instance had several varieties of Presbyterian Church in one small town! Because of this, people travelled quite some distance to get the precise flavour of religion they wanted, so while North Sunderland is some 14 miles by road from Wooler, its at least conceivable that a family might have travelled there for special occasions like a baptism especially if there was a family connection with the area.
Now turning to the James AINSLEY in Wooler workhouse in 1841: he my have been a resident from any one of 45 parishes and townships in the Glendale Poor Law Union (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Glendale/) - or possibly waiting on a removal order! So there is not too much reliance to be placed on this record without further data - although he does look like a suitable candidate, and the later James's apparent reluctance to say where he came from offers another clue, since respectable people didn't come from the workhouse!.
When looking for the Wooler baptised James, you should also not neglect the James AINSLIE of the same age listed as being in Norham, Durham in the 1841 with his family (but no Jane) - Norham, on the banks of the Tweed, was of course an exclave of Co. Durham at that time and there are A*N*SL*'s (several spellings!) in Norham and Ford to the south at the time and a bit later on.
Looking at the 1851 James AINSLEY, tailor's apprentice, he appears in the 1861 married to Margaret and giving a birthplace as Newcastle, but in 1871 he's still with Margaret (and the same children - so its him!) but now having been born Wooler, NBL. In 1881 & 1891 he's back to coming from Newcastle...sigh! (And he has a typical Ancestry mis-transcription of AMSLEY - i must have corrected hundreds of them!)
None of which helps much with Jane. At this stage you really need to see the entry for her marriage to get any further: its entirely possible you'll have a witness entry as well as - hopefully - her father. Do you have a clue as to which parish she was married in - there are a lot of them in Tynemouth district! If not, its the certificate or nothing I'm afraid...
If you do find out more please let me know - these guys aren't on my database (60,000 AINSLEY related items!) and it would help to know more - equally if you'd like to let me know about Jane's descendants I can create a "treelet" for them which will hopefully one day extend further back.
(as a minor aside - remember that censuses were help in April normally - so the probability is close to 70% that someone aged 10 in the 1851 census was born in 1840 - NOT 1841! So on principle, start by subtracting 1 from the birth year given by the transcribers...!)
hugh
Hi, I have a James Aynsley among others in my tree. born 1851 Horncliffe, Norham, Northumberland. son of john Aynsley b 1815 my 3rd great grandfather.
Do you have these,
John Lowther