RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: hmclem on Saturday 25 March 17 11:52 GMT (UK)
-
After being fairly sure that I had confirmed that my 3 x great grandparents were William Treagus (1805) and Hannah Chandler (1810) I have just found an 1851 census record which throws everything into doubt.
First let me explan how I got there. My greath grandmother was Hannah Helen Treagus born 1882. I have copy of her marriage certficate, 1909, to Walter Enos Fletcher which shows her father as George Treagus (deceased).
With this information I found the 1891 census showing Hannah and her father George. The family were living in West Dean. Hannahs mother is shown as Harriett.
Household Members
George Treagus 54
Harriett Treagus 43
William Treagus 19
Robert Treagus 17
Charlotte Treagus 15
Thomas Treagus 13
Mary A Treagus 11
Hannah H Treagus 9
Lillie R Treagus 5
Using this family information I found them in 1881 as well.
I looked at the GRO index and could see the maiden name for Harriet was Warrington. So I found the marriage (hopefully the right one) between Geeorge Treagus and Harriette Warrington in 1870. This shows Georges father as William Treagus.
So using previous information from Georges cenus records, date and place of birth, I found and 1861 census which him (?) and father William.
Household Members
William Treagus 55
George Treagus 25
Anne Treagus 24
Emily Treagus 17
Esther Treagus 16
Fanny Treagus 11
Phoebe Treagus 8
William Treagus 4
Edward Treagus 4
and the 1841 census record
Household Members:
William Treagus 35
Hannah Treagus 30
Ambrose Treagus 7
George Treagus 6
Ann Treagus 5
Susan Treagus 4
John Treagus 2
Now I have found this census for 1851 (Civil parish - West Dean ) which seems to match Geeorge and what I beleived to be his siblings but the parents age are way too high!!. Would a mistake with the age happen on a cenus in 1851 to this extent. Or is this another family.? Getting very confused.
Am worried that I have given William and Hannah too many children by combining the census records for lots of different people!
Household Members
William Treagus 66
Hannah Treagus 64
Ambros Treagus 17
George Treagus 16
Ann Treagus 15
Susan Treagus 14
John Treagus 12
Lizzy Treagus 9
Emily Treagus 7
Esther Treagus 5
Martha Treagus 3
Francis Treagus 1
Finally one other thing that is bothering me. I thought that I had found the marriage between William and Hannah in 1833, and Hannah maiden name was Chandler. But when I am searching the GRO indexes for any other their children I cannot find birth records.
-
Have you looked at the original image of the 1851 census? A first thought would be mistranscription on the ages, since the siblings line up so nicely, but it is easily possible for mistakes to creep in. Many of our ancestors would not be able to read/write, or did so only at the most basic level, so there's no guarantee they gave the information directly.
A couple of these children appear to be on the gro index with mother's maiden name Lander:
Elizabeth Treagus, 1841 D quarter
Phoebe Treagus, 1853 M quarter
and another possible:
Francis Treagus (indexed F) 1850 J quarter indexed TANDERS
Some of the others may have missed being registered, also a possible.
-
1851 their ages are mistranscribed.
FreeREG has these Baptisms;
03 May 1834 TREGUS Ambrose
21 Sep 1835 TREGUS George
11 Dec 1836 TREGUS Ann
01 Apr 1838 TREGUS Susan
11 Aug 1839 TREGUS John
21 Oct 1841 TREGUS Elizabeth
19 May 1844 TREAGUS Emily
22 Mar 1846 TREAGUS Esther
05 Apr 1850 TREAGUS Frances
10 Apr 1853 TREAGUS Phoebe
29 Aug 1856 TREAGUS Edward and TREAGUS William (Twins)
Is this the 1861 you have?
William Ireagus 65
Martha Bridger 23
Henry Bridger 5
John H Bridger 2
William Ireagus 14
Edward Ireagus 14
Martha is down as Daug, Mar.
But she doesnt marry til 16 Feb 1865 to Edward BRIDGER, Father George Treagus Labourer
Also her age is 18! and Edward 37
(FreeREG)
Anc has Martha Bapt 16 Apr 1848 to George/Hannah
-
To add to the mix another spelling of surname.
