A great story, Sue, thank you! Maggie -----Original Message----- From: Sue Regan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2010 6:08 pm Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Particularly for Jean & Terry, Mary and Andy Thank you all so much for your ideas and suggestions. And I absolutely take the point that many were uncertain as to what information to give in the census but apart from this one entry, both the Lawson and Boothman families were very accurate when giving both ages and places of birth over a period of almost 50 years. And the ages given fit with the baptismal, marriage and burial entries. I have all the BMD records for the two families over two generations and there are no hidden illegitimacies. Even if I buy the certificate and it proves, as I am certain it will, and that this Jane and this Joseph were married before the 1851 census, I still can't think of an explanation for the entry. Bearing in mind the fact that most families of the day would go to great lengths to hide a daughter's unwed status it seems very odd to me that a heavily pregnant but married Jane would give her maiden name to the census taker, particularly in the presence of her husband who is described as a visitor! Whatever lies behind this anomaly, the families prospered. Joseph Lawson was the eldest son of Thomas Lawson of Huggan Ing, the farm next door to Gisburne Coates where Jane grew up. By 1861 Joseph and Jane were farming in Barnoldswick, had a large and healthy family and remained there until their deaths in 1889 and 1890 respectively. Jane's father James Boothman died in 1854 and in 1861 her three brothers, Thomas Hayes, James and William are managing Gisburne Coates farm. My interest is particularly focused on Huggan Ing. My earliest identifiable ancestor on my Yorkshire side of the family is Henry Briggs who was definitely living at at Huggan Ing in 1664 and probably earlier. His descendants continued at Huggan Ing through a Tattersall marriage until it was taken over by Thomas Lawson, father of Joseph, in the late 1840s. Thomas Lawson, Joseph's father remained at Huggan Ing until his death late in 1882 and the farm continued to be run by Joseph's brothers, unmarried James, and William who had married Isabella Rochford in 1879. Isabella died at the end of 1883 not long after giving birth to a second son James. In 1891 William is running a farm in Foulridge with his two young sons, leaving James in sole control at Huggan Ing. In 1885 James, 54, marries 21-year-old Mary Jane Spencer. Mary Jane is a direct descendant of Henry Briggs. Mary Jane presented James with two sons and a daughter before his death in 1896. Mary took over the ownership and management of Huggan Ing. She died at the age of 72 in 1928. The Briggs were back!! The Briggs-Tattersall-Lawson-Spencer story does not end there. Jane's three brothers had left Gisburne Coates farm by 1871 and one of the farms (Gisburne Coates had several farms) was being run by another direct Briggs descendant, Mary née Tattersall Deighton, who was born and brought up at Huggan Ing, and who married 60-year-old William Deighton in 1844, inheriting the farm on his death four years later. By 1871 Mary now 72 is farming 113 acres at Gisburne Coates with the help of only two young farm boys. When she died two years later, the farm was taken over by Edward Spencer and Ann née Tattersall Spencer, Mary's niece. It is their daughter Mary Jane who marries 54-year-old James Lawson of Huggan Ing. The Spencer family continued to own both Gisburne Coates and Huggan Ing until they sold both farms to the present owner in 1957. I've tried to make the story as clear as possible: working it all out has taken a long time as you can imagine, but I think it's a great example of Yorkshire grit and determination! Regards Sue -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jean and terry Sent: 16 January 2010 03:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! Hi, My experience is people didn't fully understand what was required with census data. Back in 1851 many couldn't write and had no way of checking what was written down. I have just queried a 1911 entry because I am certain the Head just wrote down her daughters and son ignoring the fact they were all married and lived elsewhere. She clearly misunderstood the question. The 1881 census was my first nightmare when John HAIGH was listed as being 40 when he was only 29 on his marriage certificate 3 years earlier. his wife never appeared to have a consistent age either and he gives Holmfirth as birthplace then later Huddersfield. She gives Newtown Wales (because I think she found it more convenient than giving the name of a nearby town, every census she had prior had a slight difference in birthplace. Newtown seems near enough but it isn't accurate). I still haven't worked out where John Haigh is prior to 1881 because of the problems. I have another one in 1910 in USA census who gives himself as Single but he was in fact married just preferred to be single I think.) So I would be wary of reading too much into the 1851 census and prefer to go to the marriage details instead. If you like I could