Swifts of Wolverhampton dead end?-updated, the plot thickens!

[kneller1980]

I have been researching my family tree for a year and this one problem is bugging me immensely...ANY ideas or information would be greatfully received.

My gr(x3) grandfather was called Thomas Swift, he was born c1851 in Bilston, Staffordshire.

His Mother was called MARY SWIFT born c1829 in Shrewsbury(i have not been able to locate her birth details)on the 1861 census she is listed as UNMARRIED and a servant/housekeeper to a Widow named RICHARD BANKS born also in Bilston, he is a stoneminer.

Thomas and his siblings are listed as the HEADS CHILDREN(RICHARD)

on the 1871 census Mary Swift has Married Richard Banks and the census then goes on to list Thomas and his siplings as STEP SON/ DAUR.

so i'm confused?! i've been unable to trace Mary prior to 1861 though there could be a candidate born c1827 though in Wolverhampton and working as a servant in Tettenhall on the 1851...but no children listed(obvious as her work place) but cannot find them on anything else either?

i am very very confused an it's driving me mad! any help would be so good!
thanks in advance! please save me sanity!

[CaroleW]

Hi

Son Thomas was born after the 1851 census (see freebmd)

In 1851 Richard Banks was in lodgings in Willenhall with 7yr old daughter Lucy.  His occ is iron miner and he is a widower.

I doubt he was Thomas's father or daughter Ann 's aged 14 in 1861 (she was b Shrewsbury) but suspect Richard aged 4 in 1861 could be his

If you look at the 1861 image - the childrens entries appear below Mary Swift.  Whilst the relationship of residents should be shown as to the head of the household - I suspect the enumerator is showing them as Mary's children

[lizdb]

Here is the 1861 that you have

RG9 2000 120 13
New Street Willenhall
Richard Banks 37 stonemason bn Bilston
Mary Swift 32 housekeeper bn Shrewsbury
Ann 14 dtr bn Shrewsbury
Thomas son 11 bn Bilston
Richard son 4 bn Willenhall

It could well be that the children are dtr and sons of Mary, the name immediately above them, rather than of the Head fo H/H.
I know ir is supposed to be relationship to head, but often this is not followed strictly. In this case strictly it shlud say 'none'  next to the children, or 'housekeepers dtr', but often that is not the case.

[kneller1980]

thank you for your response, it really has helped do you know of anyway i can find out who Thomas and Ann's father was? i presume as Mary was unmarried they were named after her and also as she wasa servant maybe the family she was working for the father could be linked there?

i'm so confused by it all thank you for takin the time to respond and so quickly.

[lizdb]

Have you got their birth certs?

That would be the first step.

If father is not named on the birth cert yuo could see if they were christened and if there is any mention of him there.
If nothing on either, then it is unlikely you will find him, unless he is named on any other record that has survived - unlikely.
More likely it is Mary's secret.

but not a dead end - you can still follow Mary's family.

[kneller1980]

that's my next step...but to be honest i'm not a 100% sure one is thomas on the birth records as on the census(as always) his age and year of birth changes between a 6 year period! this will tur out to be costly but needs must...i just wanted to check that nobody had them in their tree.

so frustrating! but again thanks for the tips

[CaroleW]

Births September qtr 1846 
 
Anna Swift  Wellington  18 195

A possible only as Penkridge did not include Bilston

Births September qtr 1849 
 
Thomas  SWIFT    Penkridge  17 111

Ignore - 1851 entry sighted and parents were William and Ann

[kneller1980]

you see i got pointed to that thomas before-they were all boat people...now  i know that's not my thomas, but i got told that the swifts in my family were boat people-and miners...so i'm sure i'll come across a connection to them.

i was looking into lucy banks and i found her as a lodger on the 1861 census at 17...and i am sure her occupation is listed as prostitute?!?!?! was this common(i mean to list it so bluntly-i know it's the oldest profession) i may of read it wrong but that's what it looks like.

[CaroleW]

Being kind - it could be meant to be "destitute" but I reckon you are right and it's prostitute and there were 2 other lodgers with the same occupation

Bet the landlady kept a close watch on her husband!!