Genealogy Chat

Try lancashire BMD..
Kayx

Kathlyn, get someone on records office to check find my past for you. There are three Williams showing on there for born 1860 +/- 1 in liverpool. Ancestry only has two.

PS Good luck with the Owls.

Many thanks to all who replied to my problem. i am sorry that I am a little late with this thanks, but as I have baby owls hatching I must ensure they are my first priority.

kathlyn

The 1861 missing bits (none in Lancs) are identified at:
http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/index.php/Missing_Census_Pages

Of course, there's the odd case where Ancestry have turned two pages at once, or whatever. I came across an 1861 example in Yealand Conyers, but that's the other end of Lancs from Liverpool.

I looked at all the bibby 's born 1860 + - 1 year on the 1861 census and none of them seemed to fit.

I also looked for William Bibby aged 3 to 8 years in case he was mistranscribed as that age rather than the 3 to 8 months he would have been (Birth 4th Qtr 1860)

Also checked all the Richards in Liverpoolbut kept on stumbling over the only Richard and Hannah who were in their 50's

Ancestry has this about the 1861 census:

"Known problems with 1861 piece numbers:

* Pieces from RG9 where all parishes are missing (we do not have ANY records for these pieces):
145 407 903 1234 4015 4131 4196 4344
219 601 1039 3388 4022 4137 4291 4389

* Pieces from RG9 where one or more parishes are missing (we have SOME records for these pieces):
217 690 2211 3913 4027 4143 4173 4211 4265 4295 4330
220 758 2247 3984 4041 4146 4174 4225 4266 4298
229 837 2365 3991 4077 4149 4178 4228 4270 4299
473 863 2625 4010 4078 4154 4184 4231 4272 4301
485 952 3278 4013 4079 4161 4185 4256 4274 4304
499 1047 3652 4014 4132 4163 4187 4261 4276 4309
541 1194 3735 4024 4133 4164 4190 4262 4280 4314
565 1984 3855 4025 4138 4165 4202 4263 4290 4319

* Piece number "98" was not used.

Connecting piece numbers and localities:

To identify which parishes or townships are included in a piece, please use The National Archives online catalogue. Search the catalogue by entering the series code and the piece number, e.g. RG 9/217, in the box in the upper left that says "Type reference here."

Alternatively, you can search the catalogue vice-versa (identify which piece number a particular parish or township is part of) by putting a place name in the "Word or phrase" field and "RG 9" in the "Department or Series code" field.

Some of the above information was taken from "Chapter 6: Census Returns," Ancestral Trails: The Complete Guide to British Genealogy and Family History by Mark D. Herber (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc, 1998) and Using Census Returns, Pocket Guides to Family History by David Annal (Richmond, Surrey: Public Record Office, 2002)."

Hmm, found a thread from July 2005 which referred to an old Sarah Montgomery thread that listed the missing EDs, but I can't find the thread itself.

- thanks Von, just seen your message, will see if I can find that thread (if it wasn't deleted!)

Is it possible that this is the family in 1861?

There is no evidence of this family on other census returns (there are three Richard Bib* b Lancs married to an Ellen in 1871, but each of these can be separately identified in 1861):

Name: Richard Bibb
Age: 22
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1839
Relation: Lodger
Gender: Male
Where born: L'Pool, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Liverpool
Ecclesiastical parish: St Anne
Town: Liverpool
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Registration district: Liverpool
Sub registration district: Islington
ED, institution, or vessel: 25

Household schedule number: 267
Household Members:
Name Age
Ellen Bibb 1
Ellen Bibb 13
Richard Bibb 22
Elizabeth Brice 44
Elizabeth Brice 15
John Brice 49
John Brice 11

Class: RG9; Piece: 2694; Folio: 27; Page: 50

There is a lot to suggest it may be the wrong family: wife Ellen not Hannah, child Ellen not William, all born Liverpool, and plasterer not carter (although I think I recall one of the sons starting out as a plasterer on a later census - I'll see if I can find that again - edit - must have been dreaming it!)

1901, widower:
Richard Bibby b abt 1839 Simonswood, Lancashire Head Liverpool
Class: RG13; Piece: 3418; Folio: 37; Page: 12

1891, marr:
Richard Bibby Hannah b abt 1840 Kirby, Lancashire Head Liverpool
Class: RG12; Piece: 2915; Folio 97; Page 1

1881, marr:
Richard Bibby Hannah b abt 1837 Simonswood, Lancashire Head Liverpool
Class: RG11; Piece: 3623; Folio: 65; Page: 33

1871, marr:
Richd Bibby Hannah b abt 1839 Simonswood, Lancashire Head Liverpool
Class: RG10; Piece: 3783; Folio: 82; Page: 52

It's tricky, isn't it?

I see what you mean about the relationships on the 1871 Janet, but they are listed as sons and daughters on the 1881, 1891 and 1901 census returns.

Richard Bibby is fairly straightforward to find in his own right in each of those four years but not for 1861 (living at 18 Egypt St in 1871 and 1881, and at Mulberry St in 1891 and 1901, a carter each time, and born Simonswood for three of them, although in 1891 he says he was born in Kirby).

The relationship between William, James and Elizabeth and their "parents" is not stated on the 1871 but all other relationships are listed on the page. It could just be an oversight but it could also indicate that they were the children of Richard or Hannahs sibling. Perhaps they could have been orphans. Obviously this wouldn't be the case if you have Williams BC.

I have a family on the 1851 with a nurse child. The next census she is adopted child, the following she's described as daughter.

Hi Reggie,

Richard was born in Simonswood and Hannah in Hoylake, Cheshire.

Kathlyn

Were they all born in Liverpool?

I am ready to throw something hard & solid at this computer, so a clear head and fresh pair of eyes willing to have a look for the following, would be very much appreciated:-

I have them on the 1871 census, but unable to locate them on the 1861 census.

Richard Bibby, c1839 and his wife Hannah, c1843

living in Liverpool

They were married in 1858

They have one child, William who was 11 in the 1871 census.

Richard was a "carter" in 1871

Many thanks in advance.

kathlyn