Hi Yvonne Yes, I do believe that the Thomas & Elizabeth LITTLE with whom Robert YOUDS was lodging in the 1851 Census are the newly-wed couple who were living in the same household as Thomas & Nancy SHERLOCK in the 1841. And no, I've never been able to solve the mystery of these two unidentified SHERLOCK's. Thomas's age is possibly 65 rather than 55, making Nancy more likely his wife than his mother and placing his birth year somewhere between 1772 and 1776. The fact that he was a fisherman in Hoylake suggests that he must have been related in some way to your ancestor Joseph SHERLOCK (b1776 Greasby), and everything points to him being Joseph's brother Thomas, born 1772 in Greasby, baptised 28 January 1772 in West Kirby St Bridget. The problem is that we have this Thomas (Pam's ancestor, of course) married to Mary PRENTON on 9 March 1795 in Liverpool St Peter and living in Skinners Lane, Tranmere, in the 1841 Census as a 69 year-old labourer. :-( Best regards and a Happy New Year to you and yours. Gordon >Hi Gordon, >Many thanks indeed for the additional information you've sent. That's >great. Looking at the 1851 census connection between Robert YOUDS >and his >daughter Elizabeth married to Thomas LITTLE brings back an old question >we >had. Did you ever manage to satisfactorily solve the identity of Thomas > >and >Nancy SHERLOCK, 1841 census, Little Meolse: >HO107/127/14, Enumeration Schedule 3, page 26 >Thomas SHERLOCK, 55, Fisherman, Y >Nancy SHERLOCK, 70, Y >Thomas LITTLE, 25, Fisherman, Y >Elizabeth LITTLE, 19, Y > >Are Thomas and Elizabeth LITTLE the same two as show in the 1851 >census >with >Robert YOUDS. It certainly looks like it? >Best regards, >Yvonne

Hi Gordon, A thought occurs. Could the Thomas SHERLOCK of the 1841 Little Meolse census possibly be the son of John and Martha (nee Matthews) SHERLOCK, baptised Upton, Overchurch 19 February 1768? He's given as Stonemason in the 1804 Will of Richard Sherlock of Lower Bebington, but with a sum of ?20 to inherit, could have changed his occupation to Fisherman in his later life? Best regards, and all the very best for 2007 to you and yours too. Yvonne >> From: eng-merseyside-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-merseyside-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Gordon Evans Sent: 31 December 2006 15:15 To: eng-merseyside@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-MERSEYSIDE] SHERLOCK/LITTLE/YOUDS Hi Yvonne Yes, I do believe that the Thomas & Elizabeth LITTLE with whom Robert YOUDS was lodging in the 1851 Census are the newly-wed couple who were living in the same household as Thomas & Nancy SHERLOCK in the 1841. And no, I've never been able to solve the mystery of these two unidentified SHERLOCK's. Thomas's age is possibly 65 rather than 55, making Nancy more likely his wife than his mother and placing his birth year somewhere between 1772 and 1776. The fact that he was a fisherman in Hoylake suggests that he must have been related in some way to your ancestor Joseph SHERLOCK (b1776 Greasby), and everything points to him being Joseph's brother Thomas, born 1772 in Greasby, baptised 28 January 1772 in West Kirby St Bridget. The problem is that we have this Thomas (Pam's ancestor, of course) married to Mary PRENTON on 9 March 1795 in Liverpool St Peter and living in Skinners Lane, Tranmere, in the 1841 Census as a 69 year-old labourer. :-( Best regards and a Happy New Year to you and yours. Gordon << >Hi Gordon, >Many thanks indeed for the additional information you've sent. That's >great. Looking at the 1851 census connection between Robert YOUDS >and his >daughter Elizabeth married to Thomas LITTLE brings back an old question >we >had. Did you ever manage to satisfactorily solve the identity of Thomas > >and >Nancy SHERLOCK, 1841 census, Little Meolse: >HO107/127/14, Enumeration Schedule 3, page 26 >Thomas SHERLOCK, 55, Fisherman, Y >Nancy SHERLOCK, 70, Y >Thomas LITTLE, 25, Fisherman, Y >Elizabeth LITTLE, 19, Y > >Are Thomas and Elizabeth LITTLE the same two as show in the 1851 >census >with >Robert YOUDS. It certainly looks like it? >Best regards, >Yvonne