Thomas Blenkin 1851 Census

[harton]

Could anyone help me? I've got a transcript of the entery for THOMAS BLENKIN and his family with a partial reference of 2416/230. This was in Haltwhistle. The help I'm looking for is the surname of his mother, th transcript gives it as Gibson?.
The confusion is that another researcher gave me his mothers name as Dinah Glasiter.
Searching the IGI there are no children for Thomas Blenkin and Dinah Gibson but there is a son Thomas born to Thomas Blenkin and Dinah Glasiter.
This son was born in 1815 and this fits with the 1851 data about Thomas Blenkin
I hope that all makes sense
Derek  Cuthbert

[heywood]

Hello,

This is the entry:
1851 HO107; Piece: 2416; Folio: 230; Page: 7

No 8 Blenkinsopp

Thomas Blenkin 37 yrs  labourer at Collieryb Bromfield Cumberland
Ann 40 yrs  b Bolton Cumberland
Dinah Gibson mother 57 yrs b Bromfield

plus 10 children

[harton]

Thank you for that, it helps.
Derek

[heywood]

it does bother me that she has a different name. Could she have been Miss Glaister, Mrs Blenkin then married Mr Gibson?
I have tried to look for any clues here but have none sorry!!

[heywood]

1841 in Bromfield Cumberland has bothe Gibson and Glaister families -no trace of Dinah though

[harton]

Thanks for the information, I wonder if I'll ever solve the problem of Dinah?
Derek

[heywood]

1861 RG9; Piece: 3697; Folio: 53; Page: 16

has Dinah Ginson 67yrs as a boarder wirh Ann who is now a widow and family in Durham.


Just found this site: http://members.madasafish.com/~cgrs/Bromfield.htm
which indicates that Dinah Glaister was not married to Thomas Blenkin at the time of Thomas' birth.

Perhaps she then married a Mr Gibson. 1841 does have an entry for a Dinah Gibson, husband and family - can't find them in 1851!!

[harton]

Hi
That would tie in wth what I've got as in the 1851 Dinah is living with her son in Haltwhistle, could you send me the 1841 data for Dinah Gibson. that would complete the set.
Thanks again
Derek

[harton]

It could possible be her but as you say you'd have expected to find her with the family in 1851. The reason I say "possibly" is because in the 1851 Census(2416/230/7) she is given as 57 (born ca 1794) and in the 1861 Census (3697/53/16) she is given as 67. Knowing the age recording in the 1841 then 6 years out could make her a possibility.

Derek