Settlers LV
Yorkshire to Hillsgrove: John and Mary Bagshaw Jackson
by Michael G. Clarke
December 2008
Souvenir of Hillsgrove
The Fuller Family: Now and Then
You can communicate with Mike at: Mike Clarke. So, let us now turn to his story.
John and Mary Jackson
Hillsgrove,
“I blew a horn before you were born.”
- John Jackson -
Source: “The Jackson Family,”
From: “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” (pub.1934),
By: Olive Grace (
Page 1 of 79
Hillsgrove from Jackson Mountain
The promontory also known locally as High Knob
Where the Jacksons settled in the 1850s
Source: An old uncanceled postcard purchased by Mike Clarke on eBay in June 2009
Likely dated to the 1920s or 1930s.
The following Obituary Notices are copied and pasted from Forum Threads
at Ancestry.com regarding the deaths of John Jackson and wife Mary Jackson, and
are direct copies of these notices as they each appeared in “The Sullivan
Review,” Sullivan Co.,
These last or final documentary remnants of their lives mark the
beginning of what evolved into being my journey as an examination of the lives
and the particulars of John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson; their immediate family
and their contemporaries.
Note: This examination details and documents this journey’s progress in the
chronological order of its creation, and includes the false leads and dead-ends
as well as the new discoveries, thoughts and epiphanies in the order they
occurred.
==========================================================================
|
Board: |
|
The Sullivan Review |
=============== End of this Ancestry.com Message Board Thread ===================
Page 2 of 79
|
Board: Message Boards > Localities
> North America > URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/localities.northam.usa.states.pennsylvania.counties.sullivan/4803/mb.ashx Subject: John Jackson Author: Bill
Brenchley Date: Classification: obituary Surnames: |
|
The Sullivan Review John Jackson, an aged resident of this place, died
at the home of his son, J. Lyman Jackson, on Friday last, aged 91 years. Mr. Jackson was born in Grisbrook, He was a skilled musician and can be called the
father of the Hillsgrove Cornet Band, having kept the organization together
for twenty years. Of a genial nature, he was hailed by young and old as
"Uncle Johnny Jackson" and his home previous to the death of his
wife was the scene of many parties. |
=================== End of this Ancestry.com Message Board Thread ===================
Mary Jackson’s reported
DOD:
Calendar for May 1900 (United States)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14:
21:
28
Page 3 of 79
John Jackson’s reported
DOD:
Calendar for September 1903 (United States)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calendars generated at www.timeanddate.com/calendar
Per her obituary notice, Mary (Bagshaw)
DOD = 19000514
Obit Age = -_ 870722
18129792
- 8870
18120922 = Mary’s
DOB, on or about:
The problem with this result is that the calculated year of birth per Mary’s obituary notice, 1812, does not square with her recorded age on the Passenger Manifest of the ship “Tuscarora” in November of 1848, whereon her age was recorded as 31 yrs, and which points to her birth year being about 1817. Thus there is this 5-year YOB (year of birth) discrepancy between the calculated YOB per her age as it was reported in her 1900 obituary, and the calculated YOB per her age as it appears on the 1848 Passenger Manifest.
The obituary also states that she was married “67 years ago,” which arithmetically makes 1833 the year of her marriage to John Jackson. If it is assumed that there were no children born prior to their first child George, who was born in 1841, then Mary and John would have been married 8 years before the birth of George, who is listed as being 7 yrs of age in November of 1848 on the Passenger Manifest.
Frankly, I see that as highly unlikely to the point of being
almost ridiculously impossible. Either
they had a child (or more) that was (or were) born and died between their theoretical
year of marriage, 1833, and the year George was born, 1841, or there were about
7 childless years prior to George’s conception and subsequent birth. The latter notion, though possible, is not
one which I believe is realistically plausible.
George was the first of 5 documented children that John and Mary
produced; each roughly 3-4 yrs apart. None of them died prematurely, with the
exception of Sarah who died in 1858 of illness at just under 13 years of age in
Page 4 of 79
Personally, as it pertains to their ages, I agree with the
Passenger Manifest record. The John
Jackson family as it existed in 1848, and the persons accompanying them were
duly recorded (at either Liverpool or
John
Jackson 32 m
Mary
Jackson 31 f
“ “ 8mo f
Ann Glossip 30
f
George Jackson 7
m
Sarah
Jackson 3 f
Jane Glossip 9
f
John Glossip 2
m
The Tuscarora was
a new ship, having only been launched the preceding February of that same
year. Indeed, these passengers arriving
in
(For more on the Tuscarora and the Passenger Manifest, see Pages 52 – 54).
The picture this order of appearance creates is one of this family group either boarding the ship or actually in the process of disembarking: Each passenger appearing in front of the Passenger List Recorder, and being duly recorded by him in the order they were assembled - meaning they didn’t hand-in a list of themselves. Each in their turn appeared before the Recorder; were asked their name, age and country of birth, and were likely then asked to move on allowing the next passenger to appear before the Recorder. John Jackson, being the head of the household or family, led the group and naturally Mary Jackson, his wife, followed and would be expected to be carrying their 8-month-old baby girl Martha who was duly recorded next on the list and right after her mother. (Note: 8-month-old Martha was incorrectly listed as “ditto” under Mary’s name implying her name to be the same as her mother’s).
Ann Glossip, who appears to be traveling with them, is next
on the list and she is in turn followed by the string of four children in
seeming pairs: first 2
Page 5 of 79
In 1848, John and Mary Jackson were still relatively young and probably well aware of their respective ages. 52 years later, however, upon the death of Mary Jackson, a whole lot of water had by then gone over the dam, and who knows what information was transmitted in the interim years between these parents and their children. As it pertains to Mary Jackson, there are two possible explanations for errors in her 1900 obituary, but these are theoretical ASSUMPTIONS, and must be regarded as such:
- It could be argued that when Mary’s death was reported and the obituary written, presumably by an offspring, the hand-written draft: “She was married 67 years ago” might have appeared such that a handwritten “1” in an intended “61 yrs”, was perhaps misrepresented or misinterpreted as a “7” (67 yrs vs. 61 yrs) and was printed in “The Sullivan Review” as such. If this is true, then 1839 would be the actual, calculated year of their marriage, and more in keeping with the year of George’s birth in 1841. This sort of mistake is not necessarily an uncommon one, and perhaps historically so, but this would still not explain or resolve the disparity between her reported age in the obituary and her age as it appears on the Passenger Manifest...
- It could be argued that upon death, Mary’s age in years was actually 81 and that there was an error by misinterpretation where the handwritten “1” in 81 was misrepresented as a “7” in the reported years of her life and printed as such in “The Sullivan Review.” If we round-off her assumed-to-be actual age (81 yrs, 7 mos, 22 days) to the nearest whole year, 82, then the calculated year of her birth is 1818; a year much closer and more in keeping with the calculated year of her birth per her age on the Passenger Manifest, with a mere 1-year variance between the two: 1817, (per the Passenger List) vs.1818, (per the calculated result).
And then there’s John Jackson’s 1903 obituary notice, which stipulates perhaps the most surprising and baffling revelation of all: “He was the father of nine children and leaves three sons and one daughter.”
It is true that, upon his death in 1903, John did leave three sons and one daughter: George, Martha, Benjamin and John Lyman, (listed in the order of their births), not counting Sarah, who was born in 1845 and died in 1858; which brings the documented total to 5. But who were the 4 other alleged and undocumented children, and when and where were they born? Other than the children described above, no other children are recorded in any US Census record. The 1860 Census record shows John Lyman recorded as 3 yrs old and his mother Mary being 43. It follows, therefore, that Mary was about 40 yrs old when she gave birth to John Lyman, and she was looking at being 50 yrs old by the time John Lyman turned 10 yrs old. I have to believe that from her perspective, the likelihood of any children being born by her after the birth of John Lyman was remote at best, to none, most likely.
This then suggests four scenarios that would or might explain 4 additional, alleged and undocumented children:
- The 4 alleged and unaccounted-for children were all born and died at very young ages in between US Census dates. (unlikely)
- These
4 alleged children were all born and died at very young ages prior to John
and Mary’s emigration to the
- Any combination of the above two scenarios (possible)
- The assertion that he fathered 9 children is a mistake in reporting (possible, but not necessarily likely)
Page 6 of 79
Plato ranked belief as the lowest of our mental faculties, and so with that in mind, I will “theorize” that until there is some evidence to support the “9 children” assertion in John Jackson’s obituary, I will “postulate” a combination of all of the above scenarios. To my knowledge, there is no actual or factual way of knowing who supplied John Jackson’s obituary information, or how that information was conveyed to “The Sullivan Review” for publication. The 1900 US Census indicates John Jackson Sr. living in the home of his youngest son, John Lyman Jackson along with John Lyman’s second wife, Grace and their children. One must assume from this that upon the death of the elder John Jackson, it was either his son John Lyman or daughter-in-law Grace (or both) who supplied the obituary information to the “Sullivan Review.” Mistakes and inaccuracies of every order, kind and cause are hallmarks of the human experience, and with that I am compelled to leave this one up to the reader’s opinion, or some possible future discoveries that either certify or refute the “9 child” assertion.
It can be assumed that the quality and detail of the
information that was handed-down was in all likelihood scanty, and/or
misremembered; much the same as it is today in even the most modern and “data-conscious”
families. Another example of this sort
of thing is John Jackson’s 1903 obituary wherein he is described as having been
a former native of “Grisbrook” in
It seems to me that just as “Grisbrook” was someone’s pronounced estimate or Americanized version of John Jackson’s old and obscure Yorkshire place-name and probable birthplace memory, it is possible too that Mary’s age at death, was also estimation. It is puzzling however, that her believed-to-be-exact-age was reported in “The Sullivan Review,” right down to the days, i.e., in Years-Months-Days format. Information recorded like this on grave stones was a popular convention of the time, and the argument can be made that where that kind of information was requested, so was it supplied; estimated at worst or crudely calculated at best, but supplied nonetheless.
John and Mary Jackson are both buried in the
About 3 yrs ago, William (Bill) Brenchley, also a descendant
of John Lyman Jackson, but by John Lyman Jackson’s 2nd marriage to
Olive Grace Salisbury, thoughtfully installed two beautifully made, flat
memorial grave stones in the
Page 7 of 79
This was an arbitrary decision on Bill’s part, and one not based on real or specific knowledge as to the actual whereabouts of the grave sites of John and Mary Jackson and John’s father William Jackson and his wife respectively.
This past September of 2007 when my wife, Rosemarie, and I
met with Bill at the
The Trail of Documented Ages
At this writing, we have 7 sources that document the age of John Jackson and 6 sources for Mary Jackson that occurred at the following intervals over the course of their long lives:
- The 1848 Tuscarora Passenger Manifest
- The
1850
- The
1860
- The
1870
- The
1880
- The 1900 US Federal Census (John Jackson only; Mary was deceased)
- The 1900 & 1903 “Sullivan Review” Obituary Notices, Mary and John respectively
Mary (Bagshaw)
Recorded Recorded Recorded Calculated
Source Source Date DOB Age YOB Variance
|
Passenger Manifest |
November 8, 1848 |
n/a |
31 yrs |
1817 |
Zero yrs |
|
US Census 1850 |
August 1, 1850 |
n/a |
34 |
1816 |
+ 1 |
|
US Census 1860 |
July 12, 1860 |
n/a |
43 |
1817 |
Zero |
|
US Census 1870 |
July 7, 1870 |
n/a |
55 |
1815 |
+ 2 |
|
US Census 1880 |
June 28, 1880 |
n/a |
68 |
1812 |
+ 5 |
|
Obituary |
May 14, 1900 |
n/a |
87 yrs, 7 mos, 22 days |
1812 |
+ 5 |
Page 8 of 79
John Jackson’s information:
Recorded Recorded Recorded Calculated
Source Source Date DOB Age YOB Variance
|
Passenger Manifest |
November 8, 1848 |
n/a |
32 yrs |
1816 |
Zero yrs |
|
US Census 1850 |
August 1, 1850 |
n/a |
35 |
1815 |
+ 1 |
|
US Census 1860 |
July 12, 1860 |
n/a |
45 |
1815 |
+ 1 |
|
US Census 1870 |
July 7, 1870 |
n/a |
58 |
1812 |
+ 4 |
|
US Census 1880 |
June 28, 1880 |
n/a |
68 |
1812 |
+ 4 |
|
US Census 1900 |
June -- 1900 |
|
[88] |
1811 / [1812] |
+ 5 / [+4] |
|
Obituary |
September 18, 1903 |
n/a |
91 |
1812 |
+ 4 |
Note: Date of Birth (DOB) was not recorded in any Census prior to the 1900 Census. Also, most of the 1890 US Census records were destroyed in a fire in the early 20th century; included among which were those of Sullivan Co, PA.
