-
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
Moseley research
- Thread starter jpsmyth
- Start date
MWS
from Bham
My take would be that Sarah Moseley was a single woman and had 3 children before getting together with a Robert Lander and having another.
The father of her first 3 children may have been the same man, possibly called James (likely) or could have been made up. It is also possible that James Moseley was a real person who Sarah (surname unknown) married/took up with before he died.
If the latter, why is the younger James' father not listed on his marriage?
Difficult to prove beyond doubt.
The father of her first 3 children may have been the same man, possibly called James (likely) or could have been made up. It is also possible that James Moseley was a real person who Sarah (surname unknown) married/took up with before he died.
If the latter, why is the younger James' father not listed on his marriage?
Difficult to prove beyond doubt.
. Burial at St Pauls first one 1828 Wish it gave occupations
i dont know if this has been noted before but just looking again at the 41 with robert lander wife and harriet etc but living next door is the wallace family which includes a samuel wallace aged 7...is the the samuel wallace that married harriet moseley in 1870 ?
pjmburns
master brummie
Looks like another relative on first marriage - witness James Bell.
Just to confirm we think:
James Moseley (Mousley) married Sarah Bell.
They had 3 children - James b 1822, Ann (Hannah on census) b 1825 and Harriet b 1831 but Mother's name seems to be recorded incorrectly on the last baptism.
James dies - not sure which date
Sarah is then together with Robert Lander on 1841 census with another child listed as Elizabeth Lander but baptised as Moseley in 1835. No record of a marriage for Sarah and Robert.
1841 address fits the address for James (jnr) when he marries in 1841
1847 Sarah dies
1851 Harriet living with sister Ann and "husband" James Hughes - they actually marry in 1851
Last edited:
still looks like 25 to me jan especially if you compere it to the 3 on the age of the age of hubby on the marr cert with a little dash above the 2 and 3..as harriet was born in 1831 her age should be 39 on the marr cert hubbys age is 36 so that would be the correct 3 year difference in their ages...i think
Last edited:
just thought that as we now know that harriets age is incorrect on her marr cert i now think that could be possible that samuel wallace could be the father of all of her children but of course it is very hard to be certain...also i think harriet and samuel had known each other since children (living next door to each other on the 41) and maybe he felt sorry for her having 3 children but no husband so married her...hard to prove either way
lyn
lyn
pjmburns
master brummie
I think we have the top half of a 3 and bottom half appears to be missing - remember they used ink pens with nibs which dried up. So I don't think the bottom half appeared.
Won't argue though. Also suspect she wanted to seem younger than him.
Last edited:
pjmburns
master brummie
I am confused.
Birth registrations did not begin until 1837. If as you say Harriet was born in 1835 or as we think 1831 (tying in with the baptism) there won't be a birth certificate.
So I am not sure what you have ordered.
pjmburns
master brummie
I would be particularly interested in a reply to this comment. Many thanks in hope.
jpsmyth
master brummie
Apologies, my mistake the birth certificate was for another family Member.
Many thanks for all the posts you have made, I'm working through them whilst also tying up with a couple of others on Ancestry, it appears I'm not the only one struggling to confirm the facts around dear Harriet.
Please bear with me and I'll feedback.
Kind regards,
Justin Smyth
Many thanks for all the posts you have made, I'm working through them whilst also tying up with a couple of others on Ancestry, it appears I'm not the only one struggling to confirm the facts around dear Harriet.
Please bear with me and I'll feedback.
Kind regards,
Justin Smyth
jpsmyth
master brummie
Ok, here we go.............
Taking it slowly (appologies I'm not a experienced as you guys clearly!) My verification starts with the 1851 Census which I completely agree shows Joseph Hughes and Ann (Mousley) in Vauxhall Street with Harriet (sister in law) and Joseph in attendance. This matches with all I have confirmed about Harriet.
From there I strongly believe the marriage record of Joseph and Ann helps build forwards...
The record matches existing ages / DOB's for both Joseph and Ann - First match. Joseph is listed as a "Bone Button Maker" - this clearly ties with Joseph being listed in the 1851 census as a "Bone Sawyer" - i.e. a worker preparing the raw bone ready for the manufacture of the finished bone buttons. Next the home address is Vauxhall Street, a further match. On the balance of probability it seems too much of a match not to be correct. As you have previously highlighted the father's name of "William" appears to be the only issue - everyone on the form has "the mark of" statement so its clear literacy is an issue. That said the occupation of Tailor gives us something to work with perhaps? Perhaps worthly while considering is there a "William James Mousley" or perhaps a "James William Mousley" waiting to be discovered? Finally it could be a case of Harriet and Ann having different fathers and the surname importance simply being ignored - not sure we will ever know.