William TREAGOOSE Bapt 30 June 1805, St Andrew, West Dean to JOHN/ANNE
Siblings;
EDMUND 29 May 1792 (John/Esther Ann)
ELIZABETH 17 Aug 1793 (John/Esther)
ESTHER 25 Oct 1795 (John/Esther)
JAMES 18 June 1797 (John/Esther)
JOSEPH 10 March 1799 (John/Esther Ann)
ANN Feb 1801 (John/Ann)
JOHN 4 March 1803 (John/Esther Ann)
EMILY 30 March 1808 (John/Anne)
GEORGE 30 March 1808 (John/Ann)
(used soundex option as under various surname spellings)
Burials;
ANN Treagus 3 Nov 1844 age 71
JOHN Treagus 18 Jan 1846 age 81
Both have abode as Chilgrove in the Wood
-
1861 we have;
George Trcagen, 29
Harriet Trcagen, 26
Sydney Trcagen, 4
Charles Trcagen, 1
William Poore, 24
1871
George Treagus, 39
Harriett Treagus, 37
Sydney Treagus, 14
Thomas Treagus, 9
William Treagus, 4
Mary Ann Treagus, 1
So looks to me this is the right Marriage for this couple;
4 June 1855, St Andrew, West Dean
George TREAGUS , 23, Bachelor, Lanourer, Father WILLIAM, Labourer
Harriet SYLVESTER, 21, Spinster, Father ROBERT, Labourer
So are there more than one couple named George/Harriett Treagus around?
-
Sorry my brain hurts and I may have confused you more :-[
Back tomorrow when rested!
-
Wow thanks...this give me a lot to look into.
I must try and get to Sussex at some point to try and look at original records as well :)
-
Have found birth of Susan 1838 as Treangs - again, GRO index shows mmn as Lander.
I would suggest that Hannah's maiden name was indeed Lander and not Chandler. I don't know the state of the original parish records but FreeReg have William's own surname as 'Ingus' so perhaps the originals are not very clear.
1851 Census shows Hannah bc.1811 transcribed as Ingershaw ?? - however, I think it is a badly written Lurgashall. There are no baptisms for a Hannah Chandler ca.1811 BUT there is a baptism of a Hannah Launder, bp.28/6/1812 Lurgashall, dau. of John and Susan. Other children baptised to this couple show surname as Lander.
I think the details from the marriage entry are wrong - Tregus (Ingus on another source) and Chandler should be Lander I think as childrens births all indicate.
Annette
-
If you look at the 1871 Census, there are three George Treagus's - and all three are married to a Harriet!
There's:
George 1 born 1832 in West Dean, living in East Marden
George 2 born 1833 in East Dean, living in Arundel
George 3 born 1835 in West Dean, living in Funtington (the right one)
George 1 is the one with a son called Sydney, mmn Silvester
George 2 has a daughter called Ellen, mmn Adsett
George 3 has no children in 1871, which fits with the marriage that hmclem found for his George
-
George 1 is married in 1855, West Dean, to Harriet Silvester, father's name William
George 2 is married somewhere near Brighton in 1867, not on FreeReg
George 3 is married in 1870, father's name William (from hmclem)
Going back to the 1851 Census for George's 1 and 3,
George 1, aged 22, son of William, is at entry no 31 in West Dean, son of WIlliam aged 58, a widower, with brothers William (aged 25) and Benjamin (aged 19)
George 3, aged 16, son of William, is at entry no 37 in West Dean, son of William aged 66 and Hannah aged 44, and loads of siblings including Ambrose.
-
Perhaps I have my Georges mixed up? Will have to try and confirm which one is mine.
Thought a surname like Treagus would be easy!!!!
-
George 3, aged 16, son of William, is at entry no 37 in West Dean, son of William aged 66 and Hannah aged 44, and loads of siblings including Ambrose.
William's age is certainly out of kilter with every other census - did the enumerator misread the age on the actual returns, or was William feeling particularly aged that day, and put down what he felt like rather than his real age?
Perhaps I have my Georges mixed up?
