1
Sussex / Re: James Terry. B1849 in Brightling, Sussex. GRO birth record.
« on: Monday 16 February 26 14:09 GMT (UK) »
Can you confirm please that the census sightings you have match these? Just in case I'm chasing after the wrong man!
1881 RG11/1049 fol 58 (age 35)
1891 RG12/0781 fol 51 (age 42)
1901 RG13/0753 fol 86 (age 52)
Since birthplace is consistent, I'd be trying to identify his bap. Brightling PRs are on Ancestry https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/62125/, whilst he's not indexed under any obvious variant he may be badly mistranscribed, or his mother subsequently married a TERRY. A long job that will involve a trawl for (I'd suggest) quite a few years either side of 1849, try to account for each and every James going forward. How much time you dedicate to it will depend on how desperately you want to know who his mother was.
Regarding supposed father Thomas TERRY, the name may have been a complete fabrication or James's mother may have told him his deceased father's name was Thomas. He may even have been a carpenter. However although young James had presumably been brought up as a TERRY that doesn't necessarily mean that was his father's surname too. Have you managed to identify the witnesses to the 1888 marriage?
In all three censuses where he's been found, he admits to being significantly older than his wife. I'd be inclined to think he may have been older still, and that could put the Arundel Thomas back in the frame. If I'm looking at the correct census pages, who is William age 7 in 1881/17 in 1891? Might there be another marriage prior to 1876?
Have fun
Jane :-)
1881 RG11/1049 fol 58 (age 35)
1891 RG12/0781 fol 51 (age 42)
1901 RG13/0753 fol 86 (age 52)
Since birthplace is consistent, I'd be trying to identify his bap. Brightling PRs are on Ancestry https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/62125/, whilst he's not indexed under any obvious variant he may be badly mistranscribed, or his mother subsequently married a TERRY. A long job that will involve a trawl for (I'd suggest) quite a few years either side of 1849, try to account for each and every James going forward. How much time you dedicate to it will depend on how desperately you want to know who his mother was.
Regarding supposed father Thomas TERRY, the name may have been a complete fabrication or James's mother may have told him his deceased father's name was Thomas. He may even have been a carpenter. However although young James had presumably been brought up as a TERRY that doesn't necessarily mean that was his father's surname too. Have you managed to identify the witnesses to the 1888 marriage?
In all three censuses where he's been found, he admits to being significantly older than his wife. I'd be inclined to think he may have been older still, and that could put the Arundel Thomas back in the frame. If I'm looking at the correct census pages, who is William age 7 in 1881/17 in 1891? Might there be another marriage prior to 1876?
Have fun
Jane :-)