Genealogy Chat

I am on the trail of my paternal great great grandfather and maybe the answer to a family story. This is the abbreviated version!

I finally tracked James Hill down as being born in Ilton, near Ilminster, Somerset via various Census details. There are two James Hill births registered in Chard - last quarter 1837 (Vol 10 Pg 308) and first quarter 1838 (Vol10 Pg 346) and also a James Allen Hill in Shepton Mallet – also first quarter 1838 (Vol 10 Pg 412). Dilemma - which certificate if any is the one I should get? I think Ilton comes under Chard for registrations.

To complicate matters the following website (very useful)

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~sarahhawkins/ilton_baptisms_1813-1866.htm

shows a James Dight (record no 341) born (illegitimately) baptised in February 1837 following his brother Edwin (record no 313 base born!) in 1835 mother’s name is Harriet. Aha I can see you are saying Dight? But Harriet Dight then married a James Hill (presumably my 3x great grandfather in 1841) they have more sons Walter (record 420 in 1842), Edwin (again – record 454 in 1844) and John Henry (record 474 in 1846). All born in Ilton and I have tracked them to Islington in 1851 (without the Edwins who died 1842 and 1846). Leading me to my 2 questions:


First question: Could James Hill be registered twice in Chard – as birth records started in September 1837 – and could he be registered in Chard as James Hill even if shown in the Ilton Baptisms as James Dight because who would know in the registry office?

Second question: Does anyone know any history of the place, Ilton, by any chance or any websites where I could research it? British Listed Buildings website has listed as Grade II ‘The Old Cider House’ Ilton, Somerset – and there is a family story (via my grandmother, James Hill’s granddaughter) that they were ‘cider people’.

Sorry abbreviated version got a bit long, but any help, suggestions, directions will be appreciated.

Janet

1851 census for reference -

HILL, James Head Married M 37 1814 Paper Hanger Ilminster, Somerset VIEW
HILL, Harriet Wife Married F 37 1814 Ilton, Somerset VIEW
HILL, James Son Unmarried M 14 1837 Ilton, Somerset VIEW
HILL, Walter Son Unmarried M 8 1843 Ilton, Somerset VIEW
HILL, John H Son M 4 1847 Ilton, Somerset VIEW
DIGHT, Christiana Visitor Unmarried F 19 1832 Glover Ilton, Somerset VIEW

Piece: 1499
Folio: 591
Page: 5
Registration District: Islington
Civil Parish: Islington
Municipal Borough: Finsbury
Address: 5, Prospect Place, Islington, Finsbury
County: Middlesex

Hi
Thanks for that - suspect Christiana might be sister/cousin/niece to Harriet. But the others James, Walter and John Henry are mostly pinned down now - mainly in Islington area, and James' son James (can see a theme here) are all considerate in continuing to be either paper hangers, house decorators etc - which means I am confident I have located the correct family in Census records and the marriage certificate for my 1837/38 James - just intrigued by the birth certificate record and lack of cider connections!

Janet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilton

Also Google 'Ilton Parish Records' and quite a few pages come up.

I suppose that Cider, like beer, was the drink of the workers because it was safer than water. So your people may indeed have been involved in brewing Cider but not on a massive scale.

Hi JustJill

Thank you, you may well be on the right track about the cider, this is why putting my questions out there gives me a different aspect to consider.

Janet

Your James Dight aka Hill was born before Civil registration so none of the birth registrations can be him,unless he was registered late which is unlikely.

1841 England Census
about James Dight Name: James Dight
Age: 5
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1836
Gender: Male
Where born: Somerset, England

Civil parish: Ilton
Hundred: Abdick and Bulstone
County/Island: Somerset
Country: England

Street Address:

Occupation: View image

Registration district: Chard <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sub-registration district: Ilminster
Neighbors: View others on page
Piece: 929
Book: 21
Folio: 12
Page Number: 18
Household Members: Name Age
Robert Dight 30
Hannah Dight 25
John Dight 6
Elizabeth Dight 3
Harriett Dight 25 )<<<<
James Dight 5 )<<<<<
Edwin Dight 1 )<<<<

Hi Thelma

Yes, thank you, the start of Civil Registration adds to my confusion as I agree it is unlikely they would have rushed along to register the birth - unless they wanted to legitimise him to be Hill instead of Dight. But that messes up the 1841 Census!

If my James Hill (and all later Census records show him as James Hill) was born as James Dight in February 1837 to Harriet Dight with no father (as shown in the Ilton Parish Record) then the 1841 Census might not be him. But as they seemed to round down the ages to the nearest 5 years in 1841 Census then maybe a census taker would have considered that to note a 4 year old child as 0 years would have been odd, and marked him as 5 - potentially putting him the running to be my ancestor.

I had seen the 1841 Census and it struck me as odd that there are the two adults Robert and Hannah and their 2 children then another adult - Harriet with 2 children, which then sent me to look at the Parish Records and then I found the marriage Harriet Dight to James Hill (c1814) in August 1841 (in Ilton) but cannot locate it in the Civil Registration (not sure it was compulsory).

Of course on the other hand, as there seemed to be a number of Harriets, James's, Hills and Dights in the Ilton/Ilminster area these may not be connected to each other or to me and I am just following the wrong trail.

Janet
Not giving up yet or giving in and getting wrong certs

I would guess that this is the GRO marriage.Difficult to explain the different first name without buying the cert.
Why would you buy a cert. when you already have the parish record?

