Adoptive parents of my great grandfather- wakefield/ royston/yorkshire

[Petra Mitchinson]

Just had a look at the 1921 census on Findmypast - just by searching and hovering the cursor over the details in the results.

Arthur & Lucy PRIESTLEY with Clarence A. PRICE are together in a household in Wakefield, with three other people. One of them is a Margaret ROBINSON, born 1920 in Bradford. Now she must be the Margaret PRIESTLEY in the 1939 Register.

I looked for her birth in the GRO online index. The only Margaret ROBINSON that came up as born in June Quarter 1920 in Bradford was:

June 1920 Margaret ROBINSON, Mother's M.S. -- Bradford 9b 323 Occasional Copy A

Occasional Copy A usually refers to some alteration having been made to the name later on.

When I looked up this reference on FreeBMD, there were two entries for what was clearly the same child:

June 1920 Margaret ROBINSON, Mother's M.S. SYKES Bradford 9b 323
June 1920 Margaret SYKES, Mother's M.S. SYKES Bradford 9b 323

There is no birth registration for a Margaret SYKES in the GRO online index.

So my assumption is that Margaret was the illegitimate daughter of a Mrs. ROBINSON formerly SYKES.

I am not aware of any family connection to SYKES or ROBINSON in either Lucy's or Arthur PRIESTLEY's family.

There is also an E. George GUDGIN, born 1899 in Nottingham, in the household in 1921, as well as an Edith GUDGIN, born 1895 in Retford, Notts.

He was George Edward GUDGIN, born June Quarter 1899 in Nottingham District, Mother's M.S. ARCH.

I could not find Edith's birth as GUDGIN, so I suppose she was George Edward's wife - but I can't find a marriage for them either.

Just thought it may be of interest to someone.

[chempat]

In 1921 Margaret Robinson has recorded that both parents are alive - though possible that originally stated as a dash and amended.
E George Gudgin is a police constable - as both state they are married then one would think that they would obey the law.

Added:  Marriage might have been after 1921.....1926 looks likely.

[AntonyMMM]

I looked for her birth in the GRO online index. The only Margaret ROBINSON that came up as born in June Quarter 1920 in Bradford was:

June 1920 Margaret ROBINSON, Mother's M.S. -- Bradford 9b 323 Occasional Copy A

Occasional Copy A usually refers to some alteration having been made to the name later on.

When I looked up this reference on FreeBMD, there were two enries for what was clearly the same child:

June 1920 Margaret ROBINSON, Mother's M.S. SYKES Bradford 9b 323
June 1920 Margaret SYKES, Mother's M.S. SYKES Bradford 9b 323

There is no birth registration for a Margaret SYKES in the GRO online index.

So my assumption is that Margaret was the illegitimate daughter of a Mrs. ROBINSON formerly SYKES.

That is an unusual combination of index entries - working out the entry from indexes is always difficult and means making assumptions (and there can be other options), but the lack of a maiden name on the GRO entry would suggest the mother is probably listed as "Robinson otherwise Sykes".

The Occasional Copy does usually indicate there was a correction of some sort made, so it would be an interesting entry to see.... e.g. I think there is a remote possibility is that the entry had a father shown (named Robinson) who was then removed.

[Petra Mitchinson]

Oh, it's so nice to get a response - I felt I was talking to myself!

I also looked into Arthur PRIESTLEY's background as well as that of his first wife Sarah Jane MARSHALL, and the family relationships are mindbogglingly complex. Ancestry cannot cope with this when drawing their family tree, and each of them appears three times in the same line!

The lynchpin to all this is a man called John MARSHALL (1841-1921). He was married three times. In 1863 he married his first wife Mary BRIGGS (1840-1885), and they had several children together, one of them a daughter Sarah Jane MARSHALL (1865-1911).

Sarah Jane MARSHALL married in 1865 Arthur PRIESTLEY (1862-1931). Arthur was a son of John PRIESTLEY (1835-1882) and his wife Elizabeth née GIGGALL (1831-1896).

