Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 16-07-20, 06:21
Qwackers Qwackers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: over wyre coast
Posts: 1,243
Default

hi , can we not judge william born pemberton in 1817 christened in 1818 in wigan as being the correct one . as we have the settlement paper to say they were living in pemberton at his birth . ?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 16-07-20, 09:10
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

The baptism you mention is for your William, son of Richard and Ellen, along with the settlement document.

I've just looked further at the family recorded as John and Elizabeth Walker with a son called William bap in Wigan in 1821 and living at Wallgate. The good news may be that though this child's entry is transcribed as Walker, I have now found the image of the original entry and it looks like either Walker or Walket. This could just be a slip of the pen, but their other children seem to be baptised as Walket or Walklet and other variations.

Then there is this burial:

William Walklett b abt 1820 bur 3 Jul 1830 Wigan which might be the same child, though the burial it says he is the child of Elizabeth Walklett with no mention of a father (should be John). I've looked to see if there were two William Walkletts baptised around the same time, one legitimate and the other illegitimate, but I can't find a second child. Of course the name is ripe for mistranscription, as we have already seen!

The next problem is, that even if we exclude William Walken bap 1821 we still have more than one William Walker born around 1817 on the census records:



1841 William Walker aged 25 living at Hindley. He seems to possible have an older wife (Ann aged 35) and two children, John 7 and William 2. He is a cotton spinner.

1851 There are two William Walkers. One is aged 26, wife Jane, two children julia 4 and Elizabeth 2, living at Parr. He is an iron moulder b Wigan. The second William Walker looks more like he could be the chap who is later with Mary Lee. He is aged only 28 on this census, a miner b Wigan. He is single and living in Wigan.

1861 Iron moulder William and his wife Jane and family have moved to Liverpool. The other William on this census is the one with Mary Lee in New Accrington aged 44, so if he is the same person as was living in Wigan in 1851 his age is nearer to what we want here, but we don't know which age (if either) are correct.

1871 At the moment nothing for this census.

1881 There is a widower, Wm Walker aged 63 living as a lodger in Clayton le Moors. B Wigan, occupation Rag dealer.

So, clearly there should be more entries for the various Williams as I've not even stepped into the dodgy transcriptions/bad spellings territory at all yet. I'm wondering if it would have been better to try searching harder for a marriage for the William who is with Mary Barrett/Lee, as that would prove things one way or another.

I don't like it when people don't seem to want to be eliminated properly!
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 16-07-20, 09:22
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

William and Jane Walker who moved to Liverpool can be eliminated as at their 1846 marriage he said his father was George Walker dec'd.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 16-07-20, 09:27
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

I still haven't found a marriage for William Walker to Mary Barrett/Lee. I'm wondering about reasons they might not have married.... (I'm bothered when people don't marry at this time in history when there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for not marrying)

We know that Richard Barrett died, so Mary was a widow, so that's not an issue.

Maybe there was a problem because William was Cof E and Mary was probably RC.

William could have married someone else between 1851 (if that's him single in Wigan) and when he got together with Mary (probably after the death of Richard Barrett) and maybe William's wife was still living.

Anyway, I can't do any more now as I have to go and pick up my groceries.....
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 16-07-20, 11:02
Qwackers Qwackers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: over wyre coast
Posts: 1,243
Default

hi ,i agree they were my thoughts that they may have not got married , i don't know how common it was at that time ,with regards to r.c and c.e getting married . it may have been quite difficult .
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 16-07-20, 12:07
Qwackers Qwackers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: over wyre coast
Posts: 1,243
Default

i will try and find a marriage , but like you said it could be quite difficult ? thanks
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 16-07-20, 15:27
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

I don't think three of the four marriages for a William Walker between 1851 and 1861 in Wigan Registra tion District are for your William (various reasons - wrong father, wrong age (by a lot) etc). There is one in 1858 that is a Register Office or Registrar Attended wedding and there's no images to view. The bride was called Mary McCanna. I don't see any reason for her to be an alternative name for Mary Barrett and I don't think she was previously married (no second index entry on LancsBMD)..

There are no marriages for Mary Bar*t in the same district between 1854 and 1861.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 16-07-20, 16:37
Qwackers Qwackers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: over wyre coast
Posts: 1,243
Default

I actually saw the mary mccanna ,and did think about it for a moment , Could i try and find a marriage to richard Barratt that's if she was married to him. it's ireland. but there are some irish records . i'm presuming she mayor have married him but don't know as read . I'll look at the records see if i can turn up something . thanks once again for your great work
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 16-07-20, 17:29
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,270
Default

This could be Mary in 1871, back to being a Barrett, though the age isn't very clear:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageview..._x%3D0-0-0_1-0

If it is her then it looks as though she and William didn't get married.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 16-07-20, 18:40
Qwackers Qwackers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: over wyre coast
Posts: 1,243
Default

hi ,yes i agree , she may not have married william but just have used his name . maybe that's why we can't find a marriage .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.