RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Northumberland => Topic started by: Tyne Traveller on Tuesday 16 October 12 10:12 BST (UK)
-
I am trying to find a marriage record for William Anderson Temple and Dorothy Robson in Newcastle upon Tyne around 1861/2 with no success at all!
William was with his mother and siblings in Hanover Street in the 1861 census where he is shown just as William. Mother is Jane Atkinson, having remarried after her husband William's death. Our William was born about 1835.
Dorothy's family moved from Gateshead to Newcastle and I have a potential record for her living as a servant in Cromwell Terrace Gateshead in 1861. She was born around 1837.
Looking at their children, it seems as if Dorothy had an illegitimate child in 1859, Edward John, and then she and William went on to have 5 children, including great Grandpa Jimmy.
All this detail and yet no marriage record! I can't imagine they strayed far from the West End of Newcastle. The family lived around Buckingham Street, Oystershell Lane, Diana Street most of their lives.
Any ideas please? NB You would think William Anderson Temple is not too common, but there is at least one other in the Tynemouth/North Shields area at this time. Haven't worked out the connection (if any) yet.
-
I do not know how common the name Temple is in Newcastle
Newcastle Upon Tyne
St John the Baptist
1863
William Temple to Margarat Robson
-
Thanks Radcliff. Unfortunately there are a good few Temples in Newcastle and Robsons are even worse - all over the place!
I did find this marriage you suggest, but I have no reason to suppose Dorothy would have been recorded as Margarat.
She appears as Dorothy, wife of William, in the 1871, 1881 and 1891 censuses and there is no indication of a second name or initial. Her mother was Dorothy or Dorathy. No-one else in the family was named after a Margaret, although one of William's brothers had a daughter called Dorothy Ann in 1874.
So if this was the right one, it would have had to be a clerical error and I can't imagine how Dorothy could have got changed to Margarat.
Hope you agree with the reasoning?
Janet
-
Mysterious one this!
Where is little Edward in 1861?
There are three Edward Robsons of right sort of age who came up as with grandparents or as visitor in the index, but the images show their mothers to be present - and in 2 cases the mother is Margaret!
If Dorothy is the servant in Gateshead, which looks reasonable, then where is Edward?
Or is Dorothy actually Margaret?
-
Hi lizdb
See if this makes sense to you.
In 1841, Dorothy is with her parents John and Dorathy Robson and a sister, Barbara, in Gateshead. By 1851, they have moved to Diana Street (the area where William Temple and his family live) in Newcastle (Barbara has disappeared, presumed dead.)
In 1861 Dorathy senior is 66, a widow, living in Oystershell Lane, which is just around the corner from Diana Street. Dorothy Junior is the servant in Gateshead.
Dorathy Senior has an Edward GR living with her, described as her son aged 16. I believe this is Dorothy Junior's Edward who would be about 16 MONTHS at this time and this is an original error by the census taker.
By 1871 William and Dorothy are married, living in Diana Street, and Edward, aged 11, is with them named as Edward Temple.
Is this stretching things too far or does it seem to hang together??
Janet.
-
Janet,
Dorothy Temple nee Robson's son Edward ... do you have his birth registration ?
The 16 yr old Edward with Dorothy Robson senior on the 1861 census ( page ref 3811-9-11), I think details recorded for him on the census is.... name of " Edward R " not "Edward GR ". I do not think relationship to head of house is
"son". ( look how enumerator wrote " son" on other lines ! ) Could word be " non/e"
Is it just a co-incidence that William A Temple's step-father was called Edward ?
Michael.
Newcastle
-
Hi Michael in Newcastle.
I have a birth certificate for Edward John Robson, born illegitimately to Dorothy Robson, on 26 Nov 1859 in Newcastle. Index ref Vol 10b page 30.
Yes I think you are right about the word 'son' - it is different from the others. If the relationship is none does this mean this Edward is just a lodger/boarder? They normally say this on the census. Also wouldn't you expect a 16 year old lodger unrelated to the head of house to have an occupation recorded?
