Hi Bill, Thanks so much for this most interesting email. It has certainly made it a "Happy New Year" for me! Your explanation of the geography of the area is most enlightening. What is means is that someone baptised at St Leonard, Middleton could probably legitimately claim to be born in Rochdale on the census. So I'm now a lot happier about the location problem (I'll get on to the date problem in a moment). In other words, when 'my' Nanny TETLOW gave her place of birth as Rochdale, it doesn't rule her out from being the same Nanny TETLOW who was baptised in Middleton. The question of the dates is a little worrying though. As you know, it's not uncommon for ages to be a year or two out, but four years seems like a lot of discrepancy. It is possible, as you say, that Nanny could have been born out of wedlock in 1803, then baptised after her parents' marriage in 1807. However, at that time period, it would be unusual for a child to go unbaptised for four years (unusual, but certainly not impossible: 14% of people in England were unbaptised in the 1820's, for example). The vicar would also usually note acidly in the register that the child had been born out of wedlock, and give the child its mother's surname. Now, if Nanny really had been BORN in 1807 and married in 1827, then she would have been less than 21 years of age at her wedding. This means that her parents would have had to give permission. The marriage record should contain some words like "with consent of father William" or just "with consent of parents". Does the marriage record have such an annotation? Another possibility is that Nanny's family were non-conformists (ie. not members of the Church of England). Nanny's daughter, Peggy TURNER, was married in West Street Baptist Chapel, Rochdale in 1861. Perhaps Nanny's family were Baptists too. Is there any history of non-conformity in the TETLOW family in this area? To answer your question about the censuses, I did not record the reference numbers of the census entries (an oversight on my part, and something that I ALWAYS do nowadays!) :-) However, with a street index, it might be possible to find them relatively easily. They lived in Stoneyfield, Castleton. In 1851, Abraham TURNER was living at 8 Stoneyfield, Castleton and is wife was incorrectly recorded as Mary (I know that it is the correct family since the children are "correct" and there was only one Abraham TURNER in Stoneyfield). In 1861, the family were at 13 Stoneyfield, Castleton and Abraham's wife is correctly recorded as Nanny. I don't have a transcript of the 1841 census, but the family were living in Stoneyfield in June 1840, when my 2g-grandmother Peggy was born. So I assume that they were still in Stoneyfield in 1841. I would be enormously grateful if you could check the census records for me. Perhaps the ages are incorrect, or there may be someone living with the TURNER family in 1841 who can connect them with the TETLOW family (eg. Nanny's mother or father). We are sure that the Nanny who married Abraham TURNER is my ancestor, now it's a matter of working out if she is the same, or different, from the Middleton Nanny TETLOW. So, as I see it, there are four possibilities: (a) They are the same woman, and my ancestor was just confused about her true age (she was illiterate and so, possibly, innumerate too) (b) They are the same woman, and my ancestor deliberately mis-stated her age (married under-age, perhaps?) (c) They are the same woman, but the 1807 baptism was late for some reason (eg. illegitimacy of the child) (d) They are different women, and my Nanny was baptised in some non-conformist church, or not baptised at all From the size of your database, it would seem unlikely that a TETLOW family has been "missed". Do you have any other suggestions? I have one more query (I apologise for asking so many favours, but this is the most progress I've made on this line in years!). Could you possibly check the marriage records of the siblings of the Middleton Nanny, to see if anyone surnamed TURNER was a witness (principally Abraham or Nanny [or Ann])? If Mrs Ann TURNER was a witness at the wedding of a sibling of the Middleton Nanny [Ann] TETLOW, then this would be a tangible link. Finally, I'd like to give something back on the TETLOW line. Has anyone transcribed the TETLOW entries in the Rochdale Cemetery Index 1855-1990? If not, I could hire the microfilm (which was just released last year) and do the transcriptions, then send them to this mailing list. Please let me know if you think that this would be generally helpful. Thanks once again for all your help. I look forward to hearing from you again. And a Happy New Year to all on this list! :-) Regards, Cathy Day of Canberra, Australia Family History in India http://members.ozemail.com.au/~clday/ WLDowdell@aol.com wrote: > Hi Cathy, > > Firstly, A Happy New Year. > > Secondly, I've been doing a one name study on the TETLOW surname for > over 25 years. > > Thirdly, oh dear! My information on Nanny Tetlow who married Abraham > Turner may be incorrect. My assumption is based on the information > which you have just provided namely that Nanny/Ann was born circa 1803. > The Nanny, who I have married to Abraham Turner, was baptised on the > 25th of October, 1807 (her date and place of birth is unknown) at St. > Leonard, Middleton and was the daughter of William Tetlow and Martha > Scholes. The problem is that William & Martha were married on 27th > June, 1807! This is 4 years after Nanny was born. > Unfortunately of my 19,271 Tetlows in my files, I have no other > Nanny/Ann born circa 1803 that is unaccounted for. > It is possible that Nanny was born out of wedlock and William & Martha > waited until they were officially married before having Nanny baptised > however, I find that a bit remote. > Do you happened to have the reference numbers of the 1851 & 1861 > censuses? I could then have a look/see for myself at my next session at > the LRO (Lancashire Record Office). I could have a look at the 1841 > census as well. > As for the marriage of Nanny & Abraham Turner, the church records were > not very informative prior to 1837. The witnesses, John Grimshaw & > Abraham Kay were more than likely church officials as the appear lots of > time as witnesses. > My wife's ancestors, she was a TETLOW and 3rd cousin, 3 times removed > from Nanny! They were from the Thornham area and later of Castleton and > they were all baptised at St. Leonard, Middleton. If you look at the > church records for St. Leonard's, Middleton, you will find that most > people living in what was known as Lower Castleton, which was part of > Rochdale (actually, it was the other way around, Rochdale was part of > Castleton), were baptised at St. Leonard. Those living in Nearer > Castleton were baptised at St. Chad, Rochdale. > > William T. & Martha Scholes had 13 children, Nanny being the eldest > followed by Mary, Betty, Sarah, George, Edward, Abraham, Alice, John, > Joseph, Catharine Mary, Martha, & Ruth. > > If you have any queries please don't hesitate to ask. I'll do me best. > > Regards, > > Bill Dowdell