Hannah Dight Jul-Aug-Sep 1841 Chard Somerset
View Record
James Hill Jul-Aug-Sep 1841 Chard Somerset

-------------------------------------
09 Aug 1841--

James Full Age Bachelor Farmer? Ilton DIGHT? Harriet? HILL?, James Farmer? DIGHT?, Robert? STEVENS?, Thomas? Henry PALMER?, Curate? All signed

It is the discrepancies that make wary that I am tracking back on the correct people - the certs only come when absolutely necessary - but often give me other questions to answer.

Jannie

The rounding down of ages in the 1841 Census applies only to adults, ie to persons OVER the age of 15.

Children's ages are as accurate as in any later census


Civil registration of marriages was compulsory from the start of registration on July 1 1837, as were deaths.

It was the vicar's responsibility to send the information on marriages to the local Registry Office, and then for them to send the information on to GRO.

There ARE missing records on GRO ...... caused either by them going astray when sent on, or because the local office forgot to send them. Records can usually be found at the Local Registry Office ............. although they may be missing even then because the vicar may have forgotten to do his duty.


It is birth registrations that were strangely not made so compulsory at first.

What happened was that the law at first stated that the REGISTRAR was responsible for finding out about any births in his area, and then for HIM to go to the house and register the baby. This was supposed to be done within 6 weeks of the birth. As you might imagine, this did not work very well!! Hence the thousands of missing records.

The law was changed some time in 1874, so that the MOTHER was made responsible for registering the birth, and she had to go to the Registry Office, or to the Registrar if there was not an office. She had the same 6 weeks in which to register the birth. There was a fine if she did not do this.


Thus ............... some people never registered the baby because they missed the deadline, and didn't (couldn't) pay the fine.

OR

Some mothers missed the deadline and then fudged the date of birth so they were not fined .... and the baby now appears to be yu=ounger than he really was.

But of course, the 6 week grace period AND late registrations do mean that the registration could happen in the quarter after the babe was actually born ................ so one needs to search 2 quarters, just in case.


Also remember that at least as many people lived common-law then as now ...................... they may marry at a much later date, so always extend your search period. I've found marriages 20 or 30 years after the birth of the first baby, and I've heard of even later ones.

The reason could be that one or both partners were previously married, and had to wait until that partner died. OR, quite simply, there was no vicar in the area if it was very remote, or small, or an incumbent had not been appointed. They then had to wait until a vicar came on a tour, and married or baptised everyone who had been born or married since his last visit 5 years before.


As regards Hannah/Harriet Dight ............ have you checked to see whether there is a Hannah Dight of an appropriate age in the area on the 1841 Census? You could also check for an Anna or Anne, as these are often also used for Hannah ......... I think it often depends on the hearing ability of the enumerator :-D

There is also the fact that the records were transcribed again and again, and you can get errors when that happens.

The Local Registry Office transcribed the Vicar's record into their record book. Then GRO transcribed the record they received from the LRO into their Registry Books.

and finally, a modern day transcriber has transcribed the record from the GRO books for freebmd or other site.


I've just checked ................. and that record was typed (unusual for that period), and the name is Hannah. Those early records are usually written in beautiful copperplate .............. and mis-transcripts are common.

I'm just thinking that Hannah could possibly have been mis-read for Harriet, if it was particularly bad hand writing :-)





sylvia

Hi Sylvia

Thank you for the info - I didn't realise that the rounding only applied to adults (15 and over). I didn't discount Hannah because I thought that she could be Harriet - I have other members in my tree who used more than one name (first and last!).

Also any new system (ie registrations) is sure to cause concern, which according to GENUKI occurred from different groups for various reasons and as you say, some dates could have been fudged, registration not made, vicars forgot, registrars didn't get to everybody - and who knows what else.

What I do know for sure is that I have the right area of Somerset now (had no idea last week), that James was born in Ilton, parents are James and Harriet (maybe also called Hannah) and most likely her maiden name was DIght. He was very probably born as Dight and yet from 1851 always shown as Hill (official documents) 1851 Census birth year was 1837, 1861 Census birth year was 1836, 1871 Census birth year was 1835, 1881 Census birth year was 1838, 1891 Census he had already died. His marriage certificate in 1874 shows him aged 36 (making his birth year 1838).

All things considered I might just get a death certificate and leave the birth issue alone - whenever it was I know it happened because I am here - and grateful for that.

Janet

County Somerset
Place Ilton
Church St Peter
RegisterNumber 16
MarriageDate 09 Aug 1841
GroomForename James
GroomSurname HILL
GroomAge
GroomParish
GroomCondition Bachelor
GroomOccupation Farmer
GroomAbode Ilton
BrideForename Harriet
BrideSurname DIGHT
BrideAge
BrideParish
BrideCondition Spinster
BrideOccupation
BrideAbode
GroomFatherForename James
GroomFatherSurname HILL
GroomFatherOccupation Farmer
BrideFatherForename John
BrideFatherSurname DIGHT
BrideFatherOccupation Labourer
WitnessOneForename Robert
WitnessOneSurname DIGHT
WitnessTwoForename Thomas
WitnessTwoSurname STEVENS
Notes all signed
FileNumber 12314

Ah ha, thank you - safc, so definitely James HIll and Harriet Dight getting married in 1841, then appearing in Islington in 1851 Census.

hi just read your post i was born in ilminster at home my birth is reg in chard and so is my passport my brothers were born in hospital in taunton and they are reg in taunton same as there passport it looks like if you were born at home you were reg in chard and yes ilton comes under chard. don't really no names in ilton but there were also hill in ilminster there was a Thomas Hill who died around 1995 married to a winnie hill he died in the 2000 hope this helps
katrina

Hello Katrina

Thank you for explaining that your birth is registered in Chard but your brothers are registered in Taunton.

I will make a note about Thomas Hill married to Winnie but as my Hill family moved to London before 1851 then I think any connection may be very distant.

Janet