SHERMAN - a dilemma

[Lal]

My great-great grandfather married a Sherman and the name is so common I'm in a tangle (I had fought through some Hunters and Caunces to get to the correct ones, so maybe my luck is running low).

Here's the detail I have:
William Leatherbarrow married Ellen Sherman (daug. of Thomas, a labourer), who was born in Burscough and was aged 20 when they married in July 1866 (witnessed by a Martha Sherman, possibly a sister).

In the 1891 Census, Ellen is 42 (so born 1848/9), in the 1901 census, she is 54 (so born 1846/7).

I have found a baptism record for 10th Jan 1847, Ellen daughter of Thomas & Ellen, abode Burscough, father labourer, at St John's Lathom but in register of Ormskirk Church. I'm sure this is correct as it rings true.

I have also found in BMDs an Ellen Sherman born Sept 1845 in 'Wigan district' (not Ormskirk). But that's too early is it? There are no other nearby candidates.

I've got into a tangle now. Would someone be born right out of their district and then not baptised until almost 18 months old?

The possible sister, Martha, exists, born 1840 and registered in Aughton, sub-district of Preston (the mother notes as Rimmer, which I suspect is true for Ellen).

[crisane]

This looks like your family.
Ellen 14 so born 1846/7  No reason for her to lie about her age at 14 years old!
1861 census RG9, Piece 2764, Folio 137, Page 23
Thomas Sherman 56 ag lab b Rufford? Lancs
Ellen 44 born Halsall
Martha 21 lab. dau b Aughton
Elizabeth 18 lab.dau Aughton
Ellen 14 b Burscough
Alice 10 b Burscough
Thomas 2 Burscough
Thomas Bradley son in law 26 born Burscough
Mary Bradley 26dau b Scarisbrook
Sarah Wright 2 visitor b Ormskirk

[crisane]

Here she is, recorded as Helen so that is the name to use when ordering the cert.
Helen Sherman Reg District Ormskirk March 1/4 1847 vol 21 page 636

[Lal]

Now that's great you think that because I had two pages of the census with the same family, but one of them does not have a number and I was very uncertain!

And an Ellen recorded as a Helen. Heh. I keep joking that there must be so many Ellens in Lancashire families because of our accents and dropped aitches...

Also, if I'm right about the names of the mother and father, then their family was even larger, going by the parish records, but so long as I find Ellen I am happy. 

[crisane]

You are right about the names of the parents. The 1861 census above shows them with both Ellen and Martha in Burscough.

I thought I would go back to the 1851 census to see what other children were with them but am having trouble finding them on both ancestry and FindMyPast.

[crisane]

Finally found them in 1851 HO107, Piece 2197, Folio 186, Page 19

Transcribed as Sherrow and it does look like that on the image.
Thomas 45 ag lab born Rafford/Rufford
Helen 40 born Halsall
William 20 ag lab b Scarisbrook
Mary 14 servant b Aughton
Elizabeth 7 house b Aughton
Helen 4 house b Burscough
Alice 10 months b Burscough

Both mother and daughter are Helen so your dropped haitch theory about us Lancashire folk could be right.

[crisane]

1841
HO107, Piece 511, Book 2,  Folio 45, Page 7. Aughton Lancashire

Thomas Sherman 30 Farmer
Ellen 30
William 10
Mary 4
Jane 2
Martha 1

Another daughter Jane who must die before 1851. Helen is Ellen this time.

[Lal]

I can't believe you foudn them on the old census returns - I've been trying for days. Still not got the hang of the alternate names thing

This is the full family as I have them (from a variety of sources, incl parish records)
Thomas c1810
Ellen c1810
William 1831 - Sarah Wright is his daughter or adopted daughter, he married Elizabeth Wright, and they had some more children.
Margaret 1832
John 1834-5
Mary 1836 - married Thomas Bradley, not identified issue yet (tomorrow's job).
Jane 1836-44
Martha 1840
Elizabeth 1843 - mother of James 1862, possibly of Thomas 1859 (I'm still deciding on little Thomas)
Ellen 1847 - married James Leatherbarrow
Alice 1851

The 1851 census made me laugh as the person noting it down must have been posh to note the Ellens as Helens, and he has written down Rufford and Scarisbrick as posh people say them

Old Thomas was obviously a labourer who travelled around a lot (unusual for Rufford folk ).

[crisane]

I finally got them (using ancestry)  in 1841 by widening Thomas' birth date to allow for the rounding down of birth dates to the nearest 5. eg Thomas in 1851 was 45 so should have been 35 in 1841 but allowing for a difference in the dates when the censuses were done he could have been 34 in 1841. So took his age back to 30 + or - 2.
Not all enumerators rounded down the ages but some did it as they were supposed to.
As for the 1851 and the name Sherrow (FindMyPast didn't give it as an alternative) I left the surname out of the search boxes altogether and used the maiden name of a child only, with Thomas as father. I left Ellen out of it because she may have been recorded as Ellen or Helen.
 I used Sher* in the surname box but nothing showed and this can happen because sometimes the sites have a hissy fit and just decide they aren't going to show what you are looking for.

Thomas and Ellen didn't go that far in their travels. Aughton is 2.45 miles SW of Ormskirk and Burscough is 3.4 miles NE. Scarisbrook is 4.3 miles NW.
Rufford and Halsall very close to Ormskirk also.
It makes things a lot easier when searching that they didn't move around a lot and were precise as to where their children were born.

Margaret born 1832 doesn't appear on any census with the family and no death for her on FreeBMD. Did she die before 1837 and therefore no registration of death for her?