John PRIESTLEY died in 1882, and John MARSHALL's first wife Mary died in 1885. The widowed John MARSHALL then married in 1886 the widow Elizabeth PRIESTLEY née GIGGALL. So Arthur PRIESTLEY was now not only John MARSHALL's son-in-law but also his stepson. Equally, Sarah Jane PRIESTLEY, in addition to being the daughter-in-law of Elizabeth née GIGGALL, had now additionally become Elizabeth's stepdaughter.

Elizabeth MARSHALL formerly PRIESTLEY née GIGGALL died in 1896. Her widower John MARSHALL then married in 1897 as his third wife Frances Louisa TAYLOR née PRICE. She was a widow with several children (two of whom lived in the MARSHALL household in 1901). Frances Louisa was the half-sister of George PRICE, who also lived in John & Frances Louisa MARSHALL's household as a boarder in the 1901 census, and who married Lucy PULLAN/BOOTH/RAILTON in 1908. George and Lucy PRICE then adopted Clarence BAMFORD.

In 1915, Lucy (who may have been widowed, although I have not found a death for George PRICE) married Arthur PRIESTLEY, whose wife Sarah Jane née MARSHALL had died in 1911.

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

[Katea3101]

Hi.
Sorry I've only just seen I had a reply to this post.

Wow... my mind is blown! So much more info than we had. I'm so glad you found this post Petra! Thankyou for sharing.

We don't have much info on Margaret... or know much about her...other than believing she was possibly a child that Lucy "took on" after her husband died.

Margaret lived at earnshaw place and my grandad said he they had 2 lodgers living there too.( which were the couple you mention above)

We have a postcard from my grandad Clarence which he sent to Margaret at the above adress while he was serving in the forces signing... with love, your big brother Clarence.
So believe they must have been close.

I remember finding a death cert for Margaret somewhere down south and beleive she had no children. I'm sure I also found a probate record for her too.

Back to clarences birth mother( who we belive to be berth jackson( nee bamford) I found her grave and visited it in Leeds. Buried with her husband Harry Jackson.

If anyone has any more info I would be very grateful.

Kate

[Petra Mitchinson]

Hi.

We don't have much info on Margaret... or know much about her...other than believing she was possibly a child that Lucy "took on" after her husband died.

Margaret lived at earnshaw place and my grandad said he they had 2 lodgers living there too.( which were the couple you mention above)

We have a postcard from my grandad Clarence which he sent to Margaret at the above adress while he was serving in the forces signing... with love, your big brother Clarence.
So believe they must have been close.

I remember finding a death cert for Margaret somewhere down south and beleive she had no children. I'm sure I also found a probate record for her too.

Kate

It looks as if Margaret joined the household of Arthur and Lucy PRIESTLEY before the 1921 census, so that's quite a while before Arthur died.

It seems that Lucy had no children herself - at least no surviving ones. There are a couple of possibles.

There was the birth of a Francess Mary RHODES (mother's M.S. PULLAN) in March Quarter 1897 in Leeds Registration District, and the birth of a Dorothy RHODES (mother's M.S. PULLAN) in June Quarter 1898 in Holbeck Registration District. It seems both these children died in Hunslet Registration District in 1899 - Dorothy in September Quarter aged 0 (really should have been 1 year old) and Francess Mary in December Quarter 1899 aged 2. No absolute proof that these were children of Booth and Lucy but although there were a couple of possible RHODES / PULLAN marriages in the Leeds area in 1900, I could not see any before these two girls were born. Only a birth or death certificate would prove this.

So Lucy may have found the lack of children of her own very hard, and therefore adopted Clarence and later Margaret?

[chempat]

birth of a Dorothy RHODES (mother's M.S. PULLAN) in June Quarter 1898 in Holbeck Registration District. It seems both these children died in Hunslet Registration District in 1899 - Dorothy in September Quarter aged 0 (really should have been 1 year old)

Theoretically Dorothy could have been born on June 30th 1898 and registered the same day, so falling in the June registration quarter.
She could then have died on June 27th 1899, age still 0, and registered on July 2nd 1899, so falling in the September quarter.

I know that is a little pedantic, but I have been doing analysis when I know that I may be a year out but accept limitations, and if they claim 0 I am not going to argue.