• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

It's Worth Re-checking

AndyMick

AndyMick

LostCousins Star
In sorting out my data for checking who was on My LostCousins Ancestors (by using a similar technique to Alexander's FTAnalyzer programme - see this thread) I noticed that I hadn't got a marriage for 2 of my great great grandparents, James Clapham and Ellen Blackburn, who lived in Cleckheaton near Bradford in Yorkshire. I last looked at them a few years ago. So I had another look.

In the intervening years, I've been doing my One Name Study on Mickle(th)wait(e)s. It has become obvious from this study that spelling is not our ancestors' strong point - I've had some wonderful transcriptions (how do they get Makeltherde?!!) So I looked again, but looked at marriages where the spelling didn't match. I found one on FreeBMD for Ellen Blackburn and James Clayton, married in Bradford in 1848. Could it be the correct one? I checked FindMyPast - they also had it down as Clayton.

I then tried Ancestry's West Riding records - this showed that the fathers' forenames were correct, at which point I got a bit excited. I'm now waiting for the next trip to the library to get the image off Ancestry, but I'm fairly happy this is the missing marriage, given the right forenames and that there's no James Clayton with wife Ellen on the 1851 census in Bradford.

Persistence pays!
 
What you say is interesting, but it seems strange that James Clapham would sign his name as James Clayton. His signature on the marriage register looks confident. It is certainly not an error in indexing by the GRO.

james clayton-signature.jpg

Do you have a signature from one of his children's birth certificates (as informant) that you could compare this to?

Alexander
 
What you say is very true, and very disappointing! I have a birth cert. for their son Harry born 1874 - but it's a handwritten copy, as was the case in 2003. James died in 1891 so there's no 1991 image for him. Now I do have a signature on his second marriage cert in 1877 - it is clearly Clapham, but quite a similar style. I wonder what his occupation was? In 1851 he was an Iron Moulder. I obviously need to get the m.cert. image - I'll take a trip to the library next week. Thanks for looking. So, if that's not him, where the heck is he?:mad:
 
AndyMick said:
I wonder what his occupation was? In 1851 he was an Iron Moulder.
Click to expand...


This James Clayton was an Iron Moulder in 1848 when he got married. His father was William Clayton, can't quite make out his occupation, Engine something.
Her father was Joseph Blackburn, a Mason.

One of the witnesses was a John Blackburn, who it appears also witnessed the preceeding marriage
 
Oh heck! What to make of this? Everything fits so very well except the name. James was indeed an Iron Moulder. John was a mason. The census data agrees for these 2. William, well, he's an Iron Moulder on the censuses and a forgeman when he married in 1834. So why should they have the name Clayton not Clapham. Another of life's little mysteries. Off for a weekend away - I guess it'll be raining in Cumbria. Thanks, everyone, for your input.
 
Freckneale said:
I think his father's occupation is Engine tenter.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I thought but I'd never heard of it. I have now looked it up. That's today's learning sorted :)

Engine Tenter - "This term appears mainly in the north of England or in Scotland . In this context a Tenter is someone who is in charge of machinery, usually in a factory. The word is closely related to the word "tend" so he is someone who "tends, or looks after” the engine."
 
AndyMick said:
Oh heck! What to make of this? Everything fits so very well except the name. James was indeed an Iron Moulder. John was a mason. The census data agrees for these 2. William, well, he's an Iron Moulder on the censuses and a forgeman when he married in 1834. So why should they have the name Clayton not Clapham. Another of life's little mysteries. Off for a weekend away - I guess it'll be raining in Cumbria. Thanks, everyone, for your input.
Click to expand...


Given the clarity of the signature I guess the question should really be why Clapham? Perhaps it is worth re-evaluating why you recorded Clapham in the first instance. Could that have been the error? I've seen this in my own research it is all too easy to accept what you first find and treat later revisions to being the odd one's out. However quite often its the random first record we saw that was wrong. This is very very commonly the source of brick walls. ie: sticking with the info we found first rather than questioning if the later info is right and the initial info is wrong.
 
And lets not forget that people did change surnames. I was asked to do a family tree for a friend because they wanted to know why their name had changed suddenly. I've also seen an instance where a surname was changed from Looney because of what people now relate to the name.
 
Tim said:
And lets not forget that people did change surnames. I was asked to do a family tree for a friend because they wanted to know why their name had changed suddenly. I've also seen an instance where a surname was changed from Looney because of what people now relate to the name.
Click to expand...


Yes but in this instance I could well imagine a census entry for Clayton having the handwriting mis-transcribed as Clapham the yt -> ph and on -> am could very very easily be misread especially if the handwriting had extra flourishes as was common. If Andy's initial record of the family was mis-transcribed he may have just assumed Clapham was correct from then on.

I'm not sure there is anything particularly degrading about Clayton or appealing about Clapham that someone would want to change their name. The handwriting constructs of the two names are so similar that I'd be tempted to assume that was the issue.
 
I think your suggestion is completely valid and quite likely. My previous post was for info only and not specifically about the names in this discussion.
 
Thanks y'all for your interest in this. Let's start at the beginning (or should that be the end).

I'm definitely looking for a Clapham! I have this marriage for my great grandparents (detailed on the Ancestry West Riding Non-conformist records)

ncm-johnh1880.jpg
So I'm looking for Sarah Clapham at this point. THIS marriage does tick all the boxes!