It appears by these statistics that as they got older, they did indeed get “older,” or at least numerically so, with the result being that by 1880 they both wound-up being theoretically born in the year 1812; which denotes a 5-yr discrepancy or variance between the first and last sources for Mary, and a 4-yr variance for John. In both cases, beginning in 1848 and as the years rolled on, the variance widened as opposed to narrowing. In both cases, the most significant age variance or discrepancy began with the 1870 US Federal Census when it appears they began to lose count. In John’s case, after 1870, the variance remained consistent with the remaining 3 source dates, with the exception of the 1900 Census when, per his recorded DOB, there is a 5-yr variance and per his recorded age there is a 4-yr variance. Mary’s 2-yr variance in 1870 widened by an additional 3 yrs in the 1880 US Federal Census to the 5-yr discrepancy between her reported age in the 1880 Census and her calculated YOB per the 1848 Passenger Manifest.
Per the US Census of 1900, John Jackson was recorded as
being 88; which as it pertains to him, was a smooth continuation of the “+ 4
YOB / Age error” which first becomes apparent in the 1870 Census. The 1900 Census also indicates his YOB as
1811 and that his year of Immigration to the
A private source at Ancestry.com shows John Jackson with a
DOB and POB of:
Page 9 of 79
In John’s case, using the “8870 Formula” to calculate his age, and if we accept the assumed to be correct DOB for John Jackson is as it is posted at Ancestry.com, and given his known DOD per his obituary and also assuming a month to be comprised of 30 days, his age at death is calculated as follows:
Obituary DOD = 19030918
Assumed DOB = - 18151208
879710
- _ 8870
870840 = 87 yrs, 9 mos, 10 days
This calculated though admittedly questionable result based on the uncertainty of John’s DOB, is about 4 years less than John’s 91 year age as was stipulated in his obituary.
The Passenger Manifest was a long-forgotten relic of John
and Mary’s past, and I am quite sure they didn’t even know of it’s existence
beyond a possible and most assuredly dim memory of that chaotic, apprehensive, brief
and certainly distant moment in time when they, each in their turn, stood
before the Passenger List Recorder and when asked, reported their respective
name, age, and country of birth, and were thus recorded on the Tuscarora’s Passenger Manifest…the
Manifest being the source against which, in my opinion, all other sources must
be weighed. Definitive and undeniable
records of birth in the form of Birth Certificates, British Census Records or a
Marriage Certificate in
Is any of this important? I believe it is if one realizes and understands an historical human condition and so take a lesson from history: The reality appears to be that it is not unlikely and indeed very possible that John and Mary Jackson were at least somewhat illiterate. This is no denigration of their relative intelligence, but is instead, an assertion based on the pervasive reality of the times. I am also quite certain that as they got older, their precise age was of little concern and of even less consequence so long as one was at least somewhat close to correct and if one could, on demand, indicate to the infrequent Census Taker one’s age (or approximate age) with some degree of seeming authority.
A Word of Caution…
Instances of what “appears” to be inaccuracies may not be necessarily so. An example: John Lyman Jackson’s grave stone in Hillsgrove stipulates a birth year of 1855 (no date provided) while per the 1860 Census he was recorded as 3 yrs old, mathematically making his YOB about 1857. In the Census of 1870 he is recorded as 13 yrs of age, again suggesting 1857 as his YOB.
As it happens, “Date of Birth” was not recorded in any US Census prior to the Census of 1900. Prior to 1900, only ages were recorded, and the instruction to the Enumerators was to record: “... the specific age of each person at his or her last birth day previous to the 1st day of June…” This means that if Lyman’s DOB was any date after June 1st and before December 31st, his recorded age as of June 1st of the current census year would imply or suggest he being as much as 1 year younger than he actually was. If this is true as it pertains to Lyman, then this might suggest 1856 being his actual birth year, and the odds of that are good with the probability being something just under 50 / 50. Without a record of Lyman’s actual DOB, we are left with the business of having to second-guess what records there are, while at the same time recognizing the uncertainty of what appears to be either true or false.
Page 10 of 79
By all accounts, close must have been good enough, and as well, it appears to have been all that the world demanded. In the end, we must accept that we can not know all things and that the smoke screens and confusion that Time, Miscommunication, Inattention to Detail and Documentation, Human Error, Bureaucracy and even Illiteracy place in the way, are all disappointingly part of the human condition and our historic experience. Without certified Birth Certificates for John and Mary Jackson, and because there aren’t even any original gravestones for them, determining their precise ages at death is impossible. Where we know with certainty what we know, we may consider ourselves blessed.
I am reminded of a “poem” which is actually no poem at all, but rather a series of sentences or phrases that former Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld uttered at a Pentagon Press Conference back in 2002 that have been satirically observed to be poetic but with which he was attempting to describe to the Press our problem with terrorists and terrorism. Poetic or not, prophetic or not, it can’t be denied that these lines very aptly apply to the possession of knowledge in general, or the lack of it, as the case may be:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns:
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
~ Secretary of Defense, Donald H.
Rumsfeld ~
---------------------------------------------------------- END ---------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- New Information / Restart ---------------------------------------------
61 Pye Bank Road, Sheffield, Yorkshire
About 1901
Sarah Jackson, daughter of John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson, was born across the street from this building in 1845. The street scene is likely to not be greatly different although it was photographed 56 years later. Sheffield was a smoky, crowded, polluted and dismal Industrial Revolution city in the middle of the 19th century, perhaps explaining the desire of the Jacksons to leave for a new life in North America,
Photo by Mike Clarke
Source: An eBay auction in April 2009
And now, the rest of the story...:
In a state of frustration as it pertains to this, the story
of John and Mary Jackson, but most specifically regarding the significant dates
of their lives, and probably because of it, I found myself surfing the net, and
wound up at a British online forum based in
Page 11 of 79
….Some background first:
A couple weeks ago, via a free 14-day trial membership at
Ancestry.com, I searched and found the scanned image of an 1841 UK Census
record whereon a John Jackson and a Mary Jackson are listed along with several
other people in what appears to be the same household; included among which is
an older Bagshaw woman by the name of Sarah Bagshaw. This census enumeration location or district
was described as: 1841 Census, Parish of Sheffield, Strafforth and Tickhill
(North Division)
The persons listed in this 1841 UK Census record appeared in the following order as:
- Sarah Bagshaw, 50 yrs of age
- John Bagshaw, 15 yrs of age
- John Jackson, 25 yrs of age
- Mary Jackson, 20 yrs of age
- William Jowet (or Jewet), 20 yrs of age
Directly underneath this apparent household of persons is listed what appears to be another household of 5 more Jackson’s, but for obvious reasons, it is the household of persons listed above that were and are most interesting and in which I was and am most interested.
I remember noticing the age of the John Jackson in this list, and that this John Jackson’s recorded age in 1841, (25), squares perfectly with John Jackson’s recorded age on the Tuscarora’s Passenger Manifest, 7 years later in November of 1848, whereon John Jackson, whom I knew to be the correct John Jackson, is listed as being 32 yrs of age. I noticed as well, however, that Mary Jackson’s recorded age “20” in 1841 does not square with Mary Jackson’s age 7 years later on the Tuscarora’s Passenger List, whereon Mary Jackson is recorded as being 31 yrs of age. I was impressed with the coincidence that there would be these people who are so very close, as it pertains to their Census information, in the company of and likely living with an older Bagshaw woman, but which must unfortunately be discounted from further consideration by virtue of Mary’s recorded 1841 Census age: “20 yrs.”
Nonetheless, I saved the image of this 1841 UK Census page
for no other reason than what appeared to me to be the oddity and the
improbable coincidence of it. For me, this
Mary Jackson’s recorded 1841 Census age closed the door on the possibility of
she being The Mary Jackson of interest who appeared on the Tuscarora in 1848.
Incredibly coincidental as this find was, Mary’s age on the Census
appeared to be a disqualification of these
A couple weeks later, I began what I wrote above, (Pages 1
through Page 10), and finished it two days ago, the morning of
For the record, the entire response and exchange to my posted appeal is a cut-and-paste verbatim copy as follows:
Page 12 of 79
=======================================================================
Sheffield
& District FHS Message Forum / Surname Interests /
Posted by: mgc, January 18th, 2008, 10:20pm
Looking for any information on a John Jackson and a Mary
(Bagshaw) Jackson in the greater Rotherham,
Thank…….. Mike
Muncy Valley, Sullivan Co.,
Posted by: Angela, January 18th, 2008, 11:20pm; Reply: 1
Hi Mike.
You state that he died in 1903, but can you please give us his year of
birth...did he marry Mary BAGSHAW in the states or was he already married when
they emigrated.
Kind Regards,
Angela
Posted by: Procat, January 19th, 2008, 3:52am; Reply: 2
Hi Mike,
Great photo.
Doug.
==========================================================================
I had posted the only photo of John Jackson -
sitting in front of their cabin home which is included with this collection. –
M. Clarke
==========================================================================
Posted by: mgc, January 19th, 2008, 4:32pm; Reply: 3
I have a copy of the original
Passenger Manifest for the American immigrant ship "Tuscarora", which
I have to believe was generated upon the passengers disembarking at
They were already married in
Family legend or lore suggests that Mary (Bagshaw)
I noticed a "Westgate" address for a certain Thomas (I
believe that to be the first name) Bagshaw listed in the 1840 (or so) Rotherham
Postal Directory, being a "
Page 13 of 79
Believe me, if this is true, I
can only tell you that his daughter did indeed break with family tradition when
she married John Jackson. Where they settled here in
Thanks for your interest and reply Angela ...
... Mike
|
Quoted
from Angela Hi Mike. |
Posted by: mgc, January 19th, 2008, 4:35pm; Reply: 4
Thanks Doug. That is
the only known photo of John 'Johnny'
Mike
Posted by: Procat, January 19th, 2008, 11:48pm; Reply: 5
Hi Mike,
Hasn't changed much has it - except for the house being gone and the colour.
I have had a look in the Marriage Indexes for Sheffield Cathedral for your time
frame and I could not locate them.
I think I have them in the 1841 census:
Civil Parish: Sheffield
Hundred: Strafforth
and Tickhill (North Division)
County/Island: Yorkshire
Country:
Registration district: Sheffield
Sub-registration district: Brightside
HO107; Piece 1329; Book: 2; Civil Parish: Sheffield; County:
Address: Andrew? Andren? Street
Sarah Bagshaw, 50, Born County
John Bagshaw, 15, Cutler, Born County
John Jackson, 25, Striker, Born County (age is interesting. looks to have been
26 then changed to 25)
Mary Jackson, 20, Born County
William Trivet, 20, Cutler, Born County
Louisa Drabbles, 15, Born County
On the same page are:
Matthew Jackson, 35, Farmer, Born County
Ann Jackson, 35, Born County
John Jackson, 13, Born County
Mary Ann Jackson, 10, Born County
Amelia Jackson, 1, Born County
Harriet Tye, 15, F.S., Born County (this is a female Servant)
Thomas Ratcliff, 20 M.S., Born County
Page 14 of 79
There are also:
Charles Jackson, 35, Grinder, Not born county
Mary Jackson, 35, Born County
Mary Ann Jackson, 11, Born County
Catherine Jackson, 2, Born County
Charles Oates, 15, Ap, Born County (this is an apprentice)
Posted by: HughW, January 20th, 2008, 12:29am; Reply: 6
Definitely
Odd to think of a farmer living there. On the 1851 OS map the northern end of
A burial from Sheffield Parish Church (now the Cathedral)
JACKSON Charles 29 Nov 1840 inf Sheffield, Andrew St John(cutler)
[name/date of burial/age/address/relationship or description]
and this may be Mary's father:
Burial at Sheffield Parish Church
BAGSHAW Charles 24 Sep 1840, 47, Sheffield, Andrew St, Cutler
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 1:36am; Reply: 7
Thanks heaps for this
information! This just might be them. One problem though
might be Mary Jackson's recorded 1841 UK Census age where she is listed as 20
yrs. That would make her only 27 in 1848, while her age as listed on
the Nov 1848 Passenger Manifest is 31. Other than that, the age of
John Jackson on the
One question as it pertains to what I assume is John Jackson's recorded
occupation: What in the world is a "Striker"?
One more photo attachment. This is a scan of a 1910 postcard of what
is (or was) locally known as "Jackson Mtn" but which is now called
"High Knob". It was on this mountain that John and Mary
(Bagshaw) Jackson found themselves in 1850 dealing with wild animals, and even
wilder weather.
Thanks so much for you help. Greatly Appreciated ....
.... Mike
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 1:56am; Reply: 8
Great Thanks to you as well
Hugh. I know what you mean about the way things change over time:
railroads where fields once were, and the like. Happily, around
here, things don't change very much and haven't over the past 100 or more
years; with the exception that, if anything, the population has declined from
its peak in 1900 at around 12,000 inhabitants in the whole county to its
current pop of 6,500, + or - few. Most everybody is happy
to boast that there is only one traffic light in this county (Sullivan), which
is an incredible state-wide, and even nation-wide exception.
