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

[peter]

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.

We're not looking for evidence to support Berry's hypothesis, we're looking for evidence to disprove it. It's what family historians ought to do (but often don't).

If this is a different family it's unlikely this is the only census on which they appear. It's the head of household who doesn't fit into Berry's family - neither his name nor his birthplace is correct. but the others are a pretty good fit, assuming that the birthplaces in the census are interpreted as Leicestershire. The mother is too young to have married in 1833 but the mother in Berry's tree knocked some years off in other censuses, so that doesn't rule her out.

But you need to forget about Berry's family - we're not looking for them! It's the head of household we really need to find.....

 

[Pauline]

We're not looking for evidence to support Berry's hypothesis, we're looking for evidence to disprove it. It's what family historians ought to do (but often don't).

Of course, that's standard practice, but we need something to go on in order to disprove it too - or at least, so we know if we're disproving it.

But you need to forget about Berry's family - we're not looking for them! It's the head of household we really need to find.....

Maybe that could have been made clearer from the start. Our searching might then have been better focussed.....

Frederick wasn't proving easy to find so I looked for other members of the family instead - also standard practice when searching in censuses.

 

[peter]

But you need to forget about Berry's family - we're not looking for them! It's the head of household we really need to find.....

Maybe that could have been made clearer from the start. Our searching might then have been better focussed.....

Sorry, I thought that I made that clear in #3.

Frederick wasn't proving easy to find so I looked for other members of the family instead - also standard practice when searching in censuses.

Indeed - and by so doing you might well have found Frederick. The fact that you were unable to find him whether you searched for him directly or indirectly suggests that Frederick Adams born c1814 in Oxfordshire didn't exist. (There is certainly nobody of that name in the Oxfordshire baptisms at Ancestry.)

We may never know for certain who he really was, but in the 1861 and 1871 later censuses Ann Adams nee West is recorded as Ann Harris - and there was a Frederick Harris who was baptised in Shifford, Oxfordshire in February 1814. That would make him 37, not 36, at the time of the 1851 Census but it's close enough.

 

[BerryW]

I have been trying to identify a Frederick Harris that might fit the bill. I had hoped that the one that died Islington in 1856 might be the one as his address before his demise [Brooksby St, Barnsbury] is about 15 minute walk from the address that Ann Harris lives in the 1861 census [Clairmont Row Islington] Unfortunately I think I found him living in Middle Aston, Oxfordshire in 1851 where he is recorded as a Law Stationer, the same occupation that is recorded on the death certificate. I think he might be the same one that lived in st Ebbs in 1841 too. I found 4 entries for Frederick Harris in the 1841 three in Oxfordshire and 1 in Clerkenwell that states he and the family were born in another county I suspect that they are the same 4 in the 1851 so think I'm back to square one on that now.

 

[BerryW]

Trying to find inspiration, I have just had another look at the 1851 census previously linked to, and now again here 1851 Does anyone have a view on what Frederick Adams occupation might be please.

 

[peter]

what Frederick Adams occupation might be

Stationers clerk, I think - this enumerator is not one to dot his i's. I hadn't seen your earlier post when I came to that conclusion, but now I have I'm 100% convinced.

 

[peter]

The Frederick Harris aged 32 and born Middle Aston who is living with his mother and sister in Cursitor Street in 1851 certainly seems like a good bet. He's unmarried, a law stationer, and aged 32. It's not that unusual for the same person to be recorded twice on the same census, and whilst he is younger than "Frederick Adams", what if the ages of Frederick and Ann were swapped around? She's shown as 32, but was probably 36, he's shown as 36 but possibly 32. Cursitor St is not very far from Bloomsbury.

 

[BerryW]

Interesting. So he may not have lived there, just perhaps had been there at that particular time! Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[Sue_3]

This is what a lot of my family history has been like, history and mystery. I was trained as a historian but I really enjoy trying to solve the family mysteries. Very often the evidence doesn't quite make sense or fit the expected facts. My own birth is a good example. My parents changed their surname after they married and before I was born. That makes it very difficult for anyone to work out who I am or even that I exist. In the previous generation, my grandfather is recorded in all official records as living with his wife - my grandmother - until he died. That came as a bit of a surprise to his second family, who knew nothing about his first family. The existence of his second family was likewise a surprise to those of us in his first family. There are many more examples where the records and the truth are not aligned, but very often the answers are out there, waiting to be found.

 

[Pauline]

We may never know for certain who he really was, but in the 1861 and 1871 later censuses Ann Adams nee West is recorded as Ann Harris - and there was a Frederick Harris who was baptised in Shifford, Oxfordshire in February 1814. That would make him 37, not 36, at the time of the 1851 Census but it's close enough.

You are right that it may not be possible to identify who "Frederick Adams" really was. While it is likely his first name really was Frederick we can't be certain that it was, and while it is not unreasonable, based on the 1861 entry, to assume his surname might have been Harris, again we can't be certain that it was.

With my great grandfather's wife (see #11), I think I have probably identified the man she was living with in 1911, as he seems to be the same man she is living with in 1921, and he seems to be using his real name then (it all checks out with births, baptisms and earlier censuses). This indicates that both his surname and first name had been changed in 1911.

With my great great grandfather (#7) it was only his surname that was changed in the 1861 census. However, what has confused many people with this 1861 entry is that later censuses (1871 and 1881) show what appears to be the exact same couple - same forenames, same surname, same birth places, same location, his age very similar etc. Only by having checking this out very carefully, looking at birth registrations and so on, can I say with certainty that the couple with the same names in 1871 and 1881 are not the same people as in 1861, and the reason they don't show up in 1861 as a couple is because they didn't marry until 1862.