check if Ancestry has this page and can confirm your couple. Perhaps they hadn't told her father of their marriage!!!!!!! Jean in S. Australia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Regan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! >I have been puzzling over an entry in the 1851 census (the actual image) >for > the two participants in a marriage, Jane Boothman and Joseph Lawson. > Until > I saw it, I had so much evidence as to the parentage of both Jane and > Joseph > that I had no doubt that I had identified the correct couple. According > to > Ancestry, Lancashire BMD and Free BMD the said Jane and Joseph were > married > in Gisburne Oct-Dec 1850 but of course the fathers are not given. I have > the > Gisburne microfiche for the period but would you believe, although Jane > and > Joseph are in the index under the same number, that page of 15 entries is > missing...aargh! > > > > This is the 1851 entry: > > > > 1851 Gisburne Cotes Farm > > > Boothman James Head,Widr, 60 Farmer of 80 acres Waddington > Jane Dau, 26 unmarried Farmer's Daughter Downham > Thomas Son Farmer's Son Downham > Hannah Dau, 14 Farmer's Daughter Downham > William Son, 11 Gisburne > > > Joseph Son, 7 Gisburne > > > Lawson Joseph Visitor, 26 Farmer's Son Gargrave > > > > > > So here we have an unmarried Jane Boothman being visited by Joseph Lawson > a > married farmer's son, who I am certain has been her husband since the last > quarter of 1850. It seems an unlikely mistake for any of the family to > make > or maybe whoever gave the information was drunk! > > > > As an example of the evidence I have, Jane's mother's maiden name was > Hayes > and Jane had a younger brother, Thomas Hayes Boothman, and named one of > her > own sons, William Hayes Lawson. Also Jane and Joseph's eldest daughter > Mary > Anne Lawson was born at Gisburne Coates in May 1851 (where Jane's widowed > father, was still living). > > > > There are so many certificates I really need to buy and I don't want to > have > to spend money on one when I am 99.99% convinced I already have the > answers! > > > > > Can anyone explain this strange census entry? Any thoughts or ideas would > be very much appreciated. > > > > Cheers > > > > Sue > > > > > > > Some useful websites - > FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ > FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.143/2624 - Release Date: 01/15/10 12:47:00 Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Glad you enjoyed it: although it was hard work, it was fun too -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 16 January 2010 21:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Particularly for Jean & Terry, Mary and Andy A great story, Sue, thank you! Maggie -----Original Message----- From: Sue Regan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2010 6:08 pm Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Particularly for Jean & Terry, Mary and Andy Thank you all so much for your ideas and suggestions. And I absolutely take the point that many were uncertain as to what information to give in the census but apart from this one entry, both the Lawson and Boothman families were very accurate when giving both ages and places of birth over a period of almost 50 years. And the ages given fit with the baptismal, marriage and burial entries. I have all the BMD records for the two families over two generations and there are no hidden illegitimacies. Even if I buy the certificate and it proves, as I am certain it will, and that this Jane and this Joseph were married before the 1851 census, I still can't think of an explanation for the entry. Bearing in mind the fact that most families of the day would go to great lengths to hide a daughter's unwed status it seems very odd to me that a heavily pregnant but married Jane would give her maiden name to the census taker, particularly in the presence of her husband who is described as a visitor! Whatever lies behind this anomaly, the families prospered. Joseph Lawson was the eldest son of Thomas Lawson of Huggan Ing, the farm next door to Gisburne Coates where Jane grew up. By 1861 Joseph and Jane were farming in Barnoldswick, had a large and healthy family and remained there until their deaths in 1889 and 1890 respectively. Jane's father James Boothman died in 1854 and in 1861 her three brothers, Thomas Hayes, James and William are managing Gisburne Coates farm. My interest is particularly focused on Huggan Ing. My earliest identifiable ancestor on my Yorkshire side of the family is Henry Briggs who was definitely living at at Huggan Ing in 1664 and probably earlier. His descendants continued at Huggan Ing through a Tattersall marriage until it was taken over by Thomas Lawson, father of Joseph, in the late 1840s. Thomas Lawson, Joseph's father remained at Huggan Ing until his death late in 1882 and the farm continued to be run by Joseph's brothers, unmarried James, and William who had married Isabella Rochford in 1879. Isabella died at the end of 1883 not long after giving birth to a second son James. In 1891 William is running a farm in Foulridge with his two young sons, leaving James in sole control at