Mary Hannah Walmsley nee Ogden born 1842.

[kiwilong]

I seem to be having problems with how to proceed with this forum. I wish to ask fellow members for assistence in finding a blood relative born in 1842, the eldest daughter of my gg grandfather, David Ogden, 1817-1873, and his first wife Martha Heathcote.
Mary married John Walmsley in 1860 when he was 20 and she was 19 but actually 17.
In the 1861 census John is with his parents and siblings, pretty sure this is him as his father is also John and a machinery maker/engineer. Meanwhile, Mary A walmsley is a boarder at a different address but in the same locality. The initial "A" is difficult to make out and i wonder if the enumerator thought her second name was Anna rather than Hannah.
In the census she is 19 and married. However, cannot be absolutly certain it is my Mary Hannah.
There are no deaths for her using Freebmd and the GRO site except in 1908 and i am able to eliminate that death.
So, my question is, what ever happened to both Mary Hannah and John?.
I wonder if they emigrated perhaps, are there passenger records for the 1860's. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. kiwigeoff.

 

[peter]

Meanwhile, Mary A walmsley is a boarder at a different address but in the same locality. The initial "A" is difficult to make out and i wonder if the enumerator thought her second name was Anna rather than Hannah.

Ann(e)/Anna/Hannah are interchangeable - according to one site they are respectively the English, Latin, and Hebrew versions of the same name. Mary Ann is, in my experience, by far the most common pairing, and may sometimes be written as Maryann or Marianne.

are there passenger records for the 1860's

The outgoing passenger lists held by the Board of Trade begin in 1890, but evidence of earlier voyages can sometimes be found in the records of the destination countries. However if they went to Scotland or Ireland there will be no record.

You don't mention whether you have searched for John Walmsley's death, but one of the commonest reasons for a woman disappearing from the censuses is re-marriage.

 

[jorghes]

It is very difficult to do a bit of searching around to see if you can help when you don't give locations. There is a second Mary Hannah married to a John Rodger Walmsley (her maiden name is Whitehead), they married in 1839. So that will skew some of the results.

I didn't find any evidence of a Mary Hannah or John Walmsley in a cursory search of Australian records, but I agree with Peter, the biggest way that women "vanish" is if there is a remarriage that you don't know about - I had a 3x great grandmother who I thought had disappeared, but she had simply remarried 2 years after her husband had died overseas, and it was then very easy to find her, and her children (and it explained what I thought were a few odd name choices by her daughter... it was the name of her stepfather...)

I did a cursory search of the GRO for births with a Walmsley father and Ogden mother from 1860 onwards (I stopped after about 1882 after not finding any more), and have found the following possibles:
James Walmsley – 1861 Bolton
Mary Alice Walmsley – 1863 Bury Lancashire
Ellen Walmsley – 1864 Bolton
Annie Walmsley – 1867 Bolton
Annie Walmsley – 1869 Bolton
Emily Walmsley – 1871 Bolton

and by possibles, they are the ONLY children (other than another James Walmsley born in 1858) who appear between 1860 and about 1882 with a Walmsley father and Ogden mother. I will admit to keeping the search to exacts, and I didn't use wildcards.

To forward the possiblities of remarriage, there are four marriages for a Mary Hannah Walmsley between 1871 and 1898 all in Lancashire that could possibly be your Mary Hannah getting remarried and thus "disappearing".

 

[kiwilong]

Thank you Peter and jorghes for your suggestions and you have given me lots to think about.
The Walmsley name is very common in North Manchester and a christian name of John makes it a lot worse.
There are 18 possible deaths for John between 1861 and 1930 give or take a year or so on an 1840 birth.
However, the Walmsley/Ogden births look promising, especially Mary Alice in 1863 in Bury as it seems she was baptised at St Thomas, Radcliffe, the same church in which John and Mary Hannah were married 7th July 1860.
Thanks again and i have plenty to keep me busy
cheers.
kiwilong.

 

[Heather]

Hi kiwilong, you probably have this information but I have entered it because of the different spellings of the names, found on Lancashire OPC....

Marriage: 7 Jul 1860 St Thomas, Radcliffe, Lancashire, England
John Walmersley - (X), 20, Mechanic, Bachelor, Radcliffe
Mary Hammond Ogden - (X), 19, Spinster, Radcliffe
Groom's Father: John Walmersley, Machine Maker
Bride's Father: David Ogden, Paper-hanger
Witness: William Parry, (X); Thomas Howarth
Married by Banns by: Robert Fletcher
Register: Marriages 1849 - 1874, Page 54, Entry 108
Source: Manchester Central Library

 

[Pauline]

Looking at the list of Walmsley children above, I think those registered in Bolton may be red herrings. A James Walmsley married Martha Ogden in 1850 in the Bolton district, and I think the Bolton children are theirs. Several of those children died before 1871, but children matching Ellen b1864 and Annie b1869 are in the 1871 census in Bolton with parents James and Martha.

 

[kiwilong]

Thank you Heather. I purchased the certificate from the GRO (and therefore not the original) and the names are spelt correctly. How could Hannah get to be Hammond, the original hand writing must have been difficult to decipher.
I had arrived at the same conclusion regarding the Walmsley/Ogden children Pauline and decided to see if I could research Mary Alice and being baptised where Mary Hannah and John were married nailed it for me.
Decided to take a break and see if i can find her in later censuses tomorrow.
cheers.
kiwilong.

 

[Pauline]

From the GRO indexes it appears Mary Alice died in 1866, aged 2.

 

[kiwilong]

I'd just arrived at a Mary A died in Bury, age 2, and wondered if it was her not being able to find her in 1871.
Hadn't got around to the GRO indexes.
Foiled again!@#!
kiwilong.

 

[Pauline]

There is a possible entry for John in Bury in 1871, a boarder, married but with no wife at the same address. The reference is RG10 3954 Fo 119 p 41.

Being apart on census night doesn't necessarily indicate anything, but if the couple had separated, then Mary could be listed in the census under a different surname.

 

[kiwilong]

Hello Pauline.
i've had a look at the 1871 census and agree that he could well be my John Walmsley. Birth place is not Salford but I notice as you say, married and a Machine Turner. In 1860 when married he was a Mechanic, 1861 census an Engineer, the 1863 baptism a Mechanic and a Turner in 1872. Sounds as if he had a mechanical bent.
Because he is not with a family member it's difficult to be positive but i feel it probably is my man. Worth keeping on record anyway.
I had a look at the GRO site and agree with jorghes' findings and this would indicate that Mary Alice was their only child and something happened to the marriage thereafter.
Divorce was practically impossible at the time and not finding a death for Mary Hannah up to 1930 could certainly indicate a change of man and name.
I'm sure the 1863 baptism is correct although Hannah has become Ann but being in the same church as the marriage is a positive connection.
Thanks again for you interest Pauline.
kiwilong.