Mike
Posted by: HughW, January 20th, 2008, 1:57am; Reply: 9
hello Mike,
You'll notice that all the ages in that household are multiples of 5. this is
because, in the 1841 census, the enumerator was instructed to round ages of all
those over 15 down to the nearest 5. So Mary's stated age of 20 is absolutely
consistent with the age stated on the manifest.
Page 15 of 79
A striker was the junior partner in the two-man process of forging larger
blades such as those for table knives. The forger was in charge, deciding when
the steel blade was at the correct heat and positioning it on an anvil for his
striker to ‘strike’ it with a heavy two-handed hammer.
Hugh
Posted by: Procat, January 20th, 2008, 2:26am; Reply: 10
Hi Mike,
These sorts of images go someway to help you imagine what it must have been
like for those leaving the ‘civilization’ of the
As Hugh points out the ages are correct. Even without that I
would be pretty happy it is the right family – correct names for the
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 12:20pm; Reply: 11
Well… that explains it! The “rounding-off thing”… Very
Interesting. One wonders why they would have complicated the census
process in that mathematical way. Then again though, bureaucracies
everywhere are famous for that kind of thing… a sort of time-honored tradition
meant to confuse and confound the rest of us, ad infinitum.
Is the 1841 instruction to the enumerator to “round-off those over 15 down to
the nearest 5”, (‘down’ being the most critical aspect of the instruction
formula especially as it affects Mary’s recorded census age in 1841),
documented somewhere or is that a general knowledge thing?
That piece of information is the bees knees, to be sure, and I am most thankful
for having posted my queries here at this forum, and positively Most Grateful
and Thankful for your collective knowledge and responses. Incredible! My day is
made.
I’m going to add these threads to my “Genealogical Archive Of Sorts” here, and
include credit to you all for your help and knowledge.
I am, as you would likely say: “Gob-smacked” ….
…. Mike
Posted by: Procat, January 20th, 2008, 12:33pm; Reply: 12
Hi Mike,
it is documented at the start of each booklet.
See this link (amongst others)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kayhin/eni1841.html
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 12:52pm; Reply: 13
We wonder about that too… all
the time. They came to a wild place, in almost every imaginable
way: The dirt, the rocks, timber rattlesnakes, black bears, the
bugs, the heat in summer, the extreme cold in winter, no facilities of any kind
(medical or otherwise), very few and wide spread other human beings as a
support group, all of whom were struggling with their own sets of life-sustaining
challenges and problems. They had to
literally drag a log behind the wagon like an anchor when they came down off
the mountain to prevent the wagon from over-running the horse or
horses. The first Jackson primitive log home (or shelter) up on High
Knob had a nailed-up blanket for a door pending the advent of forged metal
hinges if or when one was lucky enough to get them. And of course,
all of this was preceded by 5-6 weeks at sea, (Oct-Nov 1848), and in steerage
no less!
Page 16 of 79
I
find it incredible that they actually found themselves attractive enough, given
all of the above miseries, to even reproduce, which, miraculously, they
did. John and Mary Jackson went on to have two more US-born sons. They
lost one of their 3 Yorkshire-born children, Sarah, in 1858 at the age of just
under 13 due to measles, and she is buried in a small old cemetery in the
valley below. Photo attached. But land was cheap... 50
acres and more for a pittance was the norm, and they certainly had
unconstrained freedoms and absolutely no limitations, other than the sky, and I
suppose that was the lure that inspired them.
Mike
[quote=239]Hi Mike,
These sorts of images go someway to help you imagine what it must have been
like for those leaving the 'civilization' of the UK and heading into the great
unknown.
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 1:42pm; Reply: 14
Like 'Manna from Heaven,' this
and you are! One, gigantic and lucky break visiting this site.
I know its getting redundant, but Thanks again!
... Mike
|
Quoted
from Procat Hi Mike, |
Posted by: HughW, January 20th, 2008, 3:04pm; Reply: 15
Marriage at Sheffield Parish Church (St Peter's, now the
Cathedral)
volume F page 63 entry 188 (volume covers Oct 1835 to Jul 1836)
[Archives volume reference for microfiche: PR(M)138/130]
John JACKSON Mary BAGSHAW
This is an index so for the exact date and the names of witnesses you would
need, in some way, to access the original at Sheffield Archives. And given the
possible connection with places outside of
Hugh
ps does the one traffic light always turn out to be on red when you get to
it :D
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 4:08pm; Reply: 16
lol... It's red about 50% of the time. / ; ) I
am located about 15 miles south of the light, on the same roadway, and when we
can't get onto the roadway from our driveway because the traffic is coming
south and goes by in a bunch of 5 or 6, as it sometimes does, we joke saying
the light must have changed up there…… Mike
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 4:19pm; Reply: 17
Is this true.... that this is
>the< actual record of a John Jackson marrying a Mary Bagshaw, and that
these are the actual Vol, Page, and Entry numbers that record that
event? If so, how does one obtain a copy ?! What is the
procedure? Who does one contact? Amazing! Where
do you find this stuff!
Mike
Page 17 of 79
|
Quoted
from HughW Marriage
at Sheffield Parish Church (St Peter’s, now the Cathedral) |
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 4:35pm; Reply: 18
Incidentally, and just for the record, this is a tin-type
photo of the youngest of John and Mary Jackson’s children: John Lyman Jackson,
born in the
Posted by: Angela, January 20th, 2008, 5:30pm; Reply: 19
Hi Mike.
I’ll take a look at the original marriage certificate sometime this week at the
archives….if the original is good enough to copy I’ll send you a scan.
|
Quoted Text Where do
you find this stuff! |
Hugh, Doug, myself and others on this list have transcriptions relating to
Kind Regards
Angela
Posted by: mgc, January 20th, 2008, 5:41pm; Reply: 20
Hi Angela….,
That would be about as good and wonderful a thing as I could ever imagine! My
fingers are crossed that the original is scan-able.
Just Terrific, Thanks Angela….... Mike
==========================================================================
Pause in this exchange…
==========================================================================
It appears from this dialog that the 1841 UK Census image file which I downloaded from Ancestry.com several weeks ago, and which I gave the filename: “1841 UK Census John and Mary Jackson Strafforth and Tickhill (North Division) Sheffield, S. Yorkshire,” is the correct Census page image with the correct John and Mary Jackson recorded on it, and that these persons are extremely likely to extremely certain to be the John and Mary Jackson pair who ultimately settled near Hillsgrove, Pennsylvania, 8 yrs later in 1849 on the mountain locally and familiarly known as Jackson Mountain, or as it is more often referred to today: High Knob.
Page 18 of 79
Here are 6 points, facts, circumstantial and otherwise, that back-up this assertion:
- John Jackson’s recorded 1841 UK Census age at 25 squares perfectly with his age 7 years later on the Passenger Manifest, however, it should be noted that it appears that the enumerator initially wrote “26” and then changed the “6” to a “5” making it “25.” This implies a possible birth year of 1815 for John Jackson, and that per the instructions to the enumerators of the 1841 UK Census, John’s recorded age was or may have been rounded-down to 25 from 26.
- Mary Jackson’s recorded 1841 UK Census age does not square with her recorded 7 yrs later on the Passenger Manifest, but this problem is perfectly explained and thus resolved with the knowledge that: “…in the 1841 census, the enumerator was instructed to round ages of all those over 15 down to the nearest 5.” In 1841, Mary was over 20 yrs of age and less than 25, so her age was rounded-down to the nearest multiple of 5 and was therefore recorded as “20.” We can assume her actual age was 24, and that squares perfectly with her recorded age of 31 yrs on the Passenger Manifest 7 years later in 1848. John, on the other hand, was either a perfect multiple of 5 at 25 yrs of age and his age was not mathematically manipulated, or he may have been 26 but no more, and thus his Census age would have been rounded-down and recorded as 25.
- By 1841, John Jackson and Mary Bagshaw were married and hopefully the scanned image of their Marriage Certificate as promised by “Angela,” (above), will materialize and supply the Place and Date unknowns. How incredible it is… how unlikely and odd that they should be living in a household headed by an elder “Bagshaw” woman. Of all the last names there are, these two: John and Mary Jackson, are living with an elder woman whose last name is Bagshaw…. “Bagshaw” the surname of family lore and legend, passed down through what is becoming “the ages,” and which is, by the tradition of familial memory, the believed-to-be or known-to-be maiden-name of Mary!
In all likelihood, the elder
Bagshaw woman is the mother of Mary, and so John and Mary Jackson were living
in the household of Mary’s mother, Sarah Bagshaw, who’s 1841 Census age was
recorded as “50.” How fortunate is it,
that the name “Bagshaw” was not forgotten; that somehow it survived the ravages
of time and human memory. This surname
was, in this case, the key to linking, indeed discovering, and at the same time
knowing what I recognized to be a pair of young and presumably married
- The next point: The mathematics of probability, where as “Doug” indicated above: “…As Hugh points out, the ages are correct. Even without that I would be pretty happy it is the right family - correct names for the Jacksons and the fact they are in the same house as the Bagshaws - a fairly unusual name by the way, only 1,622 in the 1841 census and only 355 in Yorkshire.”
Page 19 of 79
This makes the Jackson–Bagshaw association even more mathematically less probable and thus more significant in a population of people with many and varied surnames. This therefore lends great weight to the certainty of these people as being the correct people. And there they are, in black and white, living together and recorded as such, all under the same roof. The somewhat unusual name: “Bagshaw” lends mathematical weight to handed-down family lore from the “associated-with-Jackson” standpoint.
- Circumstantial evidence as it pertains to the name “Sarah” as with the elder Bagshaw woman: Sarah Bagshaw. John and Mary Jackson had three Yorkshire-born children, the first of which was male, George. The second child born to them was female, and she was given the name Sarah. I find this circumstantially significant: Mary, it can be argued, named her first-born female child after her mother, “Sarah” Bagshaw. This kind of thing, although circumstantial for sure, is as we know, a customary child-naming convention that happens frequently and therefore adds its own additional circumstantial weight on the plus side, in my opinion.
- And lastly, the locale: The 1841 UK Census record, Sheffield, Strafforth, Tickhill, on one hand and the “Grisbrook” mentioned in John Jackson’s 1903 obit and which I have to believe is actually the Americanized interpretation or version of Greasbrough, and which was likely where John Jackson indicated his birthplace to be when asked where he came from, are both South Yorkshire place names that are not more than 10-15 miles apart. Again, the Marriage Certificate will or may add an additional place name to the record.
For my part, I am prepared to accept and believe that, as it
pertains to the 1841 UK Census record, it is in fact, The Record that lists and
records The Correct Set of Jackson’s: John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson. The evidence that supports this far outweighs
any argument against this apparent and most probable certainty. Indeed, there is no argument against what I
believe is a certainty other than perhaps, a weak and presumed argument of
“mere coincidence.” Again, the advent of
the Marriage Certificate will or may be the clincher that further supports
this. As of this moment, two days have
expired since “Angela” at the
==========================================================================
Re-start Sheffield & District FHS Forum Exchange
==========================================================================
Title: Re: Re
From: Angela
Date
Received: Today,
Hello again
Angela,
Don't want to be a bother, but it occurred to me that you might need some way
of actually contacting me or "alerting" me regarding the Jackson
Marriage Certificate. I don't know how
this works, or what the contact procedure is you have there, and I may be (and
probably am) anticipating a problem where there is none, but I just want to
make sure there's no problem contacting me.
Thanks so
much again Angela,… I’ve been basically walking on air with these so easily
resolved epiphanies and discoveries, all Thanks to You and Hugh and Doug…
Mike
Page 20 of 79
Hi Mike.
I will contact you thru email once I have the certificate or the details.
Happy to be of assistance.
Angela
==========================================================================
My thoughts: (
==========================================================================
My thoughts: (
==========================================================================
Thur.,
Well, it happened. This morning the scanned images of the actual John Jackson and Mary Bagshaw Marriage Registry Certificate arrived, attached to an email with the following text supplied by “Angela” and my reply:
==========================================================================
Date: Thu,
From: Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject: Jackson/Bagshaw
marriage
Hi Mike.
Attached is the marriage from the
I had to darken the print for the writing to show up. I have printed it as a
full page with the other 2 entries and again as a single marriage. In case you have problems reading it, it
reads:
John JACKSON of this parish, Bachelor and Mary BAGSHAW of this parish,
Spinster. Were married in this church by Banns with consent of…….............this
thirteenth Day of December in the Year One thousand eight hundred and thirty
five. By me Edwd Goodwin Assistant
Minister.
John
Jackson made his mark “X”
Mary Bagshaw made her mark “X”
The witnesses were W. Wheatley who made his mark “X” and Joseph Hudson. Joseph
Hudson, being a clerk of the church who witnessed numerous marriages around
this time.
