Find Ancestors

No, Pauline, not "upset". Annoyed. And again. You have all sorts of information up your sleeve that you are refusing to disclose.

You knew of Theophilus Peters. So I wasted a lot of time "finding" him. Could you not have found that household without my help, with a name as unusual as that?

You say he was a brother of your Thomas. I have no idea HOW you know that. But it seems danged odd to me that your Thomas was missing from the household in both 1851 and 1861, and is nowhere else to be seen, and there is no birth record for him in the GRO or IGI.

GRO = General Register Office index, which is what is searchable at FreeBMD

http://www.freebmd.org.uk

IGI = International Genealogy Index, the Mormons' compilation of parish records and other (unverified) material

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/igi/search_igi.asp


Search at FreeBMD for Peters born in W Bromwich district 1838-1850.

Theophalus is there 1842.
John Elipha is there 1844.
Zenas is there 1846.
(spellings as shown at FreeBMD.)

No Thomas is there.


Someone has added a postem for Zenas. When you find his birth, click on the envelope symbol and a new tab or window will open. There is an entry dated 22.12.2008 giving an email address for someone who evidently has an interest in him. Undoubtedly someone you are already in contact with ...


Gotta throw in the towel on this one for definite, I'm afraid.

Sorry I seem to have upset you badly. I really appreciate all your hard work on my behalf. Without you people who help us we would not get very far. The marriage you gave me of Mary Day & Thomas Peters is the one I have. The names of their children in 1901 is correct with the addition of Mary Ann Peters 1901, Kitty 24-01-1904,Belle ? and Ada ?. They are my family.The birth you have for Theophalus is Thomas Peters brother. The 1851 census you have given me seems to be the one and the 1861 census with a mispelt name of Lenas. It is Zenas. Maybe he was at his grandparents the night of the census. Can you tell me what IGI is & GRO?
Again I am sorry to have upset you. It was not intentional.
Pauline

Your Thomas's household in 1901 in Lambeth:

Thomas Peters 32
Mary Peters 30
Nellie Peters 3
Robert Peters 13 months

The Robert matches the one in the household I found in 1911. Perhaps you would indicate whether the other children in that household match the names of your Thomas's family.

In 1901, Thomas was living in Lambeth and reports born in Lambeth. I suspect that if he was orphaned young he may not have known where he was born, or it was just the usual birthplace of convenience for census purposes.

For Peters marriages in Dudley reg dist in the 1860s, there are three Thomas marriages. (No Theo*s.)

It is not the Eliza Cooksey marriage, which I traced above.

The other two are:

Marriages Jun 1866
GUY Thomas Dudley 6c 144
JONES Mary A Dudley 6c 144
> Peters Thomas Dudley 6c 144
STEVENSON Harriet Dudley 6c 144

Marriages Mar 1873
JOHNSON Ellen Dudley 6c 144
JONES John Dudley 6c 144
> Peters Thomas Dudley 6c 144
Todoff Elizabeth Dudley 6c 144


The second one would be a little late for Thos Jr's birth.


Of the two couples for the 1866 marriage, I would suspect this is the other one in 1871 in Bilston:

Thomas Guy 29
Harriett Guy 23
William T Guy 3
Clara Guy 1

which would mean that Thos Peters Sr married Mary Jones. Lucky you, if so. The marriage certificate would tell you that Thomas's age and occupation and father's name.

And I still don't see them in 1871.

But I have all along, in this second round, suspected this might be your Thomas Jr in 1871:

Name: Thomas M Peters
Age: 3
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1868
Relation: Nurse Child
Where born: West Dean, Gloucestershire, England
Civil Parish: West Dean
Ecclesiastical parish: Viney Hill Al Saints
Town: Oldcroft
County/Island: Gloucestershire
Registration district: Monmouth

John Fryer 25
Eliza Fryer 31
Rhoda Adams 8
Sarah Fryer 3
James E Fryer 9 months
Thomas M Peters 3


meaning that his parents, or one of them, likely died between his birth and the census.

Births Jun 1842
Peters Theophalus West Bromwich 18 569


Because of the possibility of misspellings I searched for

Peter*
Theo*

1840-1845.

Have you looked for the Peters-Cox marriage in the IGI? The entry gives his father's name.

The marriage is also in the GRO index at FreeBMD. It was in King's Norton registration district -- Harborne, Staffordshire, per the IGI.

