Williams - Buckley

[DINGinWALES]

Thanks Chris,

Your geography certainly does clear some things up. I've lived in the area for 60 years and didn't know how the parishes were created. Do you happen to know where Buckley Road was? I'm not at all sure but I thought Argoed was part of Bistre. None of my Williams family seemed to have strayed much further than the common (later addresses are all The Mountain, Buckley Mountain, Ewloe Wood). I wonder if the area around The Square extended to the Common?

Of course, this doesn't get me any further but its all really interesting so thank you 

[chris_49]

You're welcome. I've never heard of Buckley Road. The Mountain, Ewloe Wood - those would be in Hawarden parish so in Chester district - earlier Great Boughton.  Yet more places to look up those Wililams, I'm afraid

[despair]

Having looked at the originals of the 1851 census,entries for Buckley Square and Buckley Road are intermingled.I haven't been able to find Buckley Road on an old map,I suspect it may be the current Mold Road.

Regards
Roger

[RunKitty]

Hi,

Looking at baptisms in Mold/Holywell/Buckley/Hawarden between 1836 and 1842... I found a few for Thomas Williams, father John.

1837, John and Elizabeth of Argoed.  John is a farmer
1837, John and Mary of Argoed.  John is a collier  (bapt date is May 13 1837)
1839, John and Mary of Broncord.  John is a Bricklayer
1840, John and Mary of Mold.  John is a Tailor
1842, John and Margaret of Mold.  John is a Gardener. 

I can see the 1841 census record with John and Ruth.  Not seeing a baptism record for Thomas with mother Ruth??   Have you found a marriage for a John and Ruth that works??

RK

[RunKitty]

I have searched (physically) all the graveyards in Buckley but can't  find him.

Have you checked the burial registers?  Not all of the graves will have markers.

Sorry this is so difficult for you... I have a lot of family from this area too (first thing I did was to check and see if your Thomas was somewhere on my tree.  No luck ).  Keep at it.  Hopefully something will turn up.    

RK

[despair]

There is some data that may partially reveal the "John and Ruth" family.
It starts with the 1851 census where there is a step-son John Ibal.
Ruth Rowland married Edward Ibal in 1815 and had children Robert(who died in infancy),John(1820),Sarah(1822),William(1824).I think these,with Sarah as Jane,are the first three children in the 1841 census(notorious for age inaccuracy even given the rounding).Edward dies in 1825.
A Ruth Ibal(widow) then marries a John Price in 1828,but I suspect he dies in 1830.
There is then a marriage of Ruth Rowland to a John Griffiths in 1836.(Perhaps she has reverted to her maiden name-I can only find one Ruth Rowland born in the area).There are two children born to John and Ruth Griffiths,Ann(1837),Thomas(1839).John is given s a collier from Argoed.This then matches the profile of the family in 1841,but why do they appear as Williams rather than Griffiths?
(I haven't yet checked to see if John Griffiths dies 1840 or 1841 and there is another marriage to John Williams!


Regards
Roger

[DINGinWALES]

RK you are such a star! Thank you.

Out of the list you posted only Thomas 1837 fits and this is the one I have been favouring. However, on the marriage certificate in 1860, Thomas is 19 and Anne 22 and this is why I carried on looking and turned up John and Ruth.

I turned my attention to Anne. On the 1841 census, it doesn't look as if Anne was born. She was 9 on the 1851 census. If there was a mistake and he was 22 and Anne 19 then John and Mary seem to fit perfectly.

If I could eliminate John and Ruth as parents (do I need to?), then I would be as certain as I can be that I've got the right family. I can't find a marriage for John and Ruth. I suspect she was married before (stepson John Iball).

Burial Registers??? I've looked at Flint Burials - no luck.

Thank you, Roger. Buckley Road/Mold Road would make sense.

[DINGinWALES]

  :)Good gracious, Roger. Your information will keep me busy all day!

I can only marvel at the way you lot fit these things together.

Many, many thanks!!!!!

[RunKitty]

Wow Roger... that is certainly a fascinating possibility.  If I read you correctly, that Thomas is actually born Thomas Griffiths, but then later would take the last name Williams (perhaps if Mom Ruth married again to a John Williams before the 1841 census). 

Looks like you had better not count out Ruth and John as parents yet... still more checking to do!!

RK