RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Lincolnshire => England => Lincolnshire Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Ian Chambers on Monday 18 April 05 22:30 BST (UK)
-
Is there anyone who could look up the 1891 census for James CHAMBERS b: 1864 married to Malinda (or Melinda) Martha CHAMBERS b:1869 nee WINDLEY; They would have two children Maud b:1889 and Martha b:1885; I believe they were in New Holland (Glanford Brig parish) LINCOLNSHIRE at this moment in time.
I need to know specifically where James was born, unfortunately he was away from home when the 1901 census was done and although I have strong hunch he comes from Whittlesey I have yet to prove it.
-
Hi Ian
I looked for your Chambers and could not find any of them in Lincolnshire in 1891, sorry.
deborah
-
Thanks for trying Deborah; did you look specifically in Licolnshire or Nationally?
I know that by 1901 they were in Manchester; also they could have been down in Cambridgeshire if my hunch is right.
-
I looked nationally, where were the wife and children born? perhaps that might help narrow it down, there are lots of chambers.
deborah
-
The wife was born in Grimoldby; the children in New Holland and Grimsby.
During the 1901 census I think James was with his parents at a family gathering - Malinda had stayed home with their 6 month old child lily. The parents, I am hoping are James and Martha Chambers from Whittlesey Cambs. b 1928/9. I am wondering if they may have been down there during 1891 census as the census' are always at the same time and could be a significant family date.
-
From FreeBMD
Marriages Dec 1884
Chambers James William Caistor 7a 1230
WINDLEY Malinda Martha Caistor 7a 1230
1891 census RG12 2629 folio 157 Mount Pleasant Marsh Lane Barrow on Humber
James W Chambers Head Married 27 Railway Porter Lincolnshire
Mary M Chambers Wife Married 26 Lincolnshire
Mary M Daughter 1 Barrow on Humber
W. Hollingsworth Lodger Single 20 Railway Porter Barrow on Humber
1891 census RG12 2619 folio 134 High Street Cleethorpes
William Windley Head Married 70 Butcher Grimoldby
Ann E Windley Wife Married 60 Tetney
Thomas G Windley Son Single 24 Clerk Grimoldby
Mary R A Daughter Single 18 At Home Grimoldby
Mary A Moore Servant Single 16 General Servant Barton
Charles W. Staines Boarder Single 52 Labourer Cockermpton
Martha E Granddaughter 6 Scholar Cleethorpes
The occupation on the 1891 census is good for James. The 1891 place of birth for him however may just be a sloppy piece of enumeration. I checked both 1881 and 1871 for a James born Lincolnshire within 5 years of 1864. There was one (slightly older) whose father was a railway station master, but I tracked this James through 1891 and 1901 when he was married. (Incidentally in 1871 this James did have a younger brother born 'Whittledea' Cambridgeshire, though the rest of his family including parents were all born Lincolnshire).
You could try for a possible will for James of Whittlesey's father even though he was only an agricultural labourer, there is always an outside chance he did make a will or try to track your known James' railway employment records. They should be at the National Archives. The difficulty is always knowing which railway company employed him when.
Regards
Valda
-
Whittlesey, Peterborough Rd 1891
James Chambers 60 AgLab
Martha 61
No one else.
Both born Whittlesey
-
Thank you to all those who looked up for me.
Valda: I feel you have found them as there are too many coincidences with DOBs; their 1yr old daughter Maud had a middle name mary and Barrow upon Humber is by New Holland, so they probably changed the district name.
I got slightly confused with which James you were talking about half way through the message; was it this James in Barrow upon Humber, that you found in other censuses with a younger brother from Whittledea; If so what was his name?
The only reason I latched onto Whittlesea from the 1901 census was that my father felt the family came from Peterborough which is a stones throw away.
I know for a fact that James William Chambers was a son of James an agricultural labourer from his marriage certificate.
We have since found a James born in Lincs in 1864 which we will have to follow up.
Thanks again for you excellent detective work. I had spent two hours last night at the latter day saints and got no-where. I would never have found them with those name changes.
-
On the 1891 census your James W has his place of birth given as Lincolnshire. I checked the earlier censuses to see whether there was a James Chambers born roughly 1864 in Lincolnshire and found one. His father was a station master on the 1871 census. However this James could be followed on all the subsequent censuses up to 1901 (including his marriage and children) - so he isn't yours, though his occupation was in the railway industry, like his father. The other coincidence with this James was that though his parents were born in Lincolnshire, on the 1871 Lincolnshire census he had a younger brother born 'Whittledea' Cambridgeshire. Both brothers and parents were in Lincolnshire on the 1871 census. I could find no other James Chambers of the right age on censuses earlier than 1891, and who was born in Lincolnshire.
Have you searched the period around 1864 for the birth registration of a James William Chambers either in Cambridgeshire or Lincolnshire. How many are there between 1863 and 1865? Is it to many to chance a birth certificate?
By the way Maud M was actually missed off the 1891 census index, though she was there on the page itself with her parents. Her elder sister Martha was misindexed. Whoever had typed the name into the index had inadvertantly typed Martha into the surname section and Chambers into the first name section, so no search for Martha Chambers could have found her.
Regards
Valda
-
We have already got a birth certificate for a James (no William) Chambers b. 1864 in Whittlesey Cambs. His parents are James and Martha. I was led there originally by the 1901 census, as a James Chambers (railway pass guard) was with them at the time; whilst his wife was home alone in Manchester.
I know he was still a porter in 1905 from his son's birth cert. and thought pass guard was a good enough link.
-
My only other suggestion would be to check the Whittlesey parish records and see if he was baptised as James William. I have previously found differences between birth registration names and those chosen when the child was baptised - usually with the second name, or the order of the two names chosen.
Regards
Valda
-
you seem to be of the opinion that this James I have found in Whittlesey is a strong candidate despite the 1891 census having him born in Lincs. I am feeling the same as there were so many discrepancies on that form that the birth place could also be wrong.
Thanks again for all your help
Regards
Ian
-
Having reread your recent correspondence,
Maud M would not have shown up on the census listings but been on the form because (as with Martha) she was written down incorrectly; in this case as Mary M.
-
This is the result of the census index for 1891 I am using
Chambers, James W 27 Lincolnshire Head Barrow on Humber Lincolnshire
Chambers, Mary M 26 Lincolnshire Wife Barrow on Humber Lincolnshire
No daughter or lodger appear in the index. James W and his wife are enumerated at the bottom of the actual census page. Quite clearly at the top of the next page in the same household is Mary M Chambers daughter and W. Hollingsworth lodger. There is nothing wrong with the census just this particular index which misses both Mary and W. Hollingsworth out. Personal names can come in any order as parents name children one thing but over time the second name takes precedence and or in formal documents there is a return to the birth order, or a return to that order anyway because when they leave home they decide to change the order etc.
There is nothing wrong with the census for her elder sister Martha apart from the fact that this census enumerated puts surnames first and then first names. However the indexer has continued this mistakely for Martha but no-one else. Hence the index looks like this (remember the index is surname first)
Martha E, Chambers 6 Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire Granddaughter Cleethorpes Lincolnshire
While the rest of the household are indexed correctly and therefore can be found in the search engine
Windley, Ann E 60 Tetney, Lincolnshire Wife Cleethorpes Lincolnshire
Windley, William 70 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Head Cleethorpes Lincolnshire
Windy, Mary R A 18 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Daughter Cleethorpes Lincolnshire
Windy, Thomas G 24 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Son Cleethorpes Lincolnshire
No problem with either pages of the census. The problem in both cases is purely with the index.
Regards
Valda
-
thanks Valda