Would someone help me to confirm whether this is or isn't my family

[BerryW]

I wonder if someone could look at the 1861 census and 1841 census, to see if they could find this family which I found in the 1851. 1851 England Census I am fairly certain it is the family I have been looking for but for a couple of reasons it is not absolutely certain, I have looked at the 1841 and 1861 census but only found the ancestors I expected rather than the family as it is shown in the 1851 census.

Many thanks

Berry

 

[Sue_3]

Hi Berry,

Lots of us have viewed your post but no one has replied, so I thought I'd explain why I didn't reply. I can see the 1851 census household you provided a link to, but other than the information there I don't know anything about the family. I think what you are saying is that you have entries in the 1841 and 1861 censuses that seem to fit the other information you have and the 1851 entry is a 'best fit', but isn't quite right? My difficulty is that I don't know what you were expecting to see, or what other evidence you have about these people. As none of the names are particularly unusual, it's hard to guess which 1841 or 1861 census entries you think might be relevant. I can't find any that exactly match the 1851 household, or not in the few minutes I could spare, but that's not surprising in any case and even less so if you couldn't either?

If you are able to shed a bit more light on the problem, then perhaps someone might be able to offer some relevant advice.

Best wishes,

Sue

 

[peter]

The family in 1851 are a good match in some respects but a poor match in others for part of a family in Berry's tree. It was my suggestion that Berry ask forum members for help.

The head of the household isn't the father of the children in Berry's family - his forename and birthplace are wrong. The information for the other members matches, but as only counties are shown, rather than precise birthplaces, it could just be a coincidence.

Whilst it's quite possible that the mother took up with another man (especially given what else is known about the family in her tree) it's quite unusual for a man to take the surname of his mistress.

The best way to disprove Berry's hypothesis is to find this family on another census. If this cannot be done it will greatly strengthen the circumstantial evidence that the 'wife' and children are members of her family.

It might seem unimportant, but when you read the whole story in a forthcoming newsletter you will understand why it matters! Thanks for your help.

 

[BerryW]

Thank you Peter, you have managed to put it far more succinctly than I could. And thank you Sue for taking the trouble to explain, will take note of it for the future.

 

[Sue_3]

Thanks Peter, I get it now and no worries Berry, I don't think it's an easy thing to explain.

I will review my earlier searches in light of the additional information.

 

[Sue_3]

'Lowcaster' is a mystery to me. Possibly Lancaster or Towcester? The latter is in Northamptonshire, which may be relevant?

The best matches I can find so far are:-

1841 - Ann Adams in Market Harborough, Leicestershire, with a husband William and children William, 6, Frederick, 3, and Charles, 1. Husband and children all born same county, Ann born in a different county. https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC/1841/0005874370

1861 - Ann Harris, widow (transcript says unmarried), in Islington, London, with son Charles Adams, Anne born Northamptonshire, Charles born Market Harborough. https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC/1861/0000830052

1871 - William H Adams in Paddington, London, with wife and four children and brother Charles Adams. Both brothers born Market Harborough. https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC/1871/0000691002

 

[Pauline]

Whilst it's quite possible that the mother took up with another man (especially given what else is known about the family in her tree) it's quite unusual for a man to take the surname of his mistress.

My great great grandfather did that for the 1861 census, and I have always presumed it was to save changing the surnames of all the children, most of whom were not his.

I have come across this in other families as well, though I agree it is more usual for the woman and children to take the man’s surname. Maybe it depended on how long the relationship was expected to last, and if it was just a matter of temporary convenience.

 

[BerryW]

'Lowcaster' is a mystery to me. Possibly Lancaster or Towcester? The latter is in Northamptonshire, which may be relevant?

The best matches I can find so far are:-

Other than finding William Henry as Henry W Adams in Islington, that's all that I could find too. Great having another pair of eyes looking at this so thank you Sue.

With regard to Lowcaster/Towcester I wonder if it is relevant that the only specific birthplaces are big towns like Chatham or Bristol or places local to Bloomsbury. Which then begs the question 'would the enumerator have used what was probably a very small village at that time, for the place of birth. Frederick has Oxfordshire, Ann is recorded as Northampton, so could that very annoying squiggle be Leicester?

 

[BerryW]

My great great grandfather did that for the 1861 census, and I have always presumed it was to save changing the surnames of all the children, most of whom were not his.

I have come across this in other families as well, though I agree it is more usual for the woman and children to take the man’s surname. Maybe it depended on how long the relationship was expected to last, and if it was just a matter of temporary convenience.

That was my first thought too Pauline, although I suppose it is possible that if the enumerator spoke to Ann she may have said Adams without thinking and the Enumerator filled in the gaps without clarifying It is quite a rush doing the census forms even today from what I understand.

 

[peter]

'Lowcaster' is a mystery to me. Possibly Lancaster or Towcester? The latter is in Northamptonshire, which may be relevant?

I originally read it as 'Towcester', but looking at the other T.s and L's on the page it became obvious that it was an 'L', and probably 'Leicester' (short for Leicestershire) rather than 'Lancaster' as it looks nothing like 'Lancashire' further down the page. Note that counties are shown for all other locations on this page outside London.

 

[Pauline]

That was my first thought too Pauline, although I suppose it is possible that if the enumerator spoke to Ann she may have said Adams without thinking and the Enumerator filled in the gaps without clarifying It is quite a rush doing the census forms even today from what I understand.