There are several Peters-s in Harborne in 1841, including a Thomas 1811 who is undoubtedly related, but no John.


In 1881 there is this household in Wolverhampton:

> Thomas Peters 38 - abt 1843 - Puddler In Iron Works
Ellen Peters 46
Elizebeth Peters 9
John Peters 8
> Thomas Peters 5 - a decade too young - born Wolverhampton
> Amelia Peters 4 - could have been named for Thos Sr's mother.
Joseph Fochall 72


In 1871 there is this household in Stourbridge (you could check the Thos Sr's occupation on the census image; it is taking me 5 minutes to download on dial-up because of a busted modem):

Thomas Peters 29
Eliza Peters 28
Mary E Peters 6
Thos H Peters 5 - abt 1866, born Stourbridge, Worcestershire
Annie M Reter 3
Wiliam Vetere 2
Elora Vetere 6 months

(All of the surnames are Peters of course.)

This is that household in 1881:

Thomas Peters 39 - occupation Brewer's Clerk
Eliza Peters 38
Thos.Henry Peters 15
William Peters 11
Eliza Peters 10
Arthur Peters 8
Sarah Minnie Peters 7


There is a possible Thomas Peters + Elizabeth marriage in Bromsgrove in 1861 that would be one posibility. There is a Thomas Peters + Eliza marriage in Dudley in 1863 that might be more likely. The bride matches an Eliza Cooksey in 1861 born c1843 / living in Stourbridge, the same details as for Eliza Peters.

That 1871/1881 household looks like a pretty good bet. The occupation doesn't match, but perhaps Thos Sr changed careers. Or Thos Jr simply didn't know.

If you search at FreeBMD you will find a Thomas Peters birth in Mar quarter 1866 in Stourbridge. At some point you will have to order certificates so you have infor in order to rule possible candidates out or in.


... Well, all that, except for:

Name: Thomas H Peters
Age: 35
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1866
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Priscilla
Gender: Male
Where born: Stourbridge, Worcestershire, England

Thomas H Peters 35
Priscilla Peters 37
Elizabeth L Peters 11
Edith M Peters 8

That Thomas Jr is accounted for in 1901 in Aston.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. I think I've run out of ideas.


No, one last gasp.

1861 in Rowley Regis, Staffordshire, Dudley reg dist:

John Peters 39
Amelia Peters 38
Theophilus Peters 18
John E Peters 16
Lenas Peters 14
Elizabeth Peters 12
Mary Ann Peters 9
Amelia Peters 4
Evaline Peters 1


In 1851 in the same place:

John Peters 29 - born Apperley, Gloucestershire
Amelia Peters 28 - born Tirley, Gloucestershire
Theophilus Peters 8 - born c1843, Oldbury, Worcestershire
John Elipkey Peters 6
Zenas Peters 4
Elizabeth Peters 2


Your Thos Sr may have been known as Thomas, but his name was Theophilus, I think.

Okay, well, Pauline, you know the names of the other children of Thomas Peters and Mary Ann Day, nobody else has a clue, so I don't even know whether my slogging away at the 1911 census produced any useful results, because I don't know whether the other children in the household, as I listed them in my last post, match yours.

And again, Thomas Peters "appears" to have been born etc. ... to you. Not to anybody else, because nobody else has any idea where that information came from (not the IGI, as far as I can tell).

Good luck.

Sorry, Thomas Peters 1843 appears to have been born to John Peters 1821 & Amelia Cox about 1821? Married on13/4/1841. Thomas was born in Oldbury Worcestershire.
Thanks
Pauline

Sorry about the problems I have caused you. I have Thomas Peters & Mary Ann Day's marrieage certificate and They lived in Lambeth at the time of their marriage. The father of Thomas was also Thomas who was a bricklayer but was deceased before the marriage. It is wife's name I am looking for. I have only just found a living relative of the Peters family where this new information came from. I found them on hot matches. I still have not got Thomas Peters about 1868 birth certificate. The Mary Peters born in 1902 is my grandmother, daughter of Thomas Peters 1868 and they were married before she was born. There are two or three older children of whom I have the names.
Again Sorry
Pauline

Back to first principles.

"I am looking for Thomas Peters who married Mary Ann nee Day. ... They had a daughter named Mary Ann Day.born 1902."

Her surname was Day, not Peters. So her parents were not married at the time she was born.

How do you have her father's name? Marriage certificate?

