Missing generation ?

[wilcoxon]

I have this lady Ellen Valentino Langford, she was quite wealthy.
 Am I missing a generation . If the Joseph who dies in 1834 was 90, he would be about 58 when Ellen Valentino was born. I`m rather confused.
Did he have a son named John Langford who married a Sarah.

Joseph Langford married Sarah Maddocks 30 Dec 1799 Wrexham . No occupation but both signed their names.
A Joseph Langford owned property in High Street in 1798.

Ellen Valentino Langford.
Baptised 20 May 1805 Wrexham Denbighshire.
Parents Joseph and Sarah Langford, wine merchant Hope Street.
Ellen Valentina Langford aged 32 buried 8 Dec 1837. Newspapers report have of King Street Wrexham 

Possible siblings
Mary Langford Birth Date   1 Dec 1800 Bapt 19 Jul 1801
Sarah Langford  bapt 22 Sep 1802
Same parents Joseph a grocer.

Source U.S., Family History Books
Father   Joseph Langford  Mother   Sarah Maddocks
Sarah  Langford married Charles Poyser April 1825  died 1845 .

Joseph Langford.  Was loaded . Buried 26 May 1834 aged 90   b 1744
Name   Joseph Langford Probate Date 8 Nov 1834
GRAND DAUGHTERS Mary Langford, Sarah Langford, Ellen Valentino Langford.
 Shall pay unto their mother. Unnamed.
Daughter Sarah Foulkes son in law John Foulkes.
Daughter in law Sarah Langford
Foulkes Grandchildren.
Charles Poyser executor.

Ellen Valentino Langford will 1836.
Niece Sarah Poyser d / o Charles Poyser.
Brother in law Hugh Hughes. Sister Mary Hughes wife of Hugh Hughes.
My dear mother Sarah Langford.

A Sarah Langford  age 83 buried 27 Oct 1854 Wrexham b 1771
1851 Wrexham
Sarah Langferd   77 Head b Whittington, Shropshire, b 1774
Sarah Peyser 23 Visitor

Can anyone work it out .

[spendlove]

Hi,
The Joseph who died ion 1834 was Joseph (the Elder), who had a son named Joseph (the younger)
obviously dead before 1834.  Joseph the Younger married Sarah Maddocks in 1799 they had three
daughters Mary 1800, Sarah 1802 Ellen Valentino 1805.

Joseph the elder had a daughter Sarah who married John Foulks they had Emma and William Langford Foulks.

Joseph the elder must have had another son, also dead by 1834, because he names a Daughter in Law  Sarah Langford.

The will is detailed as to relationships, suggest you do a tree from the will ignoring all the info as to who gets what.  Also assume you must have done a family tree so probably already know how many children Joseph the elder had.

So yes you did have a missing generation.

Hope this helps

[wilcoxon]

I think I have them mostly , unfortunately no wills which would have been good.

1732 Arthur Langford sadler married Elizabeth Cross.
 
1743 Joseph Langford baptised Father Arthur . Sadler died 1834 aged 90.

Arthur Langford burial 1769 . Sadler. No will, Only a bond.
Elizabeth Langford death not found.

1779 Joseph Langford married Mary Williams

1782 Joseph Langford baptised parents Joseph and Mary.

1785  Mary Langford burial no age.

1813 Joseph Langford burial aged 31 b 1782   no will . Only a bond.

[RJ_Paton]

Joseph the elder must have had another son, also dead by 1834, because he names a Daughter in Law  Sarah Langford.

Just to muddy the waters a little ... The term "daughter in law" at that time period may not necessarily mean the wife of a son but had a broader sweep.

[wilcoxon]

Thanks for your interest. 

[hanes teulu]

Spotted Langford and Foulkes surnames - haven't attempted to understand!!

https://journals.library.wales/view/2092910/4623592/25#?sf=1&m=364&h=%22joseph%20langford%22&cv=24&xywh=120%2C621%2C2138%2C1025

Added - URL delivers page 110. Shd have delivered page 109. Just use <  to view.

[wilcoxon]

Thanks , Ive saved that as it's useful.
I am really researching a street that was the first residential street in Wrexham.  Built c 1828. I'm looking for people that were there up till about 1851 when the first Wrexham census is available,  there isn't one online for 1841.

I found lots about the Langfords, Foulkes and Poyser in A N Palmers  history of Wrexham. I should have got it out first.

They were all well off people with good occupations  , or proprietors of houses  no coalminers or washer women on King Street back then 😁

[spendlove]

Hi R J_Paton,

Re your comment "Just to muddy the waters a little ... The term "daughter in law" at that time period may not necessarily mean the wife of a son but had a broader sweep."

I do agree with your comment, however in this particular case it is an actual DIL, the will goes on to name her children as "Grandchildren".

[RJ_Paton]

I do agree with your comment, however in this particular case it is an actual DIL, the will goes on to name her children as "Grandchildren".

In of itself that does not confirm her status as wife of the as yet unknown son.

Context matters - if the reference to her as daughter in law used the surname AND the grandchildren were mentioned at the same time/same document then this would go some way to corroborate your initial thesis.

Unless of course she was the black sheep of the family and her children were illegitimate