This is why I felt we really needed more information on Berry's family to be sure if we really were disproving a theory or not.

 

[peter]

This is why I felt we really needed more information on Berry's family to be sure if we really were disproving a theory or not.

It was important that you didn't have the information - otherwise you could have been subject to the same biases as Berry and myself. For example, we interpreted the birthplaces of the sons as Leicester(shire) because that was what fitted our hypothesis - we didn't consider Lancaster/Lancashire.

It's rather like choosing a jury that doesn't know the people involved, and doesn't have prior knowledge of the case - they will be more open-minded. We didn't want to be proved right, we wanted to be proved wrong - if that was possible.

Ancestry trees are full of census entries that look right, but aren't. Superficially most of them look at least as likely to be correct as that Adams household.

 

[Pauline]

It was important that you didn't have the information

Yes, I appreciate that and totally get why we weren't given more information, but hopefully you can likewise see where I was coming from. It's difficult to prove or disprove anything with any certainty without knowing all the relevant facts - which is why, in my example, people have reached the wrong conclusions.

 

[peter]

Yes, I appreciate that and totally get why we weren't given more information, but hopefully you can likewise see where I was coming from. It's difficult to prove or disprove anything with any certainty without knowing all the relevant facts - which is why, in my example, people have reached the wrong conclusions.

Those people reached the wrong conclusions because they only looked for information that supported their hypothesis - a common failing in all areas of research, not just family history.

We needed someone who could start from the census entry without any other information that would contaminate the process - if we had given you the information we already had and you had come up with the same answer that we did it would have proved nothing.

 

[Pauline]

Those people reached the wrong conclusions because they only looked for information that supported their hypothesis - a common failing in all areas of research, not just family history.

I guess it depends what you mean by looking for information to support their hypothesis. My guess is that mostly they didn’t have one. The 1871 and 1881 census entries more likely popped us as hints offering a person with same name, same date and place of birth, in the same location, with a wife of the same name and birthplace, and they jumped to the obvious, albeit wrong, conclusion.

I guess also that, with experience, we learn not to take anything when researching at face value and to dig deeper before starting to draw any conclusion.

 

[peter]

I guess it depends what you mean by looking for information to support their hypothesis. My guess is that mostly they didn’t have one.

Perhaps it's not that they didn't have an hypothesis, just that they didn't realise it was only an hypothesis. I'm sure you're right that many people accept hints because they don't look obviously wrong.

The interesting feature of this case is how rare the name "Frederick Adams" was in Oxfordshire - who would have thought it?

 

[Pauline]

The interesting feature of this case is how rare the name "Frederick Adams" was in Oxfordshire - who would have thought it?

Yes, and that does help in establishing that Frederick Adams as he is detailed in the 1851 census doesn't exist. One assumes that he represents a real person (that is, there really was a man in the household in 1851) but whether or not there is any truth in his details is unclear, at least to me. We're assuming his surname has been changed, but was his forename Frederick, was he born in Oxfordshire and how correct is his age?

 

[peter]

One assumes that he represents a real person (that is, there really was a man in the household in 1851) but whether or not there is any truth in his details is unclear, at least to me. We're assuming his surname has been changed, but was his forename Frederick, was he born in Oxfordshire and how correct is his age?

There is a good chance that his real surname was Harris as that's the surname Ann used in later censuses.

The Frederick Harris aged 32 and born Middle Aston who is living with his mother and sister in Cursitor Street in 1851 certainly seems like a good bet. He's unmarried, a law stationer, and aged 32. It's not that unusual for the same person to be recorded twice on the same census, and whilst he is younger than "Frederick Adams", what if the ages of Frederick and Ann were swapped around? She's shown as 32, but was probably 36, he's shown as 36 but possibly 32. Cursitor St is not very far from Bloomsbury.

 

[Pauline]

There is a good chance that his real surname was Harris as that's the surname Ann used in later censuses.

Yes, a good chance, but as I said previously, no certainty (#30). I guess with the lengths some members of my family went to in order to cover up their "indiscretions", I no longer take anything for granted.

 

[peter]

Yes, a good chance, but as I said previously, no certainty (#30). I guess with the lengths some members of my family went to in order to cover up their "indiscretions", I no longer take anything for granted.

It probably doesn't much matter, since there is no evidence so far that he fathered any children with Ann.

 

[Vio]

Hello Berry.

I read about your search in the latest newsletter and what jumped out at me is West of East Farndon, Northants, as I have Charlotte Ann West in my tree, a relative by marriage. Born 9th May 1868 (according to the 1939 register), with the GRO ref showing the birth registered in the Market Harborough district.

She's not the generation you're looking for, but I wonder if you are related to this family?

Father Thomas West born 15 Feb 1836 in East Farndon, married to Mary Ann White, born 1840 Market Harborough (not sure if that's the place of birth or the registry office). They married in 1860 Market Harborough (again, place or registration?) and in the 1861 census were in East Farndon. There is a death of Mary Ann West in Leicester aged 50 but I haven't verified whether this is the correct person. However in the 1891 census, Thomas, widower, farmer, was in Leicester, with three daughters dressmakers and a son overlooker/hosiery. There is a Thomas West death in Barrow on Soar, Leics, in 1915 which could be him.

Thomas West was the son of William West born 1800 and Charlotte Smith born 1802, both born and lived in East Farndon.

Wonder if we have a connection?

I have put all these Wests on My Ancestors on the main site.