For me, too many facts aligned to not see this as confirmation. My strategy next is to review all the documents for each person named on this certificate to try and confirm further the facts.
Please bear with me, I'm working full time so I don't have a mass of time to dedicate to this.
Many thanks for your work, its really helped put a lot of information on the table to work through.
Any further comments (positive or negative!!!) would be greatfully recieved.
Taking it slowly (appologies I'm not a experienced as you guys clearly!) My verification starts with the 1851 Census which I completely agree shows Joseph Hughes and Ann (Mousley) in Vauxhall Street with Harriet (sister in law) and Joseph in attendance. This matches with all I have confirmed about Harriet.
From there I strongly believe the marriage record of Joseph and Ann helps build forwards...
The record matches existing ages / DOB's for both Joseph and Ann - First match. Joseph is listed as a "Bone Button Maker" - this clearly ties with Joseph being listed in the 1851 census as a "Bone Sawyer" - i.e. a worker preparing the raw bone ready for the manufacture of the finished bone buttons. Next the home address is Vauxhall Street, a further match. On the balance of probability it seems too much of a match not to be correct. As you have previously highlighted the father's name of "William" appears to be the only issue - everyone on the form has "the mark of" statement so its clear literacy is an issue. That said the occupation of Tailor gives us something to work with perhaps? Perhaps worthly while considering is there a "William James Mousley" or perhaps a "James William Mousley" waiting to be discovered? Finally it could be a case of Harriet and Ann having different fathers and the surname importance simply being ignored - not sure we will ever know.
For me, too many facts aligned to not see this as confirmation. My strategy next is to review all the documents for each person named on this certificate to try and confirm further the facts.
Please bear with me, I'm working full time so I don't have a mass of time to dedicate to this.
Many thanks for your work, its really helped put a lot of information on the table to work through.
Any further comments (positive or negative!!!) would be greatfully recieved.
MWS
from Bham
I think as mentioned the 3 Moseley children living on Stafford St with the Robert & Sarah Lander (mother) are the correct ones.
James Moseley and Sarah Bell being the parents of James and Ann but Harriet being Sarah and someone else's daughter born after James snr had died in 1828. Why James jnr didn't list a father on his marriage or why Ann listed her father as William I don't know. It may be because (in Ann's case a least) that they didn't really know and it was a simple mistake.
My g g grandmother who was illegitimate listed her brother as her father on one of her marriages and this may be what happened for Harriet. James jnr occupation is listed as both a stair rod maker or brass worker on the censuses and the occupation on Harriet's marriage certificate for her father is brass rod maker, a combination of the 2. It may also explain the big age discrepancy for Harriet.
James Moseley and Sarah Bell being the parents of James and Ann but Harriet being Sarah and someone else's daughter born after James snr had died in 1828. Why James jnr didn't list a father on his marriage or why Ann listed her father as William I don't know. It may be because (in Ann's case a least) that they didn't really know and it was a simple mistake.
My g g grandmother who was illegitimate listed her brother as her father on one of her marriages and this may be what happened for Harriet. James jnr occupation is listed as both a stair rod maker or brass worker on the censuses and the occupation on Harriet's marriage certificate for her father is brass rod maker, a combination of the 2. It may also explain the big age discrepancy for Harriet.
think that one is easy unless there was an error they lied on 1851 it happened a lot to save face...
example is my gt grandparents who on the 1911 census stated married for 10 years with 4 children when in fact they only married in 1910..i have their marr cert...back then they never thought that many years later we would come along and find them out
i always try to think outside the boxlyn
Last edited:
jpsmyth
master brummie
Staying with the Joseph Hughes (wife Ann Mouseley/Moseley). They have in the 1851 census a daughter called Mary aged 8 (circa 1843 birth year). I have found the marriage certificate (below). Her marriage age of 30 in the year 1873, aligns with a birth year of 1843. The father listed is Joseph Hughes who is described as a "Pearl Button maker" again a occupation that aligns. The part that struck me was one of the wittnesses names - "Joseph Wallis - the mark of" - in June of 1873 Joseph married Eliza Hood and his surname had changed from Joseph Moseley to Joseph Wallace / Wallis. On that basis do you think it fair to confirm this as a match? 
jpsmyth
master brummie
Always thought grand parents have that sneeky smile about them!think that one is easy unless there was an error they lied on 1851 it happened a lot to save face...
example is my gt grandparents who on the 1911 census stated married for 10 years with 4 children when in fact they only married in 1910..i have their marr cert...back then they never thought that many years later we would come along and find them out
lyn