Tricky Ancestors

[MWS]

Hello,

I'm just wandering what people do when they come across ancestors that they are not 100% certain about. How sure do you have to be before deciding you've got the right person?

I have a great great grandmother who I have been tracing and I have a circumstantial evidence but atm I can't say I'm totally certain about her though I think I've got the right woman. Her name is Elizabeth King and she married my great great grandfather Thomas John Brownhill on 21 Dec 1884 at St Peter & St Paul, Aston. Her father was listed as William King.

In the 1891 census she is living with her husband and 2 sons in Aston, listed as Lizzie aged 26 born in Redditch.

By 1901 my g g grandfather has died and in the 1901 census she is still living in Aston with John Lambert, her new 'husband' (they don't marry until 1910), 2 sons and 2 daughters (a son and 2 daughters from 1st marriage) , she is listed as Elizth, aged 36 and again born in Redditch.

By the time we come to the 1911 census her second husband has died and she is living with Frank Carwardine, her 3rd husband, still in Aston with a daughter from her 1st marriage, a son from her 2nd and 4 step children all listed as Carwardine (which didn't help). This time she's listed as Elizabeth, aged 46 but significantly (perhaps) born in Wolverhampton.

But when I tried to trace her parents, which I did before finding her in the 1911 census, I couldn't find an Elizabeth King that had been born in Redditch in the right period. (I found an Elizabeth Kings but that wasn't her).

What I did find was an Eliza King living with her step-father, Edwin Lewis and mother Mary with 3 half brothers and 2 brothers, one older and one younger. She was listed as being born in Wolverhampton but both her brothers were listed as being born in Redditch. So I thought that maybe that's where the mistake about her birth place on the 1891 and 1901 census came about which seemed to be confirmed by the 1911 census.

I couldn't find any of them in the 1871 census but then I found a Maria King on familysearch living in Redditch with 3 sons, the younger corresponds with the son in the 1881 census (same age and birth place) and the middle one was born in Wolverhampton about the same time as Elizabeth is listed in 1881, so there I suspect a transcription error (hopefully).

I traced Mary King, who was Mary Davis, a daughter of Henry Davis and Hannah Cornwall, born in Beoley in 1836. She married a David King in 1856 listed under her mother's name for some reason but is a widow living with her father in 1861, no idea what happened to David King. She marries Edwin Lewis in 1871. And that's all I have.

Sorry, I seemed to have gone on a bit there but is that enough to suggest I have they right Elizabeth King?

Thanks

Mark

 

[pjmburns]

In my experience you have to look at the whole picture and weigh up the for and against. Names (or abbreviations) can change depending on who completed the census. I have an ancestor who is listed twice on the same census (by her husband and her father) - I think the marriage was a recent one so her Father obviously forgot!! Places and dates of birth can also change (especially if details are completed by step parents). If all the rest fits it is likely to be the right one. I would say keep unless you finally find evidence to disprove it. Do rememebr earlier censuses may not be accurate and can have people not listed at all.
Janice

 

[sistersue61]

Hi Mark,welcome to the forum. It's always tricky to decide whether you have the correct person, especially if you only have limited info to go on, but looking at what you have, it seems probable that you have the correct person. Names are often mis-transcribed or given as a pet or family used name, or even given or entered wrongly - my nan is Annie Louisa, but on the 1911 census she is listed as Annie Elizabeth by whoever filled in the form, we know it wasn't her dad as he was illiterate.
If you belong to Ancestry there is a chance that someone else could be tracing the same person and their info can be useful, but be very careful, as some people will just see a name and assume it is their relative even if the facts don't match, frustrating if someone uses your info and you know it isn't their family! There are a few posts about this on the forum, its something the ones of us interested in genealogy don't like.
Sue

 

[Ken_R]

Not wishing to appear rude but the starting point for any query of this nature is References so that we all know that we are looking at the same data.

1891 = RG12, Piece 2437, Folio 16, Page 27.

Her father was listed as William King.

Is this from the Certificate or just a Family Search entry. If the latter then you really need to get the Certificate from the GRO (or, if available, a FOC copy of the Church Record via the LDS Photoduplication Service). This will then give you the Occupation of the Father, with which to better search for him, together with names of witnesses which may, or may not be relevant.

I'd need a lot information before deciding on a direct connection.

Hope this helps.

 

[MWS]

Thanks all for the replies.

I haven't came across anyone else searching for her as yet. I've learnt to keep an open mind with census info now.

I wasn't asking anyone to look at any information for me, it was just a general query on what people would do in a similar situation. I have seen the marriage record and his occupation is listed as 'sweeps' and the witnesses didn't seem to be any sort of relatives. There are her two other marriage certificates which I haven't seen but if she was illegitimate then her father's info will be of no use.

I might just have to accept there'll always be a bit of question mark about her unless other info comes to light - on the 1921 census maybe.

 

[Ken_R]

I think it may be worth looking at 1871:- RG10, Piece 3212, Folio 71, Page 2.

William Kings	46
Jane Kings	43
Abel Kings	19
John Kings	16
Eliza Kings	9
Harriet Kings	7
Ellen Kings	5
Emma Kings	2
Eva Kings	5 Weeks

I know there is an age difference but, do females always tell the truth about their ages?

Also, being born Feckenham, and possibly being not fully literate, being asked every 10 years, "Where! How do you spell that?" It would be far simpler to state, "Redditch."

 

[John Young]

Hi Mark & welcome, Take note of Ken_R's good info & important point of "cross"- Reference,,, everything ! including the "not even related" Marriage certificate witnesses as these could be found as neighbours/friends who usually lived very close to your main objective persons so check them out on Censii to substantiate your already impressive gathered information, This way will give added "bricks" to your foundations,, cheers John

 

[MWS]

Thanks Ken, unfortunately that's who I had originally but on further investigation I'm fairly sure she married a Frank Bulpitt in 1887. It was my second biggest mistake.

 

[sistersue61]

Mark, no consolation, but my great grandmother is proving about as elusive, even with help from our lovely forum members, have had to accept that we will probably never know the full story!
Sue

 

[MWS]

That's a pity Sue. It's inevitable that family research will end in a dead end eventually but you just hope it's a good few generations back. Hopefully something will turn up for you.

 

[Alberta]

MWS, if you are like me you will not let it rest for long before you need to know the truth.
I am a bit like a dog with a bone, i really NEED to know when there is a mystery in my family.

If it were me I would get one more certificate to see what info is given for her father,mostly occupation or if he is deceased by 1910.
Expensive , i know but the second certificate may include something more helpful.

 

[MWS]

I would love to know the truth, Alberta. It's a great feeling when you work out a tricky problem. I'll probably end up getting one of the certificates eventually, when funds allow.

 

[MWS]

Nearly 10 years after my original query and I finally have the birth certificate for my 2 x great grandmother.

After a lot of work I was 99% certain I was buying the right one, even though it was for an Eliza King b Wolverhampton and she was mostly listed as Elizabeth King b Redditch. And it proved to be so, her mother's name was ok and her dob matched the one on the 1939 register.

Not much help with her father though. He is listed as a John Smith and even if correct is a total brick wall. He never married her mother and doesn't appear on any census with her. It could be made up, his occupation is the same of her dead first husband.

Sadly it doesn't list her mother's occupation but the address is Dudley St, Wolverhampton on which there appear to have been many pubs/inns. This added to at least 2 other 'Smith' children she had makes me suspect her occupation at this time may have not been altogether legal.

 

[RRJ]

Glad you've made some progress Mark.

I'd like to thank you for jumping in and helping me (a genealogy novice) at times since joining the forum. (thumb up)