William A Temple's Edward on the 1871 census is named as his son, never as stepson, and is 11 years old. I was unable to find a birth record for an Edward or Edward John Temple for 1859/60. I did find a death certificate for an Edward John Temple in Newcastle, 20 year old son of William Temple for 21 Feb 1880. Ref: 10b 22.
Hence the house of cards I've built to explain this! I'm happy for you to knock it down - can you build me a better one? ;)
Best wishes, Janet
PS I have noticed with this family (William had three brothers) that they passed their offspring around a lot. One brother died young and a son of his was 'adopted' permanently by another brother. Just makes life more interesting!
-
Just looking further to identify the 16 year old Edward R living with Dorothy senior in 1861 - if indeed he is 16 years old and not Dorothy junior's 16 month old illegit son!
I can find no record of a birth for an Edward R Robson in 1844/5 in Northumberland or Durham. There are some Edward Robsons born in Northumberland/Durham over this period so that is inconclusive, but you might expect the middle initial to be recorded in the birth registration.
The only marriage for an Edward R Robson in Newcastle is in 1917. No conclusive death record. Once again, too many plain Edward Robsons to be sure of anything.
Michael recognised that the description did not say 'son' and might be 'non'. Could it just possibly be Gson (grandson)? The enumerator does not extend the lower loop of his Gs below the line in other entries. Still clinging to my pet theory!
Janet.
-
Janet,
Chew on this..... You are assuming 16 yr old Edward is " Edward R Robson".
Enumerator only wrote " Edward R " , no Robson or ditto marks.
Enumerator may have meant age as 16 months for Edward's age. 1861 census was taken as at 7th April
1861. ( One month in 1859, 12 in 1860, 3 in 1861 = roughly 16 months)
( I am looking for your missing marriage, but first trying to straighten out the families in my foggy mind)
Michael
-
Yes Michael. The lack of ditto marks crossed my mind too - I was reluctant to make this any more complicated!
The 16 month theory fits in well with the birth certificate I have for Dorothy junior's son born 26 Nov 1859.
Incidentally, just to throw a further spanner in the works. The second child shown on the 1871 census for William and Dorothy is a Jane Temple, born about 1862-3, calculated from the census. As in Edward's case, I cannot find a suitable birth record for a Jane Temple, but there are several possibles for a Jane Robson.
Could Dorothy have had two illeg. children before she and William became respectable? If so, their marriage may be as late as 1864-ish. Their next child was Elizabeth born about 1865-66. Trouble is, all of these names are very common in the area and without buying multiple certificates it's hard to establish the right one. There is more than one possible Elizabeth Temple birth.
These three were followed by another William Anderson Temple b.1870, James b.1871 (great grandpa Jimmy) and Catherine Jane b.1875-76, all of which I can trace pretty well.
The obsession with the name Jane comes from William Anderson Temple's mother, Jane Spark, later Temple, later Atkinson.
I'm wittering now, but if you want any more info let me know - I've been beating my head against a brick wall with this family for years now!
-
Janet,
The "rules" of the English Naming Pattern, would have William name his first son " William" after his
own father. The couple's first dtr would have been named Dorothy, after Dorothy jnr's mother.
Second son to be named after Dorothy's dad, John. Second dtr named after William's mother Jane.
Third son would have been named after the father of the child. But William/Dorothy had already "used up " the name William , so they would have used the name of William's oldest brother ie "James". Then next son, if a one, named after Dorothy's oldest brother !
But with having and naming a child,Edward before William and Dorothy were together, they sort of messed up the "pattern. Or they may have disregarded ENP, although it did not start going out of fashion until latter part of C19th.
Michael
-
Yes, I found a similar thing a while ago for Irish names. Same pattern and if there is a fourth son and daughter they are named after the father's eldest brother and mother's eldest sister.