This is what I believe and why: The 1861 and 1871 censuses shows Sarah Clapham as daughter to James and Ellen Clapham. Whilst they are in Cleckheaton at this time, by 1881, the family is in nearby Huddersfield - in 1881 they're at the Zetland Arms (matches the address on the marriage), but James is shown as born Cleckheaton. (Nearby is the Zetland Iron Foundry)

I couldn't find Sarah's birth on FreeBMD for sure. However, on the 1881 census, James and Ellen have a son Harry - I got his birth certificate from which I get his mother's maiden name - Blackburn. I have James on censuses from 1841 to 1891. He died in 1891. Ellen died in 1876 and James remarried Emma Harpin in 1877. I WAS pretty happy with things - except I couldn't find the marriage for Ellen Blackburn and James Clapham. Am I barking up a wrong tree somewhere?

Things do get very sticky with this family - if I have them correctly, then James was baptised (in Bradford Cathedral) in April 1834 aged 7, on the same day as his father, William, and younger sister. William then married Nancy Spurr about 3 weeks later. The other children were baptised in October that year! James' mother was recorded as Nancy - what can't be taken for granted is that it was this Nancy Spurr. Pity! But the sequence of events is not normal and I haven't found an explanation. Ellen isn't easy either, as there are at least 2 Ellen Blackburns of the right age and location.

Whilst away, I came to the conclusion that there 3 possibilities:
1) This is a remarkable coincidence (not unknown) and that a James Clayton married an Ellen Blackburn and somewhere there's a marriage for my James Clapham and Ellen Blackburn (or maybe there isn't!)
2) They were using an alias for some reason
3) The certificate has been "forged", completed after the event by persons unknown who misread their notes on the name.
Any other possibilities?
 
Having seen (thanks Karen) marriage certificate and banns, I can rule out option 3. They're definitely Clayton. I'll have to check all the census data again. More later...
 
On the 1851 census James and Ellen CLAPHAM are in Cleckheaton with infant son Joseph. Next door are John and Jemima CLAYTON. FreeBMD has a marriage for John Clapham and Jemima Armitage in Halifax (nearby) - and on the census with them is Jane Armitage as servant (possibly a sister). There's a baptism is Bradford in 1857 for an Alpa Clapham (prob. Alfred) to John and Jemima born 1853 - also on BMD. It looks like Jemima died (as Clapham) in 1857. So it looks like the Clapham/Clayton confusion extends to John's family as well as James'.

Another thought: I know that William (father of James and John) didn't marry Nancy Spurr until 1834. Were the children born before that with a woman called Nancy Clayton (see yesterday's post for the William problem) - hence James and John weren't sure whether to use the Clapham or Clayton name. (No such marriage appears on FamilySearch - there's one on Ancestry in Bradford for a Mary Clayton but it's a bit too late in 1831.)

I'm going for a lie down!
 
For a long time, I couldn't find the marriage of my brother in laws grandmother. But I had a bit of luck.
It transpires that she was "adopted" by a family a few streets away, and got married under her adopted name.

Using the same surname doesn't seem to have been adhered to so strictly in those days :)
 
I don't think this will help you Andy but thought I would share.
I searched for a long time a number of years ago for the marriage of my 2ndgreat grandfather Thomas Dean who lived in Barnsley. A distant cousin and I between us had sorted out through her records and the census where Thomas was born and were certain who his family was from the 1871 and 1881 census. My mother had a lot of information on my father's mother's family which helped also. All I could find on FBMD for the period I calculated Thomas could have married was a marriage of a Thomas Dane to a Sarah Evans. I took a punt and ordered a certificate - Thomas's father was Samuel Dane (we already knew Thomas' father was called Samuel) Sarah Evans' father was Benjamin. A witness was Willoughby Evans. I was contacted by an Evans descendant who was a member of the Barnsley Historical Society. He had much of the information from records held by the society which confirmed that Sarah was the daughter of a Benjamin Evans. Further research identified a Willoughby as the son of a Joseph Evans, brother to Benjamin. I think I have the right marriage. It could be in my case the accent was very broad Yorkshire. Thomas was born in Wibsey.
When Steve Whitwam was kindly doing some research of my Huddersfield Armitages we came across one marriage certificate which did not fit as the father had a different first name. Steve was pretty sure it was the right marriage despite this, commenting that it was not unusual for marriage and death certificates to have some errors.
 
Siobhan said:
...
When Steve Whitwam was kindly doing some research of my Huddersfield Armitages we came across one marriage certificate which did not fit as the father had a different first name. Steve was pretty sure it was the right marriage despite this, commenting that it was not unusual for marriage and death certificates to have some errors.
Click to expand...

Errors abound on certificates - I found this info on another forum:
A very interesting book that gives an insight into the errors in the BMD index is 'A Comedy Of Errors' or the Marriage Records Of England and Wales 1837-1899. Written by Michael Whitfield Foster ISBN 0-473-05581-3 Compulsive reading.
I think there is a second book on births or deaths

BTW I have several Huddersfield Armitages too! Perhaps we should go off-list on this!
 
AndyMick said:
Errors abound on certificates - I found this info on another forum:
A very interesting book that gives an insight into the errors in the BMD index is 'A Comedy Of Errors' or the Marriage Records Of England and Wales 1837-1899. Written by Michael Whitfield Foster ISBN 0-473-05581-3 Compulsive reading.
I think there is a second book on births or deaths

BTW I have several Huddersfield Armitages too! Perhaps we should go off-list on this!
Click to expand...
Andy/Mick thank you for the title of the book.
I will go off line and share my Armitages - one never knows we could have a match although if both have put them on Lost Cousins we should have had a match by now:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top