Thomas Nickless b1815 HELP!

[brookie21]

Hi -

im looking for suggestions on how i could find further information about Thomas Nickless born 1815, on the census's that I have located him on it states that he was born in Bromsgrove/Worcs but then on the earlier census results there are only 2 Thomas Nickless' of which Im not sure that either are my relation.

I know that Thomas married Jane Chandler (b.1822)  in 1841

Im stumped. If anyone has any tips on how to find them would be appreciated!

Charly

[Manchester Rambler]

The 1851 census gives his place of birth as Bridgnorth (copying error?), but other details match the family in 1861, allowing for the spelling variation of his surname.

HO107/2047/235/34
Sidemore, Bromsgrove, Worcs
Thomas NICHOLAS  Head  33  Nailor  b. Bridgnorth, Shrops
Jane NICHOLAS  Wife  27  b. Bromsgrove
Jane NICHOLAS  Dau  8  b. Bromsgrove
Henry NICHOLAS  Son  1  b. Bromsgrove

1841
HO107/1195/18/28
Sidemore, Bromsgrove, Worcs[
Thomas NICHOLAS  20  Nailor
Jane NICHOLAS  15
Ann NICHOLAS  1 month

(In 1841, ages of those over 15 were rounded down to the nearest 5 years, meaning Jane was aged between 15-19, which matches her 1822 birth date.)

Rambler

[Annette7]

It would seem that Bridgnorth is correct.

New familysearch shows:

Thomas Nicholas bp.20/4/1817 St. Leonards, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, son of Thomas and Emma (possibly Amey going from some other entries).

Annette

[brookie21]

Thanks so much for the quick reply!

im not sure if bridgnorth is an error, its not that far away from birmingham, but I came came across a record suggesting bridgnorth as a birthplace for a thomas nickless and extrensively searched the records on the off chance, but didnt find anything so just assumed it was wrong - i will have another look with the different spelling.

thanks for the info! It will help massively!

charly

[brookie21]

Thanks Annette - i will look into that!

with regards to the surname difference, you may be able to help me with a query ...  my maiden name was nickless, so i can see how nickless can easily be confused as nicholas and other ways of spelling it, it was always happening to me, but to go from Nicholas to Nickless that wud just be unusual, wouldn't it?  its not exactly a common surname ?

or am I over thinking it?

Charly

[Annette7]

Not at all unusual to go from Nicholas/Nickless.   As you have seen, the earlier census have the surname as Nicholas.   You have to remember that most people were illiterate in those days and the parish incumbent/enumerators would simply write down how the name sounded to them.    Parish incumbents weren't usually local men either so not familiar with dialects, etc.

Have some unsual surnames in my family and you wouldn't believe how some were written down.   Our poor ancestors didn't have a clue being unable to read themselves.

Part of the joy in this genealogy game we've got into!

Annette

[brookie21]

Thanks Annette

It does make the whole thing over complicated !

charly