(Because I have three generations of William Anderson Temple that I know about I will start calling them William 1 b.1807, William 2 b.1835 (did I mention I can't find his birth record either?!) and William 3 b.1870)
I don't think the Temples were strictly traditional. In naming Edward John, the second name could be after Dorothy's dad, but I don't know what the attraction of Edward is. Jane is after William 2's mother. No idea about Elizabeth. William Anderson 3 is named after William 2 or more likely after William 1 since he is the first legitimate son. James could be named after William 2's oldest brother or after his grandfather.
William Anderson Temple 1 called his four sons (in age order) James Henry, Reuben E, William Anderson and John. James is after his father. No idea where the others come from since I haven't gone further back, except that 2 of William 1's brothers were Henry and John.
William 2's brothers used familiar names:
James Henry called his son Reuben Henry
Reuben called his children John and Dorothy Ann
John had Jane, Ellen (after his wife) and Edward Hugh
It seems there is a lot of naming after siblings rather than using strict conventions.
It's fun but is this getting us anywhere Michael? I hope you are not as confused as I am!
Janet
-
No not getting anywhere ! But I am getting somewhere tomorrow- Tyne & Wear Archives.
To look at that William Temple/Margaret Robson marriage in S t John's, 1863- to see what the score was !
Michael
-
Michael. Thanks you so much for your time and effort - I hope I'm not taking you away from important research into your own family.
Just one little thing to add which might or might not be important. When I looked up the marriage index for the 1863 marriage the FindMyPast Marriagefinder gave two other male names for 3Q 1863 Newcastle apart from William Temple and only two female names in total - someone hasn't got a partner!
Good Luck today!
Janet.
-
Marriages at St John the Baptist for the year of 1863 were split over two films.
I first tried the film that included the latter part of the year....
~~~~~~~~------------------------
"26 Nov 1863
Edward Temple full age, bachelor, draper, of Horton, Northumberland, father Edward Temple, teacher.
Sarah Ann Stuart, full age,spinster, of this parish, father Joseph Stuart, cabinet maker.
Witnesses William Harcroft/Mary Stuart
( the four participants all made good signatues) "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
... then onto film that covered start of 1863......
"27 Sep 1863,
William Temple full age, bachelor, plumber, of this parish, father Thomas Temple, smith.
Margaret Robson, full age, spinster, of this parish, father, operative chemist.
Witnesses Ralph Robson/ Elizabeth Robson.
(all four made good signatures) "
~~~~~~~~---------------------------------------------
"4 Oct 1863
William Temple 20 yrs bachelor, smith, Chester-le-Street parish, father John Temple, vetinary
Eleanor Crofton, 22 yrs, spinster, of this parish, father John Crofton, gardener
Witnesses John Findley/John Bennett
(all four made good signature )
~~~~~~~~----------------------------------
So no joy with these events. The Newcastle Register Office web site pointed me at St John's for the Temple
marriage(s).
I think Hanover St and Diana St were within St John's parish, but close to borders with St Andrew's and All Saints !
Michael
-
Hi Michael. Hope you enjoyed your trip to the Archives. I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this and hope it bears fruit!
As you say, none of these Temples is mine as far as I know. My William was a file cutter/maker/hardener, except for a brief time in 1871 when he was a railway porter, probably because he couldn't get the work as a file maker.
He didn't do all that well for his family from the looks of things. in the 1881 census he was an out of work file hardener and the family were living in the Wesleyan Mission Rooms in Buckingham Street. He died in 1898 of alcoholic dementia and asthenia.
Re parishes - in 1861 when William was still with his mother and brothers they were living in Hanover street which is described on some censuses as being in St John and in others as St Nicholas. Dorothy's family seem to have been well established around Diana Street by then which I think is St John. The nearest church is St Phillip's just west of Diana Street.
I wish I was closer to do some of this hunting around Parish Records and Archives. Unfortunately, all my research to date has been on-line since I am hundreds of miles away in the North of Scotland. Still - who knows what may happen in the future! ;)
Best wishes, Janet.