• 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

Young William (1860 - 1916)

Paul33

master brummie
Every twelve months or so, I repost something on my ancestor William Young who is a total blockage on my family history research. One year, somebody is going to make sense of it all so here's hoping one of you will do the magic !

William Young married Elizabeth Ann Howell at Bordesley in 1883. They had very many kids but the first out were Ellen (1886), William (1888), Harry (1890), Florence (1892), Frederick (1894), Edward (1896), Arthur (1897), Beatrice (1899), Alfred (1901), Thomas (1904), George (1907).

The kids were born in Birmingham (Warwickshire) and Kings Norton (Worcestershire).

I can't find them on the 1891 census and couldn't find them on the 1901 census until last year when I found them listed under Elizabeth's maiden name of Howell at 116 Crocketts Road, Handsworth ...... why were they not listed as "Young" ? The property was a shop (coal dealer ?) and belonged to Elizabeth's brother John Howell (b1874). John is nowhere to be seen in the 1901 census but is still listed as the shopkeeper in Kelly's Directories of 1903 and 1904.

The family is listed as "Young" once again on the 1911 census at 104 Whitehall Road, Aston.

I'm particularly interested in their son William (b1888) and, obviously, the father of William senior who was - wait for it - another William according to William and Elizabeth's marriage certificate. To trace that William, I really need to find him on a census somewhere and I have next to nothing to go on.

Hope this makes sense !
 

MWS

master brummie
I had a quick look but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I didn't find anything. The only thing I can think of to check is the births certificates for Harry and Florence, if you haven't already, to see if there's an address and if it matches. And I wouldn't take for granted that his father's name was William, if he was illegitimate it could be made up.

Very frustrating, good luck sorting it out.
 

bewdley

master brummie
I did notice on 1911 census they stated they had been married 17 years which would have been 1894ish so just wondering whether 1st Elizabeth died and he remarried to another Elizabeth.
 

smtr

master brummie
Hi Paul

The 1911 census for 104 Whitehall Road states they have been married 17 years ? whereas 1883 should record about 28 years ? Also they say 6 children have been born alive to the marriage and I count 10 that you have mentioned.

Not wanting to put a spanner in the works but are you sure that is the correct census record for them?

Suzanne
 

Paul33

master brummie
In short Suzanne ..... no, I'm not sure but my hunch was that it was them but the data provided was duff (eg: 17 instead of 27 years !). I have tried to find another marriage and family that DOES fit exactly with the 1911 data and I can't find one so I'm not sure but if it isn't them then where are they ?!!!

I also have three birth certificates (Arthur, Thomas, George) that fit with the 1911 census and they all have mother's maiden name as "Howell".

I also know from living relatives that at least two of the boys were "wood sawyers" so that fits too !
 

Shera

true brummie
Hi Paul, have you checked out the 1891 census in Bordesley, Birmingham.
W. Young b. 1859 Malden, Worc Machinist
E. Young b. 1865
with children E. Young 6, W. Young 4, J. Young 2 and Thos Young 3 mths.

I just thought that the machinist fitted, plus you had mentioned a link to worcestershire. The initials are okay for parents, and E for Ellen, W for William and J?? for Harry?
 

Paul33

master brummie
Hi Shera ...... the Worcestershire link was merely Kings Norton as the Warwickshire/Worcestershire boundary was very much in Birmingham in those days. I have birth certificates for many of the kids and they are Birmingham or Kings Norton born so Malvern would rule this record out I'm afraid !
 

Shera

true brummie
I still think its worth a look as the parents are listed as born Malvern, Worc, and the children are just dittoed. (especially as they are living Bordesley as well, which is where you said they married). Best of luck with your search
 

MWS

master brummie
It looks a good spot by Shera, mistakes were common. Do birth certificates that early have an address on?

On familysearch there is a record for a William Young baptised Great Malvern 27 March 1859, parents William and Emma.
 

Paul33

master brummie
All the children's birth certificates I have show addresses in Birmingham and, mostly, Kings Norton ...... definitely not Malvern which is quite a distance away. I will look at the Malvern Young's and see if I can find anything of interest.
 

Shera

true brummie
hi paul, what we mean is that the parents william and elizabeth could have been born in malvern, worc. the children could have been born kings norton worc so the enumerator just dittoed (as it was still worcestershire).

also, the william and emma that mws found were parents of william senior born 1859 not the child william.

i think quite a few things on this census match with the family you are looking for. the ages are pretty much spot on, they are living bordesley, and i have not seen many with "machinist" for occupation. the only real difference was the initial j for harry.
 

Paul33

master brummie
i think quite a few things on this census match with the family you are looking for. the ages are pretty much spot on, they are living bordesley, and i have not seen many with "machinist" for occupation. the only real difference was the initial j for harry.
Desperately trying to convince myself regarding this one !

When William Young (b1860) married Elizabeth Howell, he claimed his father was born in Birmingham AND was a "carter" by profession. Also. the "T Young" - if I assume it to be Thomas - is very many years out from the birth certificate I have for Thomas.

Those are the negatives - on the positive side, I can't find this Malvern Young family listed after this date so that leaves the door open but ..... mmmmmmmmmmm !
 

Shera

true brummie
it is a difficult one! the thomas (aged 3 mths) on the 1891 census i found could have died. people often called a future child by the same name when they lost a child, so thats not really a problem. the william young b. abt 1859 "machinist" in 1891 certainly corresponds with the 1911 census you found, as does wife elizabeths age. young is a common name though and as you said, this could be two totally different families.
 

Paul33

master brummie
I have tried to find evidence of a Malvern born family and/or a Malvern born William Young prior to the 1891 census and have drawn a blank. According to his marriage certificate, his father was another William and there certainly is no William junior/senior combo pre 1891 in any of the areas referenced.

I've also tried to find evidence of a young Thomas Young death that might suggest a fit with the later born Thomas Young but, again, no young deaths in that name in any of the key areas.


This one is going cold now ..... sadly !

PS: I have a lot more data held that I would very gladly supply to anyone in PDF form if they fancy trying to crack this one ..... nice little hobby and all that !!! Message me if interested and up for the challenge !!!
 

lynne webb

master brummie
Have you checked the family in Redmarley, near Malvern. Theres a William b.1859, with parents William b.abt 1830 and Emma, nee Tyler, theres also grandparents William b. abt 1805 and Sarah. Might be worth having a look.
Lynne
 

MWS

master brummie
As Lynne sais a George Young born 1861 in Redmarleys the family are in Redmarley in 1871 including the younger William and 1881 without him. And William and Emma might be living in Worcester in 1901.

Also there is a George Young born in Redmarley who is living in Aston in 1901, which ties in with William's brother in the 1871 census.
 
Last edited:

Paul33

master brummie
This is a "definite maybe" but I can't find anything that tips the scales denitely one way or another.

The biggest issue I'm currently having is that on William (b1860) and Elizabeth's marriage certificate of 1883, William lists his father William Snr as a "carter" whereas the Redmarley William was an Agricultural Labourer before this date and then a Market Gardener later in life. I've always imagined a "Carter" was a pretty unskilled profession and I would have expected William Jnr to have listed his father as something more agricultural.

Am I reading too much into that ?
 

MWS

master brummie
There's always doubt but all those profession are in the same area.

William snr early in life starts of as an Ag Lab, like lots of people working in the fields and such like. Gets older, more trustworthy, becomes a carter taking produce to markets. Starts to age, can't do the heavy work or handle a team of horses becomes a market gardener (a profession I've seen a lot of ag labs become).
 
Top