Kind Regards,
Angela
Treweek
Search Secretary Sheffield & District FHS
www.sheffieldfhs.org.uk
==========================================================================
Page 21 of 79
Date: Thu,
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To: Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject:
Re: Jackson/Bagshaw marriage
Angela......
How can I ever thank you enough.
Every now and then I find myself commenting that, in strange ways, unseen
forces lead me to remarkable and wonderful people like you. I know it sounds
weird, but there ya go, and once again I am going to have to explain this that
way.
My wish was to establish some definitive evidence that placed these two
forebears in S. Yorkshire, since I knew that to be the general locale of their
British origin. My wish has come true and to you, Angela, I am so Very
Thankful.
In what has to be Record Time, so many unknowns are now known, and with unbelievable
ease and completely unexpected aid and involvement by yourself as well as Doug
and Hugh, and on that score, I just can’t thank all of you enough.
When I registered at the site, (and that was only but a few days ago), I did so
with the notion that this was just another “shot in the dark” and that the
likely result would be, perhaps, another dead-end at worst, or idle and
uninformed comment at best. What actually resulted was, in my view,
nothing short of a Miracle. I had more or less and intuitively, given-up
on any real hope of further discovery, and certainly never in my wildest
imagination did I expect this!
Angela, you are indeed an “Angel” and proof-positive that there really are exceptional
and good people on this planet.
Mike Clarke
=======================================================================
Date: Thu,
From: Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Jackson/Bagshaw marriage
Dear Mike
Thank you for your comments...we do I try our best to help people like yourself
who do not have access to the records.
So whenever you have any questions, feel free to post on our message
board... I can’t guarantee that we will have all the answers though.
I love researching and also helping others in their
research, so any knowledge or
experience that I can pass on...then you can be sure I will. Hugh is very
knowledgeable on everything that is
Kind Regards
Angela Treweek
www.sheffieldfhs.org.uk
==========================================================================
Date: Thu,
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To:
Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Jackson/Bagshaw marriage
Page 22 of 79
Angela,
One
question...: I take it that describing or defining the bride as
"Spinster" was a convention of the time. Here, and probably there
in the
And one more question...: Regarding the "X's"... Can we assume they
are in all likelihood the actual handwritten notations of John and Mary
themselves, which one can take to mean that they were likely illiterate?
(probably sounds like a stupid question).
Mike
==========================================================================
Date: Thu,
From: Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Jackson/Bagshaw marriage
Hi Mike
The "X" on the certificate would have been in their hand, and the
vicar filled in the names.
Spinster was used for
any single woman, whatever age. The only alternative allowed was widow or
widower, if either party had been married before. It is only after the Civil Partnership Act of
2004 that the term spinster has been replaced by "single". This
allows couples of the same sex to marry.
We use
spinster in the same context as you do......or the alternative is old maid.
This family history lark certainly gets complicated...LOL
Hope this helps.
Angela
www.sheffieldfhs.org.uk
==========================================================================
Date: Thu,
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To: Angela Treweek <searches@sheffieldfhs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Jackson/Bagshaw marriage
Hi Angela... Thank you again. And Yes, I agree, this
family lark thing certainly does get complicated, and at the same time, utterly
absorbing.
I took a look at the
All the Best.... Mike
==========================================================================
** (I had attached a
year 2002 photo of the Union Church in Hillsgrove)
==========================================================================
End of this email exchange
==========================================================================
Page 23 of 79
This, I have to believe, pretty much winds-up this portion of the odyssey. The bottom line:
- John
Jackson and Mary Bagshaw were married in
- They were married 6 yrs before their oldest son George was born in 1841. It is not known if, prior to George, (between the years 1836 and 1840), there were any other pregnancies that may have failed or children born that may have died, as the case may be.
- Mary
died first: 14 May 1900, and three years later John died:
- Regarding the length of John and Mary Jackson’s marriage, and knowing the date of its beginning to be 13 Dec 1835 and if it is agreed that its end is marked by the death of Mary on 14 May 1900, the term of this marriage can be calculated two ways as follows:
Method 1:
Yr Mos Days
Mary’s DOD = 1 9 0 0 0 5 1 4
DOM = - 1 8 3 5 1 2 1 3
In the Months column, 12 (DOM) can not be subtracted from 05 (DOD), so 12 months are borrowed from the Yr 1900 and added to the Mos column of Mary’s DOD:
Mary’s DOD = 1 8 9 9 1 7 1 4
DOM = - 1 8 3 5 1 2 1 3
6 4 0 5 0 1 = Married: 64 yrs, 5 mos, 1 day
Method 2:
Using the “8870 Formula” the calculated result is as follows:
Mary’s DOD = 1 9 0 0 0 5 1 4
DOM = - 1 8 3 5 1 2 1 3
6 4 9 3 0 1
-
8 8 7 0
6 4 0 4 3 1 = Married: 64 yrs, 4 mos, 31 days
These differently calculated results are essentially identical. In all, and as of the date of Mary’s death in 1900, John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson were married a total of exactly:
64 yrs, 5 mos, 1 day … or …
64
yrs, 4 mos, 31 days.
==========================================================================
Page 24 of 79
A Note for the Record:
My knowledge of the name “Bagshaw” comes by way of word of
mouth through the generations. It is one
of those “Known Knowns.” It’s a name that
we simply know we know. It was not
written down or documented in any known source or sources that I was or am
aware of other than the recently received 1835 Sheffield Church of St Peter and
When I first met Bill Brenchley, (also a
I vaguely remember her last name, Bagshaw, being mentioned
by my father, and he must have acquired it from his Jackson-born mother,
Florence Mildred (Jackson) Clark, (who knew much and spoke often of
It seems that once knowledge like this is implanted in one’s brain early on in one’s life, one tends to conscientiously repeat it while at the same time often dismissing or absent-mindedly ignoring or forgetting the source of that information. I sent an email to Bill Brenchley regarding this question of the source of our knowledge of Mary’s maiden name:
==========================================================================
Date:
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To: “Brenchley, Bill” <wab1@stny.rr.com>
Subject: Bagshaw
Hi Bill...
Do you know where the name Bagshaw first appears? Where does this name
come from? Is it documented
somewhere? How do we know as we do that Mary’s maiden name was Bagshaw?
Mike
==========================================================================
Shortly after I sent the above email, Bill called and we discussed
this “problem” over the phone and he, like I, was just as surprised with this revelation,
since he too could not recall the source of this knowledge other than the name “Bagshaw”
has always been, to him, the given, understood and expressed maiden name of
Mary. Bill has had a lifelong interest
in
So, there we were, standing in the Hillsgrove Cemetery in August of 2007: two divergent Jackson family descendants: Bill at about 78 yrs of age, and myself at about 57 yrs of age; each of us descendents of John Lyman Jackson, (Bill, by Lyman’s 2nd marriage to Olive Grace Salisbury, and I by Lyman’s 1st marriage to Julia Ann Fuller). Neither of us knew of each other prior to the summer of 2007, and then only by the great good fortune of the computer, the internet and the Sullivan County GenWeb website - the source that alerted Bill to my existence and my email address.
Page 25 of 79
Bill and I used the name Bagshaw when discussing Mary as if nothing was unusual about it; never giving it a second thought and neither of us consciously recognizing that this name, Bagshaw, which for me proved to be so fundamentally critical to this study; most especially to these most recent discoveries, comes separately to us both by some miracle of the ages: A miracle which, on this date, has somehow successfully perpetuated itself for over 172 years!
This miracle, as I call it, is the miracle of a blind but dedicated verbal tradition. Its survival through the generations is incredible when one considers that it is probably the one piece of knowledge that is positively unchanged and uncorrupted despite 172 yrs of “human handling.” It is a communicated name-heritage repeated over and over these very many years; handed down from one generation to the next, and what is more, along two wholly disconnected and divergent family lines and I think that this truly is Miraculous.
================================== End ==================================
New Information - Restart
I no sooner put the period on the end of the last sentence
above, when new information has once again surfaced. This new information pertains to the parents and
grandparents of Mary (Bagshaw)
But before I begin with that, I’m inserting for the record a
portion of the following email response which I received today,
==========================================================================
Date:
From: Bill Brenchley <wab1@stny.rr.com>
Subject:
John and Mary Jackson
Glad you
could find that. We discussed the years they were born for a year or two,
Everything we did - the census the obits every thing we did was off about 3
years so I guess we used the obit’s not sure anymore.
The markers we put there I thought no one would ever put a marker there unless
I did it, The years may be off a couple but I’m not going to worry about it. Keep up the good work Mike,
Bill
==========================================================================
Note: By “we” Bill is
referring to himself and others unknown before me, and by “markers” Bill is
referring to the two flat
Page 26 of 79
Next, I sent a similar email announcing the good fortune of
my most recent findings to a woman in
The contact in Rotherham is another woman who is an employee of the City Council who had replied to an email I sent local government there inquiring about sources for research or information acquisition, and it was she who referred me to her friend in Canada.
The woman’s name in
The following begins with her email reply:
==========================================================================
Date:
From: sparent <sparent@rogers.com>
To: Mike Clarke <clarkemg@epix.net>
Subject: More
Hi Mike, I
couldn't resist in trying to find out who Sarah Bagshaw was. Tickhill is
not far from Sheffield or my home town of
Charles Bagshaw marr. 1814 @ St. Peter's,
A Chas.
Bagshaw was bp. 1793 @
A Sarah
Bingham was bp. 1791 @
Shirley
==========================================================================
Date:
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To: sparent <sparent@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: More
Incredible!
I'll bet Charles Bagshaw and Sarah (Bingham) Bagshaw are the parents of Mary
(Bagshaw)
Attached is
the image of the Census page with Sarah Bagshaw listed on it. I wonder
what happened to Charles between 1814 and 1841. This just reminded me that this
genealogist/researcher at
Page 27 of 79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burial at
BAGSHAW Charles 24 Sep 1840 47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(DOD 1840) - (DOB 1793) = 47
... And that's him! Just unbelievable.
So, it appears that Charles
Bagshaw died the year before the 1841 UK Census, and that explains why only
Sarah Bagshaw appears on it as the head of the household. Unbelievable!!
Thanks so very much Shirley.... Mike
==========================================================================
Pause in this email exchange…
==========================================================================
This exchange locks it! Whereas the elder woman, Sarah Bagshaw, was a prior Unknown she is now a Known, and there are now other Knowns as well. Per another 1841 UK Census search engine, which I found online and which also provided the Piece, Folio and E.D. Numbers for the 1841 UK Census page, this was the household of Sarah Bagshaw in June of 1841:
Bagshaw, Sarah of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
Bagshaw, John of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
Jackson, John of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
Jackson, Mary of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
Irwet, William of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
Drabble, Louisa of
(Piece #1329/2, folio 9b, enumeration district 4.)
- Sarah (Bingham) Bagshaw was recorded as being 50 yrs of age in the 1841 UK Census, which squares perfectly with the birth year that Shirley Parent supplied: 1791. (1841 – 1791 = 50).
- Sarah Bingham (Bagshaw) was born in 1791, and her parents were recorded as Martin Bingham and a woman named Mary.
- Sarah
Bingham married Charles Bagshaw in 1814 and Mary Bagshaw (
Page 28 of 79
- Mary
Bagshaw married John Jackson
- Charles Bagshaw was born in 1793, and his parents were recorded as Edward Bagshaw and a woman named Martha.
- Charles Bagshaw’s recorded age (47 yrs) at the time of his death (1840) squares perfectly with his recorded birth year: 1793, (1840 – 1793 = 47), and because Charles Bagshaw died in 1840, he would not and does not appear in 1841 UK Census.
Some known Unknowns, Some former unknown Unknowns, a former known Unknown, and one heretofore known Known:
The Binghams and The Bagshaws
Sheffield, South
Martin & Mary BINGHAM Edward & Martha BAGSHAW
b. Unknown b. Unknown b. Unknown b. Unknown
d. Unknown d. Unknown d. Unknown d. Unknown
Sarah BINGHAM (Bagshaw) Charles BAGSHAW
b. 1791, Sheffield b. 1793,
d. Unknown
d. 1840,
Married 1814,
Sheffield,
Mary BAGSHAW (
b. about 1817,
d.
==========================================================================
Restart this email exchange
==========================================================================
Date:
From: sparent <sparent@rogers.com>
To: Mike Clarke <clarkemg@epix.net>
Subject: Brightside
Hi Mike, I
found your query on the Sheffield FHS site and saw the 1841 Census. You
mentioned Tickhill to me, now I see why…
Page 29 of 79
Sarah Bagshaw and family were living in Brightside, an area in
Derbyshire
which is “cheek by jowl” to
==========================================================================
Date: Sat,
From: clarkemg@epix.net
To: sparent <sparent@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Info.
Hi
Shirley.... The US Federal Census of 1850 shows Wm Jackson (John's father) as
being 58 yrs old, making his birth year 1792. It also states his country
of birth as
Wm's wife, Martha, (presumably his 2nd wife and the widow he married in
Yorkshire whose former last name was Glossop, presumed) is listed in the same 1850
US Census along with him as being 60 yrs of age, making her birth year 1790.