Another example I remembered after posting, is the first - and only legal - wife (Mary Ann) of my great grandfather in the 1911 census. In 1911 she is living with a man who is using my ggf’s name but whose occupation and birth details are quite different. Also, my ggf is living elsewhere with his 3rd “wife”, my great grandmother, and their children.

Mary Ann and her unknown man had a young son living with them (same surname) who I suspect is hers, but have no idea if the son is also his. According to the schedule she had had two more children after my ggf abandoned her.

So, while maybe not that common, men can be found using someone else’s surname in censuses.

 

[peter]

So, while maybe not that common, men can be found using someone else’s surname in censuses.

That certainly supports Berry's hypothesis, as does the fact that so far nobody has found the same family with same same head in other censuses.

Your example is quite similar to the story in Berry's family - it will be interesting to see what you make of the article when it appears.

 

[Stuart]

I originally read it as 'Towcester', but looking at the other T.s and L's on the page it became obvious that it was an 'L', and probably 'Leicester' (short for Leicestershire) rather than 'Lancaster' as it looks nothing like 'Lancashire' further down the page. Note that counties are shown for all other locations on this page outside London.

I thought this mystery place name looked more like "Lancaster" than "Leicester" would in the same hand! But to pin it down more, I've tracked down a couple of comparison examples.

If you go back to image 3 (page 2), there is a "Towcester", transcribed as such. I think that looks right, despite it not being a major town. The "T" has a clear hook not a loop at the top, but after that it looks exactly like the Adams one.

On the next page, there is a "Leicester", transcribed as such. After a definite "L", there'e a long Italic wiggly bit, then "ster" is I think clear even with the "t" uncrossed.

I'm not sure where that gets us, though. I would observe that his variations of "L" and "S" letter forms do overlap, so this one could be an "S" though not, I think, a "T". But he does have his lapses, and this could be a mistake - a true slip of the pen. But what for...?

 

[Pauline]

Have the birth records for Charles and/or Frederick been obtained? If so, are they in agreement with the 1841 census? Or is the 1841 entry Sue found known to be the wrong family?

 

[Helen7]

Have the birth records for Charles and/or Frederick been obtained? If so, are they in agreement with the 1841 census? Or is the 1841 entry Sue found known to be the wrong family?

These birth registrations (from the GRO index) seems to tally with the two youngest children in the 1841 census Sue found:
Charles ADAMS, Market Harborough, 3rd qtr 1839, mother WEST
Frederick ADAMS, Market Harborough, 2nd qtr 1838, mother WEST

 

[Pauline]

These birth registrations (from the GRO index) seems to tally with the two youngest children in the 1841 census Sue found:
Charles ADAMS, Market Harborough, 3rd qtr 1839, mother WEST
Frederick ADAMS, Market Harborough, 2nd qtr 1838, mother WEST

Yes, those were the ones I found but I wondered certificate or pdfs had been obtained, and if the details given confirmed what was in the 1841 census.

 

[peter]

These birth registrations (from the GRO index) seems to tally with the two youngest children in the 1841 census Sue found:
Charles ADAMS, Market Harborough, 3rd qtr 1839, mother WEST
Frederick ADAMS, Market Harborough, 2nd qtr 1838, mother WEST

Those births are from Berry's family, but bear in mind that not all births were registered in the early days. And those births only match the 1851 census entry under consideration if the birthplace is interpreted as Leicestershire.

But in any case the object of the exercise is not to research Berry's family, that has already been done, but to attempt to prove that the 1851 Census entry is NOT her family. The easiest way to do that is to find that family group in 1841 or 1861.

 

[Stuart]

I must say that I felt from the start that this was a bit of an exam question. I mean, what is it that defines who is being searched for - the information in BerryW's tree that presumably is regarded as trusted? Withholding that feels like artificially making the question more difficult.

But anyway, here's a bit more confusion. I guess this is a coincidence, but who knows? There is another William Adams, in a few Ancestry trees, who is born in Northamptonshire in 1838. His birthplace is given in the censuses of 1851 and 1881 as Shuttlehanger. Shutlanger (modern spelling) does exist, and is 5 miles from Towcester (also his birth registration district). Worse, his army discharge record (on FMP) says the nearest town was Lowcester, and quite clearly spelled that way. Now that was quite likely copied from another record written by someone else. I've sometimes wondered whether enumerators misread the initial records, even ones they wrote themselves, when filling in the sheets we see.

 

[Pauline]

Those births are from Berry's family, but bear in mind that not all births were registered in the early days. And those births only match the 1851 census entry under consideration if the birthplace is interpreted as Leicestershire.

It’s always worth looking for births even though some were not registered. These births appear to match the 1841 census entry, and also match the marriages I’ve found.

But in any case the object of the exercise is not to research Berry's family, that has already been done, but to attempt to prove that the 1851 Census entry is NOT her family. The easiest way to do that is to find that family group in 1841 or 1861.

I’m confused now as to what we’re supposed to be doing. It’s very hard to prove or disprove anything without some knowledge of the family - otherwise, particularly with a surname like Adams, we’re somewhat floundering in the dark. How are we supposed to guess if the 1841 and 1861 census entries found support the theory about the family or explode it? I know that too much information could prejudice our searching, but too little doesn’t help either.

 

[Sue_3]

I noted that Towcester was in Northamptonshire, as that was the county given as the mother's place of birth. Women often went to stay with their own mothers or closest female relatives to give birth. I thought it very possible that at least the eldest child could have been born in Towcester, but that their birth was registered elsewhere and possibly in Market Harborough. I have seen other examples like this (although, of course, I can't find an example right now).