Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ermintrude46

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 83
1
There's a Thomas Wiggins, nephew, staying with/visiting Thomas and Triphena (nee Wiggins) Tate in Leeds in the 1891 census, this could potentially be him
Ermy

2
Clara Barker is in the 1901 census for Cleckheaton with her parents John William and Mary and siblings George and Edith.  There is also a boarder, Thomas Wiggins a coal miner aged 18 born Leeds.  Interestingly, there is a baptism for a Thomas Wiggins aged 5 in 1886 in Leeds.  His father is shown as Elijah Wiggins and mother is Margaret (they were married in 1882 and Margaret's maiden name was Grogan). There is an earlier baptism for a Thomas Grogan, mother Margaret, no father given at St Marks, Woodhouse, Leeds also in 1882.  I surmise therefore that the lodger with the Barker family in the 1901 census is Thomas Grogan whose father was actually Elijah Wiggins.
Ermy

3
There's a death for a Thomas Grogan born about 1881 registered in Leeds in October 1922.  The fact that he wasn't shown as deceased on the marriage certificate when Harold married in 1924 can't be taken to mean he was definitely alive then.  Sometimes the father might be noted as deceased and sometimes not, there was no requirement to state which was the case.
Ermy

4
Could there be a subsequent Mary Cratchley for the same family if the one born 1710 died in infancy? I was caught out, think my ancestor Jane had her last child very late only to realise there was another Jane born five years later after the first had died. Or could Humphrey born 1759 be a grandson of your Humphrey? Often sons named after their father are amongst the eldest children, could there be a Humphrey born before they married in 1737? Especially with names prone to different spellings it’s worth trawling through the original films if you haven’t already done that in case you spot something that’s been mistranscribed or missed 🤔

5
Yorkshire (West Riding) / Re: Who can be a sponsor on a marriage licence?
« on: Wednesday 18 September 24 22:04 BST (UK)  »
Thanks both, that's useful information if somewhat disappointing that I can't now make any assumptions about the relationship of my Joseph Hindle and his bondsman!
Best,
Ermy

6
Yorkshire (West Riding) / Who can be a sponsor on a marriage licence?
« on: Wednesday 11 September 24 17:48 BST (UK)  »
Hello,

My 4x great grandfather, Joseph Hindle married Margaret Chatburn by licence in Keighley in 1792 three weeks before their first child was born.  From other records, Joseph was born around 1770/1771.  On the marriage licence he is shown as a serving man and signs his name.  The sponsor is another Joseph Hindle, shown as a husbandman, and he makes his mark. 

A lot of trees on Ancestry have my Joseph as son of Joseph Hindle, weaver of Bingley and Anne Rogers (a widow) who were married at Keighley in 1761.  However, this Joseph signed his name at his marriage so I'm not totally convinced...

I think Joseph Hindle, the sponsor of my Joseph, married Susan Butterfield at Bradford in 1795 (he's a husbandman and makes a mark at his marriage) and there were at least four children baptised at Keighley between then and 1802.  That Joseph and my Joseph are both shown as 'of Hope (Street)' in the parish records for Keighley which is another hint of their connection.

My question is, who could be a sponsor for a marriage licence?  Is Joseph the husbandman likely to be my Joseph's father remarrying late in life?  Or could the two Joseph's be a similar age or would a cousin in his early 20s not be of sufficient standing to be a sponsor on a marriage licence?

Best,
Ermy

7
Yorkshire (West Riding) / Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
« on: Monday 26 August 24 20:58 BST (UK)  »
Trawling through PR for Halifax and Keighley from 1750s onwards I've noticed that a lot of girls/women were baptised, married or buried under a pet name e.g. Sally for Sarah, Betty for Elizabeth, Peggy for Margaret interchangeably with the more formal version of their name.  So they might be baptised as Sally, married as Sarah and be shown as either at the baptisms of their children or their burial.  I haven't really come across this elsewhere and it doesn't seem to have applied to the male members of the families who very nearly always have their formal name used in all their records.  Does anyone know why this might be?
Ermy

8
Yorkshire (West Riding) / Re: Confusing Chatburns of Keighley
« on: Monday 26 August 24 20:46 BST (UK)  »
Interestingly, as well as John Chatburn of Low Bridge, buried at Keighley in 1819 aged 79 (born 1740) I've also found a Mary Chatburn of Low Bridge buried at Keighley in 1832 aged 91 (born 1741) ...

Tempting to wonder if these are Margaret's (and perhaps Thomas's) parents...but how would I ever prove it one way or the other!
Ermy

9
Yorkshire (West Riding) / Re: Confusing Chatburns of Keighley
« on: Sunday 11 August 24 15:41 BST (UK)  »
Thanks, Colin.
Halifax was a huge parish and included a number of chapels such as Heptonstall. That John Chatburn was a yeoman of Erringden(where the coiners came from!). All his children were baptised at Heptonstall but come under Halifax for the bishops transcripts etc. Margaret was baptised at St John’s, the parish church of Halifax and her father was a labourer so sadly I don’t think she is part of that Chatburn family.
Best,
Annette

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 83