Since we know Wm's son John was 32 yrs old on the 1848 Passenger Manifest, and
since that age squares perfectly with the 1841 UK Census 7 yrs earlier, John's
birth year must have been 1816.
Both Wm and John Jackson (father and son) immigrated to the
For these reasons the Wm and John Jackson you located are not the same persons,
but as always, I really really do appreciate your incredible interest and help
Shirley. Thanks ever so much... The info you came up with yesterday
literally clinched the Bagshaw side of things by connecting and melding so
perfectly with the tidbit that the researcher at Sheffield FHS had supplied,
and which I didn't really pick-up on at the time. That was just plain old
miraculous!
I'm still fixated on the "Grisbrook" / Greasbrough thing, and I have
to believe that John Jackson, son of Wm, must have been born there... It's just
such a glaring and unusual statement of seeming certain fact in his obituary.
I don't really understand how things work or worked there in
Mike
=================================================================================
I decided to post another query regarding William Jackson
and son John Jackson’s Grisbrook / Greasbrough birthplace problem at the
==========================================================================
Sheffield & District FHS
Message Forum:
URL: http://www.sheffieldfhs2.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?b-dm3/m-1201378482/
Posted: Yesterday,
The father
of John Jackson (the John Jackson per my previous Post and Replies) was named
William Jackson. My best guess is that his birth year is 1792, based
on his recorded age in the 1850 US Fed Census. His birth location is
unknown other than I am quite sure S. Yorkshire.
Page 30 of 79
Evidently, (according to family lore) John Jackson was William's oldest son,
and perhaps oldest offspring by his (William's) first marriage, spouse
unknown. William went on to marry a widow by the name of Martha, and
her believed-to-be last name was Glossop. She had a son Jack by her
previous marriage.
Both William and his second wife Martha immigrated to the
John
married and lived in and around Sheffield prior to him and his wife immigrating
to the
The 1903
Is there
any way of determining:
1.) Is this true, that Greasbrough is the correct birthplace for John Jackson
2.) Who John Jackson's biological mother was (Wm's first marriage)
Thanks ....
==========================================================================
To date, there has been no response to this most recent query.
==========================================================================
John and Mary Jackson gave up just about everything they owned when they left England for America in 1848; and turned their backs forever on a life and a place in England that they knew but which was, by all accounts, dirty, overcrowded, polluted, class-based, fraught with limitations, and fundamentally futureless – right out of the pages Dickens.
In Liverpool, and probably late in September, 1848, they boarded the 3-masted American sailing ship, “Tuscarora,” crowded with 360 immigrants like themselves; most of them in steerage, as were John and Mary Jackson and family, and for about six storm-tossed weeks endured and survived that late-in-the-year-voyage to a new world and an entirely new life.
With receipt of that most welcome email from Angela in Sheffield, to which the Marriage Registry image files were electronically attached, and upon opening and seeing these images for the first time and seeing each of their marks “X” in their own hand next to their names, I was struck by the knowledge that I was looking at the images of a document that is over 172 yrs old and that no other child or descendant of John and Mary Jackson has ever seen this before…That indeed, the last persons related to John and Mary to have seen these before me were, in fact, John and Mary themselves. For me, it was one of those moments when time literally stopped.
.
I did not change the filenames of the two images of the Marriage Registry Certificate that Angela assigned to them. I did however make additional copies of those files and named the copies differently. The original files are filenames are:
Jackson003.jpg: Cropped version, partial registry page, center section of 3-entry page, showing only that portion of the page (the middle) pertaining to John and Mary, file size: 1,681 KB
Jackson marr002.jpg: The full registry page image version as it exists in its original form with three marital parties recorded on the same registry page, file size: 2,051 KB
Page 31 of 79
Upon arrival on the shores of the
William and son John Jackson had a vision, and what they sought is what they found: The welcome and open arms of the natural world and a pioneering lifestyle in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. It was a world that gave them little, but it appears that it was a world to which they cheerfully gave their all. John and Mary lived long and very colorful lives together, due in large measure to what I believe to be the probable fact that they themselves were colorful and fundamentally happy people.
As for John Jackson specifically, we can speculate or assume
that his birthplace was Greasbrough, Yorkshire; that he later sought and found
employment in
Regarding this document… I signed its beginning on Page 1 and signed-off on Page 10, which was what I believed at the time to be The End. This was followed by the Restart on the same Page with the advent of new information. I anticipated concluding this work on Page 25 and again signed-off as I did back on Page 10 only to Restart again for the same reason. By method, I am leaving in the Stops and Restarts to show and as well to protect the integrity of this process of discovery and to preserve the chronology of this document’s creation and evolution.
With this documentation, and as it pertains to the name “Bagshaw”: That very old, very fragile, and heretofore tenuous chain of information-sharing and memory transference on which this name depended for 172 years, is finally broken, and it is my wish now that Mary Jackson’s maiden name is accorded this sorely needed “Now or Never Documentation for Posterity” that both she and it have for so long been wanting. No longer will the vague knowledge of Mary’s maiden name be dependent on those two activities that are so dependably undependable: word of mouth and human memory.
==========================================================================
End
==========================================================================
Page 32 of 79
New Information – Restart
31 May 2008
On
John Jackson Birth/Christening
per FamilySearch.org
Regarding John Jackson’s birth, the following known search criteria were used:
- Name: John Jackson
- Event: Birth/Christening
- Year: 1816 Range: (+ or – 2 yrs)
- Father: William Jackson
- Place:
This search resulted in a total of exactly 100 possible hits, of which # 46 (below) was the only hit that described a John Jackson being born specifically in Greasbrough; to a father who’s name was William Jackson, and within the 4-year (1816, + or – 2yr) search criteria time frame: 1814 – 1818, and most conveniently not more than one year prior to 1816:
- JOHN JACKSON – International Genealogical
Index
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
For the sake of space and clarity, and because #46 and only #46 specified “Greasbrough” as the place of birth of this particular John Jackson, and to a father whose name is William no less, all of the 99 other results were eliminated from consideration, and hence not listed here.
Given that this John Jackson was born in Greasbrough, (the “Grisbrook” as I believe this town or hamlet to have been erroneously reported in his 1903 obituary), and assuming this is the correct John Jackson; we now know or may assume his mother’s name to have been “Martha.”
Assuming this is the correct John Jackson, and if we also assume that his (this) christening was conducted within a short time after birth, and if we use the Christening date as the approximate date of birth, John Jackson’s approximate age at death can be calculated as follows:
19030918 = Date of Death
- 18150108 = Date Christened
880810 = John’s approx Age at Death = 88 yrs, 8 mos, 10 days
In this case and with this result, John Jackson’s actual age was about 3 yrs younger than his age as it was reported in his 1903 obituary.
Page 33 of 79
William Jackson Birth/Christening
per FamilySearch.org
For this search, there was one very remotely possible hit:
WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents: John
Jackson and Ruth
The father of this particular William Jackson (John) is
circumstantially interesting, however, with no heretofore known father, no
conclusion, remote or otherwise, can be correctly determined, since there were
so many returned William Jackson births and christenings over a wide range of
places; at least several of which where places in Yorkshire. William
Jackson’s date and place of birth must, for the time being, continue to be Known
Unknowns.
William Jackson Marriages to
“Martha” (1st wife of Wm & birth mother of John Jackson) per
FamilySearch.org
Regarding William Jackson’s marriage to a presumed or suspected “Martha,” the birth mother of John Jackson, I used the following known, or assumed to be known, search criteria at FamilySearch.org:
- Name: William Jackson
- Spouse: Martha
- Event: Marriage
- Year: 1812 Range: + or – 2 yrs (given the assumed knowledge that John was the oldest or first child born to William Jackson as it was so recorded in the “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” 1934)
- Place:
Search Results:
1. William JACKSON - Ancestral File
Gender: M Marriage:
2. William Jackson - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Martha Gill
3. WM. JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
4. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 04 MAY 1812 Whitchurch,
Bride: Martha Jefferies
5. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 22 MAY 1813 Great Budworth,
6. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Martha Sidney
Page
34 of 79
7. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 04 DEC 1814
8. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 04 DEC 1814 Cathedral,
9. WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 24 DEC 1814 Illogan,
10. WILLIAM JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 28 MAR 1814 Scarborough,
Bride: Martha Allen
11. William JACKSON - Pedigree Resource File
Gender: M Marriage:
12. William Jackson - Pedigree Resource File
Gender: M Marriage: 22 May 1813 Great Budworth,
Results #2 and #6 appear to be the most promising given their Yorkshire locales, but of the two, #6 is the most probable since Bolton Upon Dearne in Yorkshire is a mere 6.8 miles from Greasbrough. #10, Scarborough, although also in Yorkshire, is too far from Greasbrough (59 miles) and Sheffield (68 miles), to render it seriously plausible as far as it being the likely locale of the marriage of John Jackson’s parents; likewise the same can be concluded with all of the rest of these results or hits. None of the above search results is more than a shot in the dark, and nothing whatever is absolutely certain, even as it pertains to #6 - the most plausible candidate of them all. However, if we choose to accept #6 based on its apparent plausibility, then we can assume “Martha Sidney” to have been John Jackson’s birth mother.
Martha Sidney Birth (possible
1st wife of Wm Jackson and mother of John Jackson)
per FamilySearch.org
Regarding Martha Sidney, assumed or presumed and possible first wife of William Jackson and birth mother of John Jackson, a search at FamilySearch.org yielded one and only one inconclusive and really rather suspect search result:
1.
Martha Sidney
- International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Female Christening:
First of all,
Sarah Jackson (2nd
child born to John and Mary Jackson) per FamilySearch.org
Again, still using FamilySearch.org, a similar search for John and Mary Jackson’s second born child and daughter: Sarah, yielded 5 possible hits; the first 4 of which were false hits since they were results from the 1881 UK Census describing various Sarah Jackson’s as being an adult and a wife, whereas we know that the Sarah Jackson in whom we are interested died in 1858 at just under 13 yrs of age and in the U.S.; in Hillsgrove, PA specifically. The remaining hit, #5, ranks as “very possible” and this is it:
Page 35 of 79
5.
SARAH JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 23 MAR
1845
Parents: John Jackson and Mary
Martha Jackson (3rd
child born to John and Mary Jackson) per FamilySearch.org
A search for John and Mary Jackson’s third child, Martha, yielded 1 and only 1 hit:
1.
MARTHA JACKSON - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 02 APR 1848
St Nicholas, Liverpool,
Parents: John Jackson and Mary
Additional “most probable” to “most certain” search results at FamilySearch.org, and omitting the total number of obviously erroneous other hits for each of the following searches respectively, included:
Mary Bagshaw (wife of John
Jackson) Christening/Birth per FamilySearch.org
MARY BAGSHAW - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening:
Parents: Charles Bagshaw and Sarah
Charles Bagshaw (father of
Mary Bagshaw) Christening & Marriage per FamilySearch.org:
CHARLES BAGSHAW - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents: Edward Bagshaw and Martha
CHARLES BAGSHAW - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Sarah Bingham
Edward Bagshaw (father of
Charles Bagshaw) Marriage per FamilySearch.org:
EDWARD BAGSHAW
- International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Marriage: 27 MAY 1787
Rotherham,
Bride: Martha Harrop
Sarah Bingham (wife of
Charles Bagshaw) Christening/Birth per FamilySearch.org:
SARAH BINGHAM – International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 13 DEC 1791
Cathedral Saint Peter, Sheffield,
Parents: Martin Bingham and Mary
Martin Bingham (father of
Sarah Bingham) Christening and Marriage per FamilySearch.org:
MARTIN BINGHAM – International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents: Jos. Bingham, (no mother listed)
Page 36 of 79
Martin BINGHAM – Pedigree Resource File
Gender: Male Marriage: 1780 Sheffield,
Bride: Mary
All of these people are people about whom something is already known as indicated earlier in this work. What this new information does is add heretofore unknown birth, marriage and/or christening data to each of their respective records, and as well repeats, confirms and supports what has previously been known or suspected about them. But most interesting of all is the information pertaining specifically to Sarah and Martha Jackson, the first and second daughters born to John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson:
SARAH JACKSON – International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 23 MAR 1845
Parents: John Jackson and Mary
MARTHA JACKSON – International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 02 APR 1848 St Nicholas,
Liverpool,
Parents: John Jackson and Mary
If it is assumed that these christening records describe and
pertain to the correct Sarah and Martha Jackson, a timeline can be drawn
between the 1841 UK Census record showing John and Mary Jackson in Sheffield,
Yorkshire and Martha’s 1848 birth 7 years later in Liverpool,
The only record that was returned at FamilySearch.org for a
Sarah Jackson born to a father John Jackson and a mother Mary in
Three years later, Martha was born and the only record that
was returned at FamilySearch.org for a Martha Jackson birth to a father John
Jackson and a mother Mary in
Statistically, how incredible is it that a Martha Jackson
was born to a John and Mary Jackson set of parents, and christened on that
convenient date and in Liverpool of all places, the very port at which the John
and Mary Jackson family boarded the ship Tuscarora
bound for
If this Martha Jackson is the correct Martha Jackson, born in Liverpool, then one can logically conclude what must have been the procession of this family from Sheffield to Liverpool, since as it stands, it seems to me most practical to assume that this journey must have been a process rather than an event, and that this process likely occupied a period of time between the years 1842 and 1848.