Huggan Ing. In 1885 James, 54, marries 21-year-old Mary Jane Spencer. Mary Jane is a direct descendant of Henry Briggs. Mary Jane presented James with two sons and a daughter before his death in 1896. Mary took over the ownership and management of Huggan Ing. She died at the age of 72 in 1928. The Briggs were back!! The Briggs-Tattersall-Lawson-Spencer story does not end there. Jane's three brothers had left Gisburne Coates farm by 1871 and one of the farms (Gisburne Coates had several farms) was being run by another direct Briggs descendant, Mary née Tattersall Deighton, who was born and brought up at Huggan Ing, and who married 60-year-old William Deighton in 1844, inheriting the farm on his death four years later. By 1871 Mary now 72 is farming 113 acres at Gisburne Coates with the help of only two young farm boys. When she died two years later, the farm was taken over by Edward Spencer and Ann née Tattersall Spencer, Mary's niece. It is their daughter Mary Jane who marries 54-year-old James Lawson of Huggan Ing. The Spencer family continued to own both Gisburne Coates and Huggan Ing until they sold both farms to the present owner in 1957. I've tried to make the story as clear as possible: working it all out has taken a long time as you can imagine, but I think it's a great example of Yorkshire grit and determination! Regards Sue -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jean and terry Sent: 16 January 2010 03:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! Hi, My experience is people didn't fully understand what was required with census data. Back in 1851 many couldn't write and had no way of checking what was written down. I have just queried a 1911 entry because I am certain the Head just wrote down her daughters and son ignoring the fact they were all married and lived elsewhere. She clearly misunderstood the question. The 1881 census was my first nightmare when John HAIGH was listed as being 40 when he was only 29 on his marriage certificate 3 years earlier. his wife never appeared to have a consistent age either and he gives Holmfirth as birthplace then later Huddersfield. She gives Newtown Wales (because I think she found it more convenient than giving the name of a nearby town, every census she had prior had a slight difference in birthplace. Newtown seems near enough but it isn't accurate). I still haven't worked out where John Haigh is prior to 1881 because of the problems. I have another one in 1910 in USA census who gives himself as Single but he was in fact married just preferred to be single I think.) So I would be wary of reading too much into the 1851 census and prefer to go to the marriage details instead. If you like I could check if Ancestry has this page and can confirm your couple. Perhaps they hadn't told her father of their marriage!!!!!!! Jean in S. Australia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Regan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! >I have been puzzling over an entry in the 1851 census (the actual image) >for > the two participants in a marriage, Jane Boothman and Joseph Lawson. > Until > I saw it, I had so much evidence as to the parentage of both Jane and > Joseph > that I had no doubt that I had identified the correct couple. According > to > Ancestry, Lancashire BMD and Free BMD the said Jane and Joseph were > married > in Gisburne Oct-Dec 1850 but of course the fathers are not given. I have > the > Gisburne microfiche for the period but would you believe, although Jane > and > Joseph are in the index under the same number, that page of 15 entries is > missing...aargh! > > > > This is the 1851 entry: > > > > 1851 Gisburne Cotes Farm > > > Boothman James Head,Widr, 60 Farmer of 80 acres Waddington > Jane Dau, 26 unmarried Farmer's Daughter Downham > Thomas Son Farmer's Son Downham > Hannah Dau, 14 Farmer's Daughter Downham > William Son, 11 Gisburne > > > Joseph Son, 7 Gisburne > > > Lawson Joseph Visitor, 26 Farmer's Son Gargrave > > > > > > So here we have an unmarried Jane Boothman being visited by Joseph Lawson > a > married farmer's son, who I am certain has been her husband since the last > quarter of 1850. It seems an unlikely mistake for any of the family to > make > or maybe whoever gave the information was drunk! > > > > As an example of the evidence I have, Jane's mother's maiden name was > Hayes > and Jane had a younger brother, Thomas Hayes Boothman, and named one of > her > own sons, William Hayes Lawson. Also Jane and Joseph's eldest daughter > Mary > Anne Lawson was born at Gisburne Coates in May 1851 (where Jane's widowed > father, was still living). > > > > There are so many certificates I really need to buy and I don't want to > have > to spend money on one when I am 99.99% convinced I already have the > answers! > > > > > Can anyone explain this strange census entry? Any thoughts or ideas would > be very much appreciated. > > > > Cheers > > > > Sue > > > > > > > Some useful websites - > FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ > FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.143/2624 - Release Date: 01/15/10 12:47:00 Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00