Find Ancestors

ah okay - I'd not thought to check census as I'm looking at the 1800 - 1840 period in Muncaster, Cumberland. But yes I can see the point.

I remain hopeful.

With the issue being to find an Ada thompson born in Muncaster ~1832 with a father -noted as a gentleman - Joseph.

And the(only) evidence being an Adah Thompson steele born to a Margaret Steele of Shaw, Muncaster in 1832. And then a Margaret Steele of Shaw marries a widower and gentleman Joseph thompson of Brankinwall, Muncaster in 1836.

You can see why I'm drawing some lines between the dots. :-)

J

I'm sorry, I see confusion here


you posted the following (I've extracted the bit that is confusing me)


Title Marriage Bond
Date 13/06/1822 <<<<<<<<<
Description Groom surname: Thompson
Groom forename(s): Joseph
Groom age: 29 <<<<<<<<<
Groom occupation/status: Gentleman
Groom marital status: Bachelor


ie, Joseph must have been born about 1793


then you post ..............

Repository Lancashire Archives
Level Item
Reference number ARR 11
Title Marriage Bond
Date 30/12/1835 <<<<<<<<<<
Description Groom surname: Thompson
Groom forename(s): Joseph
Groom age: 21 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Groom occupation/status: Yeoman
Groom marital status: Widower


Joseph must have been born ca 1814


The first Joseph, the one who married Mary Nicholson, would have been 42 in 1835.




These CANNOT be the same man!!


I first noticed the Gentleman vs Yeoman ................. that just doesn't usually happen



But the ages are completely wrong! A man doesn't lose that many years!



I seriously think you have got yourself confused ......... seeing Widower has led you up the wrong path.





sylvia

thanks

I've noticed a surprising number of marriages where both bride and groom are 21 on the Lancashire Records site. Either they were quite set in their ways n this bit of world or , more the case, I think its their way of saying 'full age' when specific age is not entered.

Thankfully for me a specific age was entered in one as you spotted 1793. Also thankfully a Joseph Thompson is found baptised in Muncaster on 15 Nov 1793. Of a William Thompson from Brankinwall married to an Ann Birket.

I have a marriage entries for Joseph thompson yeoman of Brankinwall ( 1836) and probate entries for same name gentleman of Brankinwall (1839). Yeoman is after all 'just' a landowner. I guess some own more than others.

Brankinwall is a large farm/estate still noted on maps and visible via Google street view so its the same name, place and person ie: Brankinwall isn't an area or street.

I remain hopeful - but welcome challenges to test theory.

Hope that clears the confusion for you.

Cheers
J

I

PS: Quote.....

Many yeomen were prosperous, and wealthy enough to employ servants and farm labourers. Some were as wealthy as the minor county or regional landed gentry and some even leased land to gentleman landowners. Some could be classed as gentlemen but often did not aspire to this status: it was cheaper to remain a yeoman. Often it was hard to distinguish minor landed gentry from the wealthier yeomen, and wealthier husbandmen from the poorer yeomen.

PS:

I've just re-read your post.

Don't you think..."I seriously think you have got yourself confused" ....is a tad rude and both a little harsh to a practical newbie..when you've clearly racked up many posts under your belt (and should know better) and perhaps a little rash....as clearly a little extra thinking time would have realised 2 folks married at 21 must ring just a little bell.

Am not taking offence don't worry. Just worth considering the tone of your posts. perhaps you don't realise. everyone has their way.

Anyway - thanks for viewing and testing my theory. Every little bit helps.

DJ

PS: its 01:00 am in blighty so off to bed....please don't blast me in my absence... I'm sure 9 out of 10 people would confirm being told they're seriously confused by a stranger is a little annoying. :-D

well,


I'm very sorry that you took it that way


and undoubtedly you do know much more than me as I have never actually used that particular Lancashire site, despite being a Lancashire lass.

and, no, 2 people both getting married at 21 didn't ring any bells for me ............. that is not at all unusual.


I didn't, and don't, see it as being rude ......... particularly as I started by saying that I myself was confused.


However ..... be that as it may.


I apologise because you did find it "a tad rude".


BTW .... I didn't actually "see" a year date ....... 1793. I reached 1793 by deducting 29 from year 1822, and getting the answer ca 1793. Just as I got the year ca 1814 for the next entry.




I'm sorry you are offended, and I won't impinge on you again.

You obviously believe that what you have found is correct, and I cannot help you either determine yea or nay with that.





sylvia


ps ....................


there is a Private Family tree on ancestry, and he has Adah Thompson Steele, b. 1832. Did you know about this??

Sylvia has been helping people on here for yonks and is never ever rude in any way - I truly think you have read what she said and seen something that isn't there and wasn't meant to offend in any way

Something to bear in mind is that the written word with no facial or hand gestures can be misconstrued :-)

thanks both. As I say am not one easily offended. I treat people how I like to be treated and wouldn't consider telling them they are very seriously confused without provocation or good cause. Anyway. Thats me.

Yes - most likely that private tree is mine as I've not found anyone on the various with interests in thompson / muncaster.

I have to say the lancashire on line records site is brilliant. Through the marriage bond info it freely provides locations. Which is why for first time I'd been able to confirm that the joseph marrying margaret was of brankinwall. Family serach doesn't give that detail. Also there's a huge array of probate stuff also giving locations and for branckinwall spelt many ways over years indicates Thompson wills going back to early 18th C and beyond. Its a great asset people should know about.

J

you read what she said incorrectly by the way - she said

"I seriously think you have got yourself confused" which is quite different from saying you are seriously confused - think about it!! :-)

John, have you traced Adah back on the census to confirm her father's name? Who, when and where did she marry?

I cannot find an Ada(h) born 1832 in Cumberland on the 1841.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

:-S