The parents do not appear to have married. The only Thomas Peters + Mary Day marriage at FreeBMD is the one Lindy Lou gave at the beginning:

Marriages Mar 1895
Day Mary Lambeth 1d 563
Peters Thomas Lambeth 1d 563


In the 1911 census, these are the Thomas Peters-s born 1865-1871 who have a Mary in the household:

PETERS SAMUEL THOMAS M 1866 45 Aston Warwickshire
PETERS THOMAS M 1865 46 Totnes Devonshire
PETERS THOMAS M 1869 42 Fulham London
PETERS THOMAS JAMES M 1866 45 Helston Cornwall
PETERS THOMAS JOHN M 1866 45 Chester Cheshire

The Fulham looks most like yours.

These are the people named Peters in Fulham who have a Thomas Peters in the household:

PETERS CAROLINE ELIZABETH F 1879 32 Fulham London
PETERS CAVENDISH M 1904 7 Fulham London
PETERS IRENE F 1874 37 Fulham London
PETERS JACQUE M 1871 40 Fulham London
PETERS MARY F 1882 29 Fulham London

Impossible to tell what household(s) they are without paying to look at transcripts, I'm afraid.

There is a Mary Peters born 1902 in Lambeth.

These are the Peters-s in Lambeth with a Mary and a Thomas in the household:

PETERS ADA F 1909 2 Lambeth London
PETERS GEORGE M 1905 6 Lambeth London
PETERS KATHERINE F 1903 8 Lambeth London
PETERS MARY F 1902 9 Lambeth London
PETERS MARY F 1873 38 Lambeth London
PETERS ROBERT M 1900 11 Lambeth London
PETERS WALTER ARTHUR M 1908 3 Lambeth London
PETERS WALTER RICHARD CHARLES M 1907 4 Lambeth London

This Thomas Peters in Lambeth has a Mary in the household:

PETERS THOMAS M 1872 39 Lambeth London

This is likely daughter Mary in question:

Births Jun 1902
PETERS Mary Lambeth 1d 350


But you said your Mary was born Mary Ann Day. Unless you meant Mary Ann Day Peters?


Hmm. There is one Peters-Day birth in the GRO, anywhere anytime (after 1911):

Births Jun 1913
Peters Elizabeth B Day Lambeth 1d 623

But -- that would seem to be this (possible) marriage:

Marriages Mar 1895
? Day Mary Lambeth 1d 563
McIntosh Margaret Lilian Lambeth 1d 563
McLachlan William Lambeth 1d 563
Park Cecil Malcolm W Lambeth 1d 563
? Peters Thomas Lambeth 1d 563


That household might be worth considering. You can buy credits to look at the transcript (no one else can do it any cheaper, since there are no subscriptions as yet; all access is pay-per-view).

http://www.1911census.co.uk/search/tnaform.aspx?&x=1719967059


You're probably going to have to bite a couple of bullets --

- order the marriage certificate for the Thomas Peters who married in 1895 (you can specify that you want it only if it's to Mary Day)

- view the 1911 household if you think it's a likely.

Uh ... all that searching, based on incorrect information ...

I'm beginning to ask how people know the info they offer / where they got it. I have to remember to do this every time.

The wife of which Thomas Peters are you looking for? Sr or Jr?

Can you maybe offer up some of these details that you have? Like actual places of birth for the individuals in question, not just where most of the family was born?

Does your hot match not have info for the wives of the Thomas-s? Is he descended from Sr or Jr?

I just thought I would let you know I have found a decendant of Thomas Peters on Hot Matches and he has all the details of Thomas Peters c1868 and his father Thomas Peters 1843. I was wrong about the area where they were born. Most of the family were born about the Newent Gloucestershire or Worcestershire. I still have not found Thomas Peters wife or their childrens details. Can you help me find them please?
Regards
Pauline

You most certainly have done so much. I would never have found any of this. It is great.

Thank me?? I'm not sure I've done anything!

There are a couple of possibles there, if there were some weird twisty things happening, but for now that's all they are!

Actually there's only the one possible:


Thomas Peters 61 - blacksmith
Mary Peters 35 - wife
Louisa Peters 31 - daughter-in-law
Thomas Peters 9 - son
Mary Phillips 60


Those Peto-s -- dang but they are attractive, with that bricklayer and all. But there's not a Thomas between them.


The one with the elderly father Thomas, he looks like your best bet. Whether Thomas was his father or grandfather in reality (if grandfather, the father could well have been a son Thomas, but I can't find him) ...