I don't think you have - I think you've actually done very well!
-
Good tips and alternatives from other people here.
One point I'd like to add is not on the details but on the research method. It struck me that there were gaps in the census years provided. The link between William's family and George's family may be a bit 'tenuous' too. This is always how things start but I've learned the hard way to get as much evidence as possible. And also to try to find evidence to disprove my initial assumptions. It's painstaking but well worth it in the long run. As people have already noted, it's worth looking for supporting (and conflicting) evidence on multiple sites. My first 'go to' is usually Ancestry but I've found https://familysearch.org/ (https://familysearch.org/) and (in this case) http://forebears.io/england/gloucestershire/west-dean (http://forebears.io/england/gloucestershire/west-dean) often delivers other and clearer results.
For census data, it helps me to make a table for each family showing the data across as many census years as possible. I usually just make handwritten notes but I've copied and pasted text in the attached example. For some reason, seeing all the data laid out in one table makes it easier for me to see the data that checks out and the anomalies or question marks. I've also found it much better to work directly from the census 'images' rather than from the transcripts. The image data is more detailed (with addresses, occupations, etc.). Comparing these details across census years can add to (or detract from) the evidence you already have.
Connecting ('Georges') across generations is the most tricky part for me. Marriage certificates (with the name of the father/mother/witnesses) are a great help. But you need to check how many 'Georges Treagus' were born (and married Harriets) in the time-frame and in which parish. This helps in choosing the right George and Harriet to trace back. I'm no expert on this but I try to cast a wide net by searching for marriages between 'George Tea' and 'Harriet' in the West Dean area around 1870 +/- x years. You may get more than one couple that could be of interest. When in doubt, get certificates. The same applies to the birth of 'George Teagus'.
I'm still learning about this stuff but I hope this helps!
Mike
-
Thanks Mike. That's really good advice :)
I am also hoping one day to be able to go and look at parish records but not sure when that day will be!
-
Thanks Mike. That's really good advice :)
I am also hoping one day to be able to go and look at parish records but not sure when that day will be!
Hi, I'm glad my suggestions helped! Thanks to forums like these I'm on a steep learning curve with regard to 'good practice'. I'm hesitant to offer suggestions to people like you while I still need to make so many improvements to my own 'workflow'. I looked at your records primarily as an 'exercise' for myself.
I do all my 'research' through the internet. It still amazes me how many parish records are now available online, thanks to the tireless work of many volunteers. Forebears.io is the best resource I've found for this. If you're able to narrow down your search to a county or town, you'll often find image data (Baptisms records, Marriage Banns, Christenings, etc.) on forebears.io for the years you're interested in. One thing I like about forbears.io i that you can subscribe for a month when you're looking into something. Finding the digital images of the records you need often requires reading through 2-5 years of (digitised)records but it's worth the effort when you discover valuable clues. There's only been one case in the past few years where I needed to order a marriage certificate by post.
Over the past 5 years (on and off), I've gone through different phases of research:
- reviewing Ancestry 'hints' and accepting the ones that seemed plausible
- realising that a lot of Ancestry 'hints' weren't as accurate as I'd thought
- going back and systematically checking all the supporting and contradictory 'evidence' (at Ancestry and other sites too) for the key people and links
- finally realising that I had to take personal 'ownership' of my data (reliability, quality), independently of whatever 'hints' and suggestions I got from various websites
That's where I'm at now: critically questioning any new data I find or am 'offered', even if it seems to fit. I want to find all the evidence available from different sources that support the 'offer' or 'find'. I also want to check that there is no evidence that may contradict - or offer alternative evidence for - the 'offer or 'find'.
I've had to remove some (older) sub-trees which - at the time -I was delighted to find. It was heart-breaking! So now I try to distinguish between 'certain', 'probable' and 'possible' links. This sounds fine in theory but I've not yet found a website/program that allows me to do this. A couple of people here have thought up 'work-arounds' to flag and filter people in this way. I'm still trying to figure out a way to do this that works for me. It boils down to the 'confidence level' you have in people and relationships. Ideally, websites and programs would allow for this distinction and allow you to copy people and relationships for which you have a low confidence level to a 'To Do' list.
