-
Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.
We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team
Marriage and baptism look-up please: Hawker-Preece 1807
- Thread starter paulreid
- Start date
Shera
true brummie
hi paul, the date was 11th may 1807. they were bachelor and spinster . the witnesses were mary and benjamin preece.
there were three baptisms for this couple on 10th dec 1810
hannah born 17th march 1808
william born 25th july 1809
ann born 18th nov 1810
thats all i can see. best wishes shera
there were three baptisms for this couple on 10th dec 1810
hannah born 17th march 1808
william born 25th july 1809
ann born 18th nov 1810
thats all i can see. best wishes shera
Once again, many thanks Shera! This is very helpful!
I have the death cert for Ann Hawker in 1843 and it confirms that she was the wife of James. It also seems from remarks on the internet that "Belmont Village" is probably the junction of Belmont Row and Lawley Street.
What I, and a number of other folk, are really trying to resolve is the matter of a William Hawker, born around 1828 (not the 1809 William!). He names James (a builder) on his marriage cert as his father and there is quite a bit of evidence that supports him being a son of this same James and Ann. But as there would appear to have been two Williams in the family (unless the first one died), and the considerable spread of years over which Ann would appear to have been giving birth (from 1808 to 1838 possibly!), there are good grounds for doubt!
Thus there is some speculation that William 1809 may in fact have been the father of William 1828. Certainly possible, apart from W1828's marriage cert! And no real evidence to support that idea, it seems.
But if Priscilla was born around 1824, then it's certainly possible that W1828 was also a son of James and Ann.
If you or anyone visiting this forum can fill in any of the gaps there will be a few folk around the world who will be most grateful!
Thanks again
Paul
I have the death cert for Ann Hawker in 1843 and it confirms that she was the wife of James. It also seems from remarks on the internet that "Belmont Village" is probably the junction of Belmont Row and Lawley Street.
What I, and a number of other folk, are really trying to resolve is the matter of a William Hawker, born around 1828 (not the 1809 William!). He names James (a builder) on his marriage cert as his father and there is quite a bit of evidence that supports him being a son of this same James and Ann. But as there would appear to have been two Williams in the family (unless the first one died), and the considerable spread of years over which Ann would appear to have been giving birth (from 1808 to 1838 possibly!), there are good grounds for doubt!
Thus there is some speculation that William 1809 may in fact have been the father of William 1828. Certainly possible, apart from W1828's marriage cert! And no real evidence to support that idea, it seems.
But if Priscilla was born around 1824, then it's certainly possible that W1828 was also a son of James and Ann.
If you or anyone visiting this forum can fill in any of the gaps there will be a few folk around the world who will be most grateful!
Thanks again
Paul
Shera
true brummie
looking at the 1841 census living lawley street, west side. nechells
james hawker 55 bricklayer (not b. in county)
ann hawker 55 (not b. in county)
william hawker 13 b. bham
thomas hawker 10 b. bham
joseph hawker 5 or 3 b. bham
it looks like ann WAS having children even into her early 50`s. they could have been her grandchildren but as william said his father was james it looks likely that he was. i expect the earlier william may have died. they often used the same name if a child had died.
james hawker 55 bricklayer (not b. in county)
ann hawker 55 (not b. in county)
william hawker 13 b. bham
thomas hawker 10 b. bham
joseph hawker 5 or 3 b. bham
it looks like ann WAS having children even into her early 50`s. they could have been her grandchildren but as william said his father was james it looks likely that he was. i expect the earlier william may have died. they often used the same name if a child had died.
Yes indeed! That is the census entry that I have based many of my assumptions on. There has been some confusion as the surname looks more like Hawkes than Hawker, but the Lawley Street connection (in the death certs etc) make it appear very likely that these are the right people.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