But I do like that one in 1881:

Name: Thomas Peters
Age: 9
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1872
Relation: Son
Father's Name: Thomas
Mother's Name: Mary
Where born: Middlesex, England


If only we could find something in the 1871.

This is absolutely incredible. How can I ever thank you.
Pauline

Abandon all hope. The Peto household in 1881.


Alfred Pets 5
Alice Pets 13
Eliza Pets 11
Emma Pets
Frederick Pets 35
Frederick Pets 9
Louisa Pets 33
Rose Pets 7
William Pets 3


But Frederick is still a bricklayer.

And someone has corrected Alice's name.

Correction Detail:
Surname: PETO
Correction Type: Transcription Error
Explanation: family history research
Contributed By: (looks like an email address?)
08/08/2007


1891 Frederick has a new wife.

Frederick Peto 47
Sarah Peto 36
Frederick Peto 19
Alfred Peto 15
Willming Peto 13
Emily Peto 10
Lucy Middleton 75 - aunt
Christopher Gilpin 52

(First wife seems to have been Louisa Taylor)

Except there's no marriage to this Sarah. And no trace of a Thomas ever.

Could he have been a son of Sarah's, the households were blended not long after 1881, he adapted the name to Peters?

OH my God You are a gem I would never have found any of this. This is fantastic. Thank you so much. It will take a bit of time for it all to sink in won't it.
Thanks again
Pauline

Aaaargh. No, that was not a mistranscription.

In 1851, they are Peto.


Alfred Peto 6 Mo
Caroline Peto 13
Edward Peto 2
Eli Peto 5
Eliza Peto 36
Eliza Peto 3
Frederick Peto 7
Henry Peto 19
James Peto 15
Janne Peto 40
John Peto 9


However, I'm not giving up on this one yet. A Pet* who is a bricklayer with a wife Louisa who matches Louisa Peters in 1881?


I just finished tracking back a Thomas Kettle I couldn't find in the 1871 who should have been there ... and found the family (and the parents' marriage) as COSTELLO(E).

So Peto to Peters? Maybe, maybe.

1881

Name: Thomas Peters
Age: 9
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1872
Relation: Son
Father's Name: Thomas
Mother's Name: Mary
Gender: Male
Where born: Middlesex, England

Civil Parish: Southwark St George Martyr
County/Island: London

Thomas Peters 61 - blacksmith
Mary Peters 35 - wife
Louisa Peters 31 - daughter-in-law
Thomas Peters 9 - son
Mary Phillips 60


It is difficult to say whose son he is. The intention could be that he is Louisa's son.

But Thomas's wife Mary is certainly young enough that he could be their son.

No luck finding them in previous censuses so far.

No, wait, this is it.


1871:

Name: Frederick Peto
Age: 26
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Louisa
Where born: Godalming, Surrey, England
Civil Parish: Godalming
Town: Farncombe
County/Island: Surrey
Country: England

Occupation: BRICKLAYER

Registration district: Guildford

Alice Peto 3
Eliza Peto 1
Frederick Peto 26
Louisa Peto 22


You may now fall over in a faint.

He was reared by his grandfather and may never have known his father's name. Or his father may have been Frederick Thomas called Thomas ...


EDIT - WAIT - NOT YET. It doesn't quite pan out ...

Well hmm.

Looked in 1881 for Thomas son of Elizabeth in Lambeth.


Name: Thomas P. May
Age: 12
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1869
Relation: Son
Mother's Name: Elizabeth
Gender: Male
Where born: Lambeth, Surrey, England
Civil Parish: Lambeth

Elizabeth May 57
Emily May 28
Kate May 19
Maud May 21 (niece)
Thomas P. May 12
Joseph Moulton 25


He is the only one with a middle initial. In blended households, the children were often recorded under their stepfathers' surname with a middle initial to indicate their birth surname.

I don't see a marriage of an Elizabeth Peters to a May, but I'd say this one is worth looking into.


... Well hmmmmm.

The household in 1871:

Elizabeth May 44
Emily M May 19
Kate May 9
Thomas May 43 - engine fitter at works
Thomas May 13
(the 13 is messy, but a 3-yr-old would not have been a scholar ... except drat, he is listed after the 9-yr-old, so may more likely be 3 ...)

And Elizabeth is the same one. Born in Dorset.

Another one to rule out!