I'm now trying out a couple of programs on a trial basis to see how they could help me make this distinction off-line. As far as I know, none of the major websites (Ancestry, etc.) allow this. Tumara Jones (http://www.tamurajones.net/ (http://www.tamurajones.net/)) made a good case in 2012 for not propagating 'dubious' data.
Hope you solve the mystery and find what you're look for!
Mike
-
Hi
Re your Gt Grandmother, Hannah H. Treagus.
As my paternal Grandmother was a Treagus, I've done quite a bit of work on the Treagus families.
Your Gt. Grandmother is on my tree and I have her as being born 31 October 1881 North Marden
and christened in St. Mary's, North Marden on 17 December 1883 (just wondering whether I've got
right year here!) and marrying in 1909. I believe that she died in Chichester in 1945.
On the 1939 National Register I found Hannah as a widow and living in Chichester with two of her
sons, William Fletcher 1913 & Albert Fletcher1918.
In a book entitled "All Change At Singleton" I came across a photograph of your Gt.Grandmother's
younger sister Lillie Rose Treagus. If you don't have it, I could mail it to you.
I have the other two George Treaguses on my tree but don't really think that these families of interest to you.
I have the disks of North Marden and West Dean b.m.d's which I've used for reference in my research. Regards
Jeanette
-
Hi again
Forgot to say I have George Treagus christened 21 September 1835 St. Andrew's, West Dean who married Harriette Warrington 2 January 1870 Cocking, Sussex. George died Chilgrove & was buried 21 January 1893 St Andrew's, West Dean - age abt.58.
I have 7 children born to George & Harriette, the last two being your Gt.Grandmother and her younger sister, Lillie Rose.
Regards : Jeanette
-
Hi Jeanette
Thanks for your reply. It's lovely to hear from someone researching the Treagus name.
I have Hannah's baptism as 1882. Her middle name was Helen.
You are right she married in 1909. I have a copy of the marriage certificate which shows Lily Rose Treagus and Arthur Frank Treagus as witnesses. And she did die in 1945. Her husband Walter Enos Fletcher died in 1930.
My investigations have come up with 8 children for George and Harriet. I think the one I have extra to you is Arthur Frank born in 1891.
I have been using the Sussex Family History baptism and death records they have online as much as I can but finding lots of people with the same first name!
It would be lovely to have a picture of Lily Rose. Do I put my email address on here it private message you it?
If you are ok with it I would love to know more details that you have on the other George's etc. I have been extending the family tree sideways as well as up so that I can make sure I have the right person in my upwards line (if that makes sense!).
If you would like to have any of my research etc that I have I am more than willing to share.
Thanks
Helen
-
Hello Helen
Thanks for your reply and for confirming that we are indeed dealing with the same family of
Treaguses. I've had another look at my tree and yes the baptism year for Hannah should have
read 1882.
I would of course love to send you a scan of the photo of Hannah but it seems that attachments
cannot be made.
Are you by any chance a member of Genes or Ancestry?
I think that I can contact you thro' here and send you a private message which means my e-mail
address would not be made publicly available. As I'm not too familiar with Rootsweb, just wondering whether it'd be possible for you to send me your e-mail address by this means.
You are right I didn't have Albert Frank on my tree so thanks for that.
Just having a quick look again at my tree and I believe that Harriette Warrington Treagus remarried. Do you think that is so?
Best wishes from Jeanette
-
Jeanette - Have sent a private message so hopefully that has come through to you.
I did think that perhaps Harriett had remarried but was not quite sure so never actually added it to my tree. Would that be to William Glue?
-
Hi,
I've been researching the TREAGUS family for a few years now and have a Guild of One-Name Studies website for that surname at http://treagus.one-name.net/index.html. I believe that the 1851 census entry you refer to is wrong and William's age should be 46. Hannah's could be read as 44. I've made the same connections as you. If I can help with any more detail please contact me via my website.
Regards, Alan
-
Wow thanks Alan. That looks fab.
I will definitely have a good look around your website. You have put a lot of work into it.
Really appreciate you sharing it with me :)
Thanks
Helen