Census searches & help

[woody123]

Hi,

I've just noticed i have made a big error in one line of my family in that i have Eliza Millership to have born a child in her 50's.

Looking back i can see where i have gone wrong i have somehow got three families all rolled to one with Eliza being a widow at 55 and living with her 5 month old son.

Here is what i know.

Richard Millership (b.1828) married Eliza Oliver(b.1835) in 1863 in Stourbridge.

at present i have their children as

Louisa b.1859
George b.1860
John b.1866
Thomas b.1869
Agnes b.1872
Richard b.1874
John b.1890

They would have been living at Oldbury or Rowley Regis.

Can anyone help me put the family right please.

Thanks
Mark

[lizdb]

Well, that is what the 1891 census suggests - but in reality I suspect that John is a grandchild.

1891
RG12 2266 71 14
110 Birdfield Lane Oldbury

Eliza 55 widow bn Dudley
Thomas son 22 Iron worker bn Rowley Regis
Richard son 18 bn RR
Agnes dtr 20 bn Olbury
John 5 mths son bn Olbury

[lizdb]

And 1881 shows they already had a John who survived childhood

Rg11 2841 11 17
73 Birchyfield Lane Oldbury
Richard 52 coalmoner disabled 4 yrs bn Worcs Dudley
Eliza 46 bn Worcs Dudley
John 15 bn Staffs Rowley
Thomas 12 bn Staffs Rowley
Agnes 9 bn Olbury
Richard 7 bn Oldbury
John Davenport 55 visitor

[lizdb]

Richrd didnt die till 1860 - so in theory could have fathered young John the 2nd

Death
Jan/Feb/Mar 1890
Richard Millership
West Brom 6b 562

[Tati]

Hi both 

I agree the most likely explanation is that little John, age 5 months in 1891 is actually Agnes' son rather than Eliza's.

There's a possible marriage
Agnes Millership - John Butler
Dec 1891 Stourbridge

and the 1901 census for Oldbury shows an Agnes Butler age 30 born Langley, married to a John Butler. They have a son John Butler age 10 born Langley.

 

[lizdb]

i cant see young John in 1901, nor a death for him.

But ELiza is in the West Brom workhouse, a 67 yr old pauper
RG13 2725 125 28

[lizdb]

That makes a lot of sense Tati
Firstly it explains why there is no John Mil*ip born 1890 ish on 1901
Secondly it explains why Richard and Agnes were not in the usual age order on the 1891 - the enumerator had listed Agnes last and then John as 'son', meaning her son, rather than son of head of household.

If Richard and Eliza's marriage was not till 1863, I see it is a "like mother like daughter " scenario as two children seem to be born before that year.

Are we helping, Woody? (have you cooked dinner tonight?)

[woody123]

Hi,

This all sounds good.

when John(1866) married in 1887 Agnes was a witness and also a Thomas Millership.

Does the 1871 census show Louisa & George or are those the ones from another family.

Thanks all for your help so far.

[lizdb]

1871 is interesting. There are 2 Richrd Millerships with Oldbury connections.

1)
RG10 2985 97 9
All Saints St. West Bromwich
Richard 43 Miner bn Worcs Oldbury
Hannah 43 bn Staffs West Brom
Sarah 11  bn WB
Ann R 9 bn W B
Samuel 7 bn WB
George 6 bn WB
William R 1 bn WB

2)
RG10 2975 79 48
Stone Street Oldbury
Richard 47 Miner bn Nottingham
Eliza 43 bn Tipton Staffs
Elizabeth 19 bn Olbury
Mercy 12 bn O
Phoebe 9 bn O
John 7 bn O
Eliza 3 bn O


Neither tie up well with 1881 or subsequent censuses do they! One would expect Richard and Eliza to have a 2 yr old Thomas and a 5 yr old John.

No sign of the George or Louisa with either.