Page 37 of 79
I thought it logically acceptable to imagine that their journey
took them to
This theoretical, 2-step route from Sheffield to Halifax and
then Halifax to Liverpool begins in a NN-Westerly direction from Sheffield to
The question is: Was this the route the Jackson’s took which, if true, might make these Christening landmarks along its path evidentially significant, or did they cross the Peak District in a more direct fashion and in one go, thus rendering these Christening records merely coincidental and unrelated events? I posed this question at the Sheffield FHS genealogy forum:
==========================================================================
Sheffield & District FHS Message Forum /
General Family History / Sheffield to
Posted by: mgc, June 1st,
2008, 2:33pm
There are those who maintain that there is no such thing
as a stupid question, but here’s one that may fall into that category:
In 1848, would a family wishing to travel from Sheffield
to Liverpool necessarily do so by travelling westward through the Peak
District, or would they more likely take a NNW route around the Peak District
to, say, someplace like Halifax, then of course, WSW toward Liverpool?
In other words, in 1848, were there enough accommodations and/or roads running
through the Peak District in a westerly direction from Sheffield toward
Liverpool or would this have been an illogical route to take for a family with three
small children?
It appears to me from pictures and maps I’ve seen that the Peak District is
today a rather rural and even empty area. One can imagine from this
what it must have been like 150 or more years ago.
Dumb as this question may seem, it does have some certain and specific genealogical
ramifications.
Thanks…..
Mike,
Sullivan Co,
Page 38 of 79
Posted by: Procat, June 2nd,
2008, 9:19am; Reply: 1
Hi Mike,
They may have gone by train. I have an 1840
There was the
There were other alternatives by rail but this seems the most convenient
direct.
Posted by: mgc, June 2nd,
2008, 11:19pm; Reply: 2
Thanks for that info... which indicates that by rail was
the likely transportation candidate if traveling directly west from
The implication being that the act of moving from
Sheffield to Liverpool was a process and not an event, and that this process
was a 2-step procedure which took them from Sheffield NNW to Halifax, then WSW
from Halifax to Liverpool, where an additional child was christened in 1848,
again with the correct first name, correct parents, and correct or expected
date of birth.
One would think that I would be elated and quite satisfied with these two
christening finds, but I’m a freak for accuracy, and I guess I’m sort of
anticipating or even inventing any kind of argument against these findings that
is possible before committing to a “victory,” genealogically speaking, if you
know what I mean.
Mike
Posted by: mgc, June 3rd,
2008, 9:19pm; Reply: 3
The more I think about the train thing, the more I am
inclined to think that ‘by train’ wasn’t the mode they employed in getting from
Sheffield to
Mike
Posted by: Kate Stabb,
June 4th, 2008, 6:53am; Reply:
4
Hi Mike and Doug,
I have wondered along similar lines for some time. I know my forebears came
from
Kate
Posted by: Procat, June 4th,
2008, 8:21am; Reply: 5
Hi Mike and Kate,
I have no knowledge of how affordable train travel was however I suspect that
you may well be correct in thinking it may have been expensive (even third
class) for the likes of ag labourers etc. I remember reading somewhere that
train travel had a huge impact on the population and the ability to travel but
I do not recall the time frame.
If they didn’t go by train I suspect the alternatives
would be by foot or by wagon. If they could not afford a train it would be
unlikely that they could afford to go by coach.
Posted by: mgc, June 4th,
2008, 9:53am; Reply: 6
All of this points to the likelihood that getting
somewhere significantly distant must have been for most people a process and
not a singular event, per se. And I’m getting more elated by the
moment here since this seeming truth, or at least likelihood, tends to support
two
Page 39 of 79
In Kate’s case, the process was in the
opposite direction (
Ah, the problem of logistics adding further confusion to the quest for
information!
Without this forum, where else would we or could we vent these bewilderments?
Mike
==========================================================================
This discussion and these thoughts give great weight to the
argument that says Sarah Jackson may have been born in Halifax and Martha in
And here again, as with Martha, how incredible is it statistically, that this search resulted in only one record of a Sarah Jackson being born to a John and Mary Jackson set of parents and at such a convenient time, in Yorkshire, and not too far from Sheffield; along what appears to be a logical, circumnavigatory path of sorts between Sheffield and Liverpool?
Realizing how critical it was to establish the actual and
documented birthplace of Sarah as it pertains to this idea of a migratory route
(1842 to 1848) from Sheffield, to
==========================================================================
Sheffield &
District FHS Message Forum / General Family History / Sarah Jackson
Posted by: mgc, June 4th,
2008, 9:30pm
Is there a way (an easy way,
hopefully) of determining if a Birth Registration or Christening Record (or both)
exists in
Sarah Jackson
DOB: March, 1845 (Mar 21, 23 and 29 are possibles)
Parents: John and Mary Jackson
Is there anything like a master look-up file somewhere that facilitates this
without having to rifle through hundreds of ancient documents?
Fingers are crossed.... Mike
Posted by: Lozzie, June
4th, 2008, 11:14pm; Reply:
1
Hi Mike
The registration is:
Births Jun 1845 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON Sarah
Purchasing the birth certificate
will give you the address that she was born at.. which may narrow
down to the actual church she was baptized at. It will also give her
mothers maiden name
Page 40 of 79
Without an area of where she lived, I think it could be a big task to track
down her baptism. Also children weren't always baptized
at an early age... I have them baptized at 5, 8 and even 10 years old....along
with the youngest sibling!
Sorry if I wasn't much help
Loz
Posted by: mgc, June 4th,
2008, 11:28pm; Reply: 2
Hi and Thanks
Loz,
What does "The registration is: Births Jun 1845
(>99%)" mean ?
And what is "
I'm a complete idiot here. Another problem is that I'm in the
Thanks again… Mike
Posted by: HughW, June
5th, 2008, 2:13am; Reply:
3
Hello Mike,
The information that Loz has given is an entry from the GRO index. The GRO is
the general Register Office, the body set up in 1837 to register all BMDs in
Loz got this entry from the
[url]http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/search.pl
[/url] transcription which I can
tell because the '>99%' is a measure of how complete that transcription is
for that quarter.
The GRO index is in fact many indexes - one for each quarter and 'Jun 1845'
shows that this entry appears in the index for the Apr/May/Jun quarter of the
year. With a birth in late March and 6 weeks allowed to register a birth this
is the expected quarter.
Sheffield 22 563 is the reference showing where in the centrally held GRO
register the full record of the birth can be found. We cannot access it
ourselves, we have to buy a certificate onto which the details have been
copied.
'
22 (sometimes listed as XX) is the number of the register volume at the GRO
which includes Sheffield R.D. A few years after this date the numbering was
changed and
563 is the page number within that volume.
This reference is used when
applying for a certificate from the central GRO. Local register offices do not
use this system. I hope that helps,
please continue to ask questions about anything that isn't clear. We were all
beginners once :)
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, June 5th,
2008, 2:31am; Reply: 4
OK... I think I got it Loz...
Sheffield 22 563 = Vol and Page in the Registry (or something like
that), but I am quite sure that this particular Sarah Jackson's birth month was
March and not June and that it was likely one of these two dates: 21st or the
29th, (big MAYBE: the 23rd)
Page 41 of 79
Her parents names were John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson (Here we go again folks,
for all of you who waded through these people the last time I harangued you all
with them back in January).
The problem I'm trying to solve is defining exactly where this daughter, Sarah
Jackson, was born... be it in Sheffield or possibly in
If she was actually born on the 21st of March, then one might conclude that she
could theoretically be christened two days later on the 23rd. The
problem is basically two-fold:
1.) Which date was she born on: 21st or 29th of March, 1845?
2.) What locale - Sheffield (where they were living in 1841), or
Mike
Posted by: mgc, June 5th,
2008, 2:36am; Reply: 5
Thanks Hugh... I didn't see your
post because I was still typing mine. We were about 15 mins apart.
Mike
Posted by: mgc, June 5th,
2008, 2:44am; Reply: 6
So, basically, it appears I
would have to purchase two certificates to determine which of these two Sarah
Jacksons is the one I'm looking for: One from
Thanks again Hugh,
Mike
Posted by: HughW, June
5th, 2008, 3:14am; Reply:
7
I would order the
Do not be put off by the fact that no baptism has yet been found in
Certificates can be ordered online at http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/.
It is also possible to order them through the Sheffield Council site but at the
moment they cannot accept payments by credit card.
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, June 5th,
2008, 11:12am; Reply: 8
Thanks Hugh and Loz......
It's ordered!
And assuming this works, and I get a positive result, it may answer some
questions. Then again, even if the results aren't
"positive" then that too will answer some questions. (Sort
of like
Thanks…
Mike
Page 42 of 79
==========================================================================
My Comment: As is evidenced and as advised, I ordered the
Sarah
==========================================================================
Posted by: mgc, June
22nd, 2008, 12:29am; Reply:
9
To Hugh and Loz....
Today I received in the mail, a certified copy of Sarah Jackson's birth
registration certificate. It happens that it is in fact the correct
Sarah Jackson, born in Sheffield in 1845, and this puts to rest any theory I
had that these Jacksons were on the move by then toward Liverpool (sort of) and
that Sarah might have been born in Halifax.
I think it's amazing to think that in just under 13 yrs after this poor girl
was born in
Thanks to you both for your input and advice and for steering me in the right
direction. As always, it is greatly appreciated.
Mike
==========================================================================
Sarah Jackson Birth Registry
Certificate
On this date I received a certified and correct copy of Sarah Jackson’s Birth Registry Certificate from the General Register Office (GRO) in Merseyside, UK, (GRO Registry Reference: Vol 22, Page 563). The Certificate stipulates the following information:
- DOB:
- POB:
No. 60,
- Date
Registered:
- Parents: John Jackson and Mary Jackson (formerly Bagshaw)
What locks this as being the correct Sarah Jackson is the
stipulated maiden surname of Sarah’s mother: “Mary Bagshaw.” How useful and incredibly fortunate is
that! It appears also that per the Birth
Registration, John and Mary did indeed move, but not very far since in 1845 and
at the time of Sarah’s birth, they were still in the general neighborhood or
vicinity of their former Andrew Street address as recorded in the 1841 UK
Census. This new address,
This discovery puts to rest my theory or suspicion that Sarah
may have been born in Halifax, during the time of a theoretical family
migration of sorts which was thought or suspected by me to have occurred and transpired
as a 2-step process from Sheffield to Halifax, then later from Halifax to Liverpool. This theory, for which I am solely responsible,
was inspired by the record I found at FamilySearch.org which described a Sarah
Jackson christening and whose parents were recorded as being a John and Mary
Jackson, in
Page 43 of 79
With this latest proof, it is now established and certain that John and Mary Jackson and family were still living in Sheffield in 1845 at the time of Sarah’s birth, and the earlier FamilySearch.org Sarah Jackson record reflects an entirely different Jackson family.
The question of Martha’s place of birth in 1848 remains unanswered and unknown and the suspicion that her birthplace may have been Liverpool is still a viable and logical possibility, again given information I found at FamilySearch.org which, as with Sarah, points to a Martha Jackson being christened in Liverpool on an acceptable or expected date in 1848, and whose parents were recorded as John and Mary Jackson. Establishing the certainty of Martha’s place of birth will be the next step.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, I found it hard to believe that in 1848, passage
could be arranged and paid in Sheffield for an ocean voyage beginning in
I posted the following query at the Sheffield & District Genealogy Forum regarding this notion I had and which resulted in the following responses:
Sheffield &
District FHS Message Forum / General Family History / Vol XXII
Posted by: mgc, June 24th,
2008, 9:35pm
Is it possible to anticipate the
locale of an event based on the Vol Number as it appears for a Registry page
entry?
Specifically, does a Vol Number
of “22” for a Birth Registry entry in 1841 suggest or point to a birth in
Mike
Posted by: topaz1v, June
25th, 2008, 1:11am; Reply:
1
Hi Mike,
I have looked through various of my BMD transcriptions and you cannot pinpoint
an exact area for Vol. 22 as it could be many parts of Yorkshire, i.e.:
Doncaster, Sheffield, Wortley, Barnsley,Halifax, they all come under Vol.22 yet
Leeds comes under Vol. 23, these are all handwritten and sometimes very hard to
read but I have looked through about 20 transcriptions and I what I
came up with.
