Answered one of my own questions.

Mary HAWORTH b 19 May 1819 bp 20 June 1819

d/o JOHN YATES and Jane Haworth
St Paul Blackburn.

OC

Olde Crone - thanks for the recent information posts. I too am wondering about the Seberin/Sibring name, surely it must be a 'family' name that is being passed down. But it does seem rather strange that there are so many variants of the spelling (which is correct???). Mind you the 'Hefferan/Hepperan/Heffren' name on my Gmothers side is just as baffling. Not sure if there is a connection between the two......

Your post about Roger/Andrew is fascinating (especially the 'oddity' remark). You can't keep me in suspense for ever hahahaha !!!! Am going to spend the day looking up information on Stoneyhurst College and the Towneley family.

I saw the John Yates name and wondered about the Yates part too......

Thanks so much for such interesting information. It's such a joy to be able to finally start researching this side of my family. My father Roger died 30 years ago and what a shame that its taken us this long to begin the search. We are all in our 50's and 60's now - better late than never huh :)

I think I know but you can never be sure with these Holden's of OC.

Do tell OC. I'd love to hear the story again. ;)

After a great deal of head scratching and pencil-sucking, I have realised that the info I posted above (#91) actually means "child of John Yates Haworth and Jane" and she is not illegitimate! there are three generations of john Yates Haworth, going back to marriage between a Haworth and a Yates. (I'm putting all this info on my Darwen tree).

The odd bods are a branch of the Holden family (first born male is always a Roger) who kept the severed head of a martyred Catholic priest (a Holden) in a wooden chest and passed it down the family in great secrecy till about 1900 when they finally handed it over to the local RC church. Google "the chaigley skull" for more info.

OC

Haha - what a wonderful story...I shall enjoy reading about this skull and the odd bods attached (not literally haha) to it.

I can see the link regarding the 'yates' name (1796 John Yates Haworth's mother was Margaret Yates), so they must be bringing that name down the line. Does this sound right to you OC??

Yes, the Yates middle name comes from Margaret Yates. I cannot work out which Margaret Yates she might be though, as there were dozens of them in Darwen (Yate Bank, to be precise!).

OC

Now here's a thing.....looking for any insight regarding the following....

Roger Holden b1820 - Mary Haworth b1819 have the following children:
John Yates 1841
Andrew 1844
James 1847
Robert Sibbren 1849
Mary Jane 1851
Edward 1854 (my line)
Sarah 1857
Margaret Ann 1859
Roger 1861

have noted them on 1861 census. Looking at the 1871 census I see there is a Thomas aged 24 paper maker. I cant seem to find any information that says that he is actually their son. It would make James his twin. Does it look like Thomas to you???? Any help appreciated please....

Well, the name does say Thomas ,aged 24, son, on the 1871 census, but I wouldn't assume from that that James has a twin! More likely the entry is for James (the enumerator may have been reading another person's handwriting when he completed the census entries. A capital T and J can look similar and both names end in S so you can see how a mistake could easily come about) . When dealing with a common surname it's important to cross-ref as many different types of entry as possible to make the facts you end up with as accurate as you can.

In this case I would cross ref what you can find about baptisms for the children with the birth registrations on Lancs BMD (as you can use mother's maiden name to help restrict your search and also remember the births should all be in Darwen sub-district). I just had a very quick look and there's a James but no Thomas at the right timeframe.

Thanks Merry - I'll go dig a bit more (think you're right about it being James though) :)

Luloo

I didn't find a Thomas when I was looking for this family and I agree with Merry that James and Thomas often look the same. Remember that the 1871 census you are looking at is a copy of the household schedule and the person who copied it could have easily confused the names James and Thomas.

OC