Regards, Jean
Page 44 of 79
Posted by: topaz1v, June
25th, 2008, 1:14am; Reply:
2
forgot to add were you looking
for a specific person, can I help
jean
Posted by: Angela, June
25th, 2008, 7:07am; Reply:
3
Hi Mike.
You need to use the local register office index and for Sheffield this is at
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/register-office
Scroll down to “To search the index of births, deaths and marriages in
This actually gives you the district. E.g.; Sheffield North, Sheffield South,
Nether Hallam, Brightside Bierlow etc....which will help you pinpoint the
certificate you require.
S&DFHS are indexing these and I know that every record is checked against
the original as one of the transcribers. We are up to the year 1875 at present.
Hugh used this site when he pinpointed your Sarah Jackson.
Angela
Posted by: HughW, June 25th,
2008, 7:13am; Reply: 4
GRO references should always be
quoted with the relevant registration district.
These were the registration districts
covered by Volume 22:
Barnsley
Dewsbury
Doncaster
Ecclesall Bierlow
Ecclesfield
Halifax
Huddersfield
Pontefract
Rotherham
Sheffield
Wakefield
Wortley
The original indexes do not give information about where events were registered
within the RD,
but the ongoing indexing project for Sheffield BMDs does show sub-districts.
See:
http://libplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/bmd/SearchMain.aspx
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, June
25th, 2008, 9:31am; Reply:
5
Thanks to ALL of you for your
responses and your help.
I came up with this question as an after thought after having placed an order
for a Birth Certificate for an individual born in Sheffield in 1841...:
To answer Jean's question specifically, this individual's name was George
Jackson, born in Sheffield in June of 1841 to parents John and Mary (Bagshaw)
Jackson who were recorded in the 1841 Census living at a Brightside address:
Andrew St. A few days ago I received the correct Birth Certificate
copy for the next-born child, a girl, Sarah Jackson, born in 1845 in Sheffield
and again in Brightside, but at a different address although only about, or
less than, a mile away: Pye Bank Road.
Page 45 of 79
"Very close in
proximity" being what I can discern from this side of the Atlantic and
street maps of
Happily, there was a third child born in the UK, this time in 1848, Martha
Jackson, to these same parents, and because these 3 births are spread out as
they are between 1841 and their immigration to the States in 1848, I am hoping
to track their movements, if any, in the UK prior to boarding a ship in
Liverpool in the latter half of 1848.
I found and ordered as well a Birth Certificate copy for a Martha Jackson, also
born in
My belief is that Martha was born in March of 1848 since she was recorded in
November of that year on the Passenger Manifest as being 8 months old, and I
find it hard to believe that this family transported themselves, with an infant
no less, to Liverpool from
Mike
Posted by: HughW, June
26th, 2008, 1:55am; Reply:
6
I think that the economy of this
country in the 1840's was more sophisticated than you give it credit for. In a
period of extraordinary growth in industry and the market for goods, as well as
the financial mechanisms for moving and manipulating money, I cannot think that
the purchase far from the ports of tickets for berths on ships can have been a
problem.
Although the following entry in
an 1841 directory (listed at Sheffield Indexers), relates to a different
destination, I am sure there were similar agents for
Chaloner, Geo (~, Printer, Bookseller & Stationer. Australian Emigration
Agent).
Residing at
Recorded in: Henry & Thos. Rodgers Sheff & Roth Directory - 1841.
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, June
26th, 2008, 10:31am; Reply:
7
Thanks Hugh,
I don't doubt that there is a logical explanation for overcoming what appear to
be logistics problems, financial and otherwise, since after all they did in
fact do the trip, and there must have been an agent in
Assuming that the ordered Birth Certificate for Martha Jackson who was born in
March or April of 1848 will indicate the correct parents and a Sheffield
address, a mere 8 months prior to embarkation on an American ship at Liverpool,
one can only conclude that there must have been some kind of agent in Sheffield
who facilitated and organized the Passage transaction and maybe even the
solution to actually getting to Liverpool.
What I do know however, is that this would not have worked here in the
Mike
==========================================================================
Page 46 of 79
Martha Jackson Birth Registry
Certificate
On this date I received a certified and correct copy of Martha Jackson’s Birth Registry Certificate from the General Register Office (GRO), Merseyside, UK, (GRO Registry Reference: Vol 22, Page 681). The Certificate stipulates the following information:
- DOB:
- POB:
- Date
Registered:
- Parents: John Jackson and Mary Jackson (formerly Bagshaw)
“Mary Jackson, formerly Bagshaw” locks this as being the correct birth record, and the Burgess Street address, being the place of Martha’s birth, indicates that they had indeed moved again but within Sheffield itself, sometime between 1845 (Sarah’s birth) and 1848 (Martha’s birth).
FamilySearch.org, it appears, has led me on a wild goose chase as it pertains to Sarah and Martha Jackson specifically. This received and correct Martha Jackson birth certificate silences, once and for all, any argument or notion based on information returned at FamilySearch.org which implies, suggests, or points to the possibility that this Jackson family was on the move between Sheffield and Liverpool during any period between the time of Sarah’s birth and Martha’s birth registration date of 4 May 1848. I was totally off the mark and mislead by the other seemingly correct Christening records which I found at FamilySearch.org, since they were, in fact, false leads describing events that actually pertained to entirely different people.
I am convinced now that passage arrangements from Sheffield
to Liverpool were arranged in Sheffield, and that the journey from Sheffield to
The Tuscarora
itself was as well a new-born of sorts, having been launched a mere 2 ½ months
earlier in
==========================================================================
Sheffield & District FHS Message Forum /
Private Messages / Vol 22, etc
Posted by: mgc, July 1st,
2008, 3:08am
Hi Hugh, Hi Angela,
Rather than clog-up the flow of other members and their more recent or current
questions and problems on the greater forum floor, I thought it best to simply
contact you this way to let you know that today I received the second of two
correct Birth Registration Certificates: Martha Jackson (b. 1848) and one about
a week and a half ago for Sarah Jackson (b. 1845).
Page 47 of 79
In both cases, the parents are
correct with the added bonus of their mother’s maiden name being also included
on the Certificate (Bagshaw), which locks it for both.
You were right Hugh... passage
to Liverpool and arrangements for a trans-Atlantic crossing must have been
handled by or through an agent in Sheffield, and that
Most importantly, I want to
Thank You both for this site, your time, patience and advice without which none
of this would have happened for me.
Best Regards, Mike
==========================================================================
George Jackson Birth Registry
Certificate
On this date I received a certified and correct copy of George Jackson’s Birth Registry Certificate from the General Register Office (GRO), Merseyside, UK, (GRO Registry Reference: Vol 22, Page 537). The Certificate stipulates the following information:
- DOB:
- POB:
- Date
Registered:
- Parents: John Jackson and Mary Jackson (formerly Bagshaw)
There has been considerable confusion and misinformation regarding
George’s date of birth and even more as it pertains to his date of death. The work of some researchers indicates
George’s DOB to have been
- In
Hillsgrove, Sullivan Co, George’s DOB was recorded as “
- In Union Twp, Tioga Co, George’s DOB was recorded as “Sep 1842”
It appears per the 1900 Census record that George was staying with a married son, Charles, who resided in Hillsgrove. It is my belief that George must have been working at the Tannery in Hillsgrove, perhaps on a temporary basis and staying with his married son’s family there for the period that work was available, and must have been periodically returning home to his wife, Martha A. (Boyles) Jackson and their as yet unmarried, younger children in Union Twp, Tioga County.
George would not have been counted in Hillsgrove had he not, in fact, been there: Living there on a temporary or transient sort of basis, but living there nonetheless. Also, to date, no record of what must have been George’s post-1910 / pre-1920 death has been found.
Page 48 of 79
Using this logic, I reasoned that it must have been George
himself who supplied his date of birth: “
1.) A
2.) It appeared that the handwritten DOB: “10 Jun 1841” as it was recorded in the 1900 US Census in Hillsgrove must have been misread or misinterpreted somewhere along the line, where “Jun” was incorrectly read or transcribed by somebody as “Jan”… a closed “a” versus an open “u.”
3.) I reasoned also that George’s DOB as it was recorded in the 1900 Census at Hillsgrove must have come from George himself and was therefore the correct DOB since no one else would have had more precise knowledge of George’s DOB than George himself!
Martha A. (Boyles) Jackson, George’s wife at home in
As George’s Birth Registration Certificate shows, Martha A. (Boyles) Jackson, his wife, got the month right, but the year wrong. The Certificate also implies that, in fact, it probably wasn’t George himself who supplied his own birth date in Hillsgrove, but more likely his son, or worse - his son’s wife, and whereas they got the year right, both the month and date are wrong.
The conclusion: All sources and genealogies found thus far specifying various and sundry dates of birth for George (aka “Pappy”) Jackson are all incorrect; excluding of course the recently received and certified copy of George’s 1841 British Birth Registration Certificate; DOB: 29 Sept 1841.
One Clarifying Note For The Record:
George Jackson married Martha A. Boyles. George Jackson’s sister, Martha Jackson, married William J. Boyles, the brother of George Jackson’s wife, Martha. In other words, the brother and sister of one family each married the respective brother and sister of another family, with both women sharing the name “Martha.” In this way and for this reason, the Jackson and the Boyles families were very closely associated, and I now more fully understand the childhood memory I have of my Grandmother, Florence Mildred (Jackson) Clark, frequently referring to and recollecting the Boyles family. As a child, and while passing in the car, I distinctly remember her pointing out various family’s houses and a farm that was the “Boyles farm,” the specific location of which, I don’t now recall.
Page 49 of 79
Summary of Information as it appears on the Birth Registry Certificates for each of John and Mary Jackson’s three UK-born children
When and Occp’tion Signature & When Signature
Where Born Name Sex Father Mother of
Father Residence of Regist’d
of
Informant Registrar
|
29th of Sep 1841, |
George |
Boy |
John Jackson |
Mary Jackson, formerly Bagshaw |
Table Blade Maker |
“X” The mark of Mary, Mother, |
23rd of
Oct, 1841 |
George Sykes, Registrar |
|
20th of Mar 1845, No. 60 Pye Bank, Brightside-Bierlow |
Sarah |
Girl |
John Jackson |
Mary Jackson, formerly Bagshaw |
Table Blade Striker |
“X” The mark of Mary, Mother, 60 Pye Bank, Brightside-Bierlow |
20th of Apr, 1845 |
George Sykes, Registrar |
|
24th of Apr 1848, |
Martha |
Girl |
John Jackson |
Mary Jackson, formerly Bagshaw |
Table Blade Forger |
“X” The mark of John Jackson, Father, |
4th of May, 1848 |
George Taylor, Registrar |
Charles Bagshaw Death (husband
of Sarah Bagshaw; father of Mary Bagshaw)
Today, 19 July 2008, I received a certified and correct copy of Charles Bagshaw’s Death Registration Certificate from the General Register Office (GRO), Merseyside, UK, (GRO Registry Reference: Vol 22, Page 341). The Certificate stipulates the following information:
DOD:
Place of Death:
Age: 47 years Cause of Death: “decline”
Signature and Residence of Informant: Sarah Bagshaw,
Olive Grace (
Up until now, the only documentary reference source available
regarding the families of William Jackson and John and Mary Jackson was the
two-page dedication to them written by Olive Grace (
Grace was born in1868 and was the surviving 2nd
wife of John Lyman Jackson - he being the youngest of John and Mary Jackson’s
children. “Lyman” died in 1929 and Grace
went on to live a long life before passing away in 1954. She and Lyman had a rather large family and
many descendants. The descendants of
Lyman’s first marriage to Julia Ann (Fuller)
Page 50 of 79
Only one of Lyman’s three children by Julia was male:
Raymond E. Jackson, my (G-Grandfather), and likewise he too had three children
of which only one was male: Raymond Sidney (“Sid”)
All of this helps to explain what evolved into being Grace’s
apparent matriarchal
Fig. 1
Excerpt from: “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” Page 43
- First
of all, we now know with certainty that John and Mary Jackson arrived in
- The opening sentence of this paragraph states that William reared “…a large family of which Johnny was the oldest…” We know that John was about 20 yrs of age in 1835 when he married Mary Bagshaw which implies that John’s siblings were likely at various ages in their teens and pre-teens in 1835, and how many there were in all is simply unknown. But if at least one of these alleged siblings was under 10 yrs old in 1835, then the youngest of them would likely not have been more than about 12 to 14 yrs of age by the time of William’s theoretical 1842 emigration to America, which we are arithmetically forced to conclude, must not have occurred before 1842 since that disputes the youngest child, or children, being fully “raised” by then.
Page 51 of 79
- The forenamed “Mary,” (2nd wife of Wm Jackson), is a possible to probable error or misnomer since this person was recorded in the 1850 Census as “Martha.” One or the other of these two sources is incorrect, and given that there appear to be certain errors or inaccuracies in Grace’s account in the “Souvenir,” my opinion was initially weighted heavily in favor of the Census record in this matter and that William’s 2nd wife’s name was in fact “Martha.”
- Regarding the mysterious “Jack”…: As we know, “Jack” is often used as a nickname and assigned to males who have the first name “John,” as with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who was and is often referred to as “Jack Kennedy.” With more than one “John” around and because I suspected Ann “Glossip” as being the possible wife of “Jack” and as well the mother of an additional John: 2 yr old John “Glossip” (per the 1848 Passenger Manifest), it is logical and not necessarily surprising that one or the other of these “Johns” may have been dubbed with the nickname “Jack.” Assuming this is so, then “Jack” may actually have been “John Glossop,” son of William Jackson’s 2nd wife, Mary (or Martha) and the husband of Ann “Glossip” (Glossop).
Sometimes the truth is hinted in the errors. Examples: During the course of this research,
I became aware that the surname “Glossop” is a typically
The assertion (Fig. 1) that: “…Six years later, Johnny’s father and stepmother joined Johnny in his
pioneer venture…” appears faulty--the implication there being: 6 yrs after
1840, or 1846 as being the start-year or beginning of the Jackson venture in
Sullivan County. Grace went on to stipulate
an 1846 arrival in
Fig. 2
An 1846 arrival in Hillsgrove is off by being at least 2 years too early,
and more likely as much as 3 years too early.
It should be noted that in 1933 – 1934, when Grace supplied
this information for publication in the “Souvenir,”
roughly 85 to 95 years had elapsed since the events of which she wrote had
occurred. Indeed, many of these events
in the lives of the
Page 52 of 79
Who was it then that correctly remembered and supplied “1848” as being the year of John Jackson’s emigration in his 1903 obituary notice? The answer to that question may be John Lyman Jackson. Grace stipulated in the “Souvenir” that John Jackson died in 1896 and that Mary died in 1894, whereas we know per the obits in the “Sullivan Review” that Mary died in May of 1900 and John died in September of 1903. Grace went on to stipulate that as of 1934, the year the “Souvenir” was published, Martha (Jackson) Boyles, 3rd child of John and Mary, was 88 yrs of age, which arithmetically makes 1846 the calculated year of her birth and which again points to and supports her assertion that 1846 was the year of John and Mary’s emigration. Most odd is what appears to be Grace’s assertion that her husband, John Lyman Jackson, died in 1931, while his death certificate and gravestone both stipulate 1929 as the year of his death. In Grace’s defense, I would suggest that this error is most likely an editing error that occurred prior to final publication, since I find it impossible to believe that she would have made this mistake. (Regarding John Lyman Jackson’s significant dates, see Pages 9 and 77).
Grace enigmatically refers to the
Grace’s account also includes anecdotal references to the
With this it can be concluded that the Jackson’s were a fundamentally happy and optimistic lot, and that their prior life experience in what I have come to know to have been the labor-abusive reality of England of the 1830’s and 1840’s, (Sheffield most specifically), probably resulted in their having developed or acquired an acute sense of, and bad feelings about, slavery and labor abuse in any and all of its various forms. After having extracted themselves from their own earlier harsh and futureless circumstances and being thus benefited by their new-found freedoms; it would follow as it appears: That they were most happy to aid in extending this same or similar opportunity of freedom to those who they perceived as being in equal or greater need of it.
Greatest Thanks are also extended to Grace for having
mentioned the ship Tuscarora in her
account, since without that there would simply have been no knowledge of
it. Most fortunately, the Tuscarora’s November 1848 Passenger
Manifest was not lost to the ages, but is in storage and on microfilm at the
U.S. National Archives, (Film M425, Reel 67, List 232).
As an aside, I will add that in Oct of
2005 the Passenger Manifest was transcribed and posted online at the ISTG
website, (“Immigrant Ships Transcribers Guild”). The volunteer transcriber of the Tuscarora’s microfilmed Passenger
Manifest was a certain Janice Peterson, who happens to live in
Unfortunately, Grace’s account does not include the name of
the ship that transported William Jackson and wife to the
Page 53 of 79
The Ship Tuscarora
After a great deal of online searching and researching, I
managed to collect a considerable amount of information regarding the Tuscarora. Briefly, the information collected included
the ship’s beginning in 1848 at Philadelphia, as well as its end in 1873 off
the coast of Spain, where she sank during a severe storm; taking along with her
the Captain, 14 crew members and 3,650 bales of cotton.
At the time of its launching:
The Watercolor
Paintings of the Tuscarora
Research during the latter half of
2007 regarding the Cope Bros. Liverpool Line and the ship Tuscarora led me to an obscure web page at the
I contacted an administrator relatively
high up in the
The HSP is located in Philadelphia Page 54 of 79
Interestingly, these two paintings depict the Tuscarora’s beginning as well as its demise. Fortunately, the artist, D. J. Kennedy, included a notation at the bottom of the earliest painting which reads in part: “Philadelphia Packet Ship” Tuscarora” of Cope Bro’s, Liverpool Line”“Sketched in the stream at Walnut Street Wharf Philadelphia This earliest watercolor image of the Tuscarora was painted 4 months after the ship was launched in Philadelphia in February of 1848, and 5 months prior to its return to Philadelphia from Liverpool in Nov of 1848 with John Jackson and family aboard. In early-November of 2007, I ordered and received high quality digital images of both of the Tuscarora watercolor paintings from the HSP - about, if not in fact, 159 yrs to the day after John and Mary Jackson and family stepped off the Tuscarora at Philadelphia. At this juncture, I am going to assert that the November date of the Passenger Manifest defines its having been drafted upon arrival in Philadelphia , and not upon departure at Liverpool .==========================================================================
General Registry
Office (GRO) System in
In
Much, but not all, of the
information in the “black hole” was filmed by the Church of Latter Day Saints
(the LDS) and can be found at their online site: FamilySearch.org. However, at some point, some Districts in
I conducted a massive amount of searching online, using several British research sites as well as Ancestry.com in my attempts to discover the answers to the following Known Unknowns:
- Which family, if any, in the 1841 UK Census is the correct William Jackson family?
- The identity of William Jackson’s 1st wife; her first name and maiden surname if possible.
- The date of William Jackson’s 1st wife’s death, hoping that it may possibly have occurred post Sept 1837, since Sept 1837 is the earliest searchable start date using the GRO system.
- The date of William Jackson’s 2nd marriage and his 2nd wife’s identity, and hopefully thereby resolve the discrepancy between the 1850 US Census record that William’s 2nd wife was “Martha” and Grace’s assertion in the “Souvenir” that William’s 2nd wife was “Mary.”
- The identity of “Jack” (son of Mary Goslip, per Grace’s account in the “Souvenir”).
- The
year of William Jackson’s immigration to the
- The identity and relationship of “Ann Glossip” (per the Tuscarora’s 1848 Passenger List) to the Jackson’s and possibly “Jack Goslip” (John Glossop presumed).
- The fates in the U.S. of Ann “Glossip” and her two children: Jane and John “Glossip.”
Page 55 of 79
I don’t now recall the precise
order and nature of all of the searches I conducted because there were so many
and they were so varied and because I utilized several online search sites. The primary online sites I used were: “FreeBMD,”
“FamilySearch.org,” “
The William
Jackson family in
In all, per Sheffield Records
Online, there were 5 Jackson families living in Sheffield when the 1841 UK Census
was conducted that were each headed by a William Jackson whose recorded “census
age” fell somewhere between 45 and 50 yrs of age; 45-50 being the expected and
required age range within which William, father of John Jackson, must have been
at that time. One of these 5 families
appears again in the 1851 UK Census and was therefore eliminated from the
initial 1841 group since it is known that my/our William Jackson was in the
- The record at FamilySearch.org of a William Jackson marriage to
a “Martha Sidney” at Bolton Upon Dearne in 1813, (see Pages 33-34).
- The fact that the first female child born to John & Mary Jackson
was Sarah, (b. 1845), evidently or seemingly named after Mary’s mother:
Sarah Bagshaw, and that possibly and presumptively the next female child,
which they named Martha, (b. 1848), they may likewise have named after
John’s mother, who was possibly and presumptively: Martha.
For the sake of brevity I will
only list the William Jackson family which I intuitively focused on and will not
list all 4 of the 1841 William Jackson families. The family in question appears as follows in
the 1841 UK Census per “Sheffield Records Online”:
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece_No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
William JACKSON |
45 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Martha JACKSON |
50 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Thomas JACKSON |
20 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Charles JACKSON |
20 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Mary JACKSON |
15 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
William JACKSON |
12 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Henry JACKSON |
10 |
Castle Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
Source: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
Page 56 of 79
According to the 1850 US Census in
Hillsgrove, William was recorded as living with a presumed wife “Martha,” in
contradiction to Grace Jackson’s assertion that William’s 2nd wife
was named “Mary.” William’s age in the
1850 US Census was recorded as 58 and Martha’s, 60. The 1841 UK Census names and ages of William
and Martha square seemingly perfectly with the names and ages of William and
Martha in 1850 US Census…:
In the 1841 UK Census, recorded
ages of persons over 15 yrs of age were rounded-down to the next lowest
multiple of 5 if their exact ages were not exact multiples of 5, making
William’s age anywhere between 45 and 49 and Martha’s age anywhere between 50
and 54. If we assume that in 1841
William was actually 49 and Martha was actually 51, then their respective ages
as well as their names as recorded 9 yrs later in Hillsgrove agree perfectly.
With this revelation, I tentatively
determined that this 1841 Martha must be William’s 2nd wife; that
Grace was incorrect about her name being Mary; that the 1850 US Census record
listing “Martha” was correct; that William’s 1st wife likely died
well before 1841, and that the record of his 1st wife’s death
probably exists somewhere in the pre-Sept 1837 “black hole” of British BMD
records. I also suspected the very real
possibility that both of William’s wives may have been named Martha.
Martha Jackson
Death (1st wife of William Jackson)
On this date with a view toward determining
who the real 1841 Martha Jackson was, (either the 1st or the 2nd
wife of William), and using the online source: FreeBMD, I searched all “Martha
Jackson’s” who died in
Surname First
name(s) Age District Vol Page
Deaths Dec
1837
Deaths Jun
1838
Deaths Mar 1842
Page 57 of 79
I chose the 1842 death (Vol 22,
Page 363) and ordered the corresponding certificate because to do otherwise
would by default mean that I am expecting William to have carried on as a
widower with a family of unmarried children by himself for up to as many as 4 –
5 yrs (or possibly even more if it is assumed that his 1st wife died
prior to Sept 1837) before finally marrying again. In my opinion, 4 – 5 yrs or more would likely
to be an inordinate length of time for William to remain unmarried and with
children at home. The death of a first
wife in 1842 would shorten the period of William’s bachelorhood considerably since I was
more logically disposed to supposing or guessing that he wouldn’t have waited
too long to find another woman and marry again.
The death of a first wife in 1842, followed by a marriage later on in
that same decade made more sense from the standpoint of logic and timing.
Deaths Mar 1842
Surname First
name(s) Age District Vol Page
If the informant of this death
(above) turns out to be a “William Jackson,” there will still be no certainty
of this William Jackson family being the correct, my/our, William and Martha
Jackson family. The only other helpful
indicator might be the address of the deceased if it turns out to be “Castle
Yard Manor” on the certificate. If the address
recorded on the ordered Death Certificate matches the address of this family,
then at least there would be a certainty that the deceased was in fact this
particular Martha Jackson, of this particular Jackson family, living and dying at
that particular address; which would, in turn, establish an agreement with the
particulars of Grace Jackson’s assertion in the “Souvenir” wherein she stated that William’s 1st wife
died in England, which this spouse did, and that William was the father of a
large family of children, which this particular William Jackson family appears
to include.
On this date I received the
ordered 1842 Death Certificate for “Martha Jackson” (Vol 22, Page 363). The certificate revealed the most unexpected
and incredible surprise: The informant
of this death was not an uncertain William Jackson nor was it some person
unknown, but was in fact none other than “Sarah Bagshaw,” (the mother-in-law of
John Jackson). Martha Jackson’s date if death was recorded
as:
- This is the correct William Jackson family (address: Castle
Yard Manor,
- This deceased Martha is the 1st wife of William
Jackson and not the 2nd.
- This Martha is the birth mother of John Jackson.
- The unmarried children recorded at Castle Yard Manor in 1841
are John Jackson’s siblings, the “large family” Grace alluded to in the “Souvenir,” (see also Pages 66 - 67).
- This certifies as incorrect or extremely unlikely Grace’s assertion
in the “Souvenir” that William’s
immigration preceded son John’s by 6 yrs.
William still had 2 pre-teen children at home in 1842 and would
have needed the next 5-6 yrs to raise them up to self-sufficiency (assuming
that they survived) before leaving for America, (see Page 50), and then
only after first finding, meeting and then marrying the next or 2nd
spouse. My guess is that William
left England no more than 6 months to 1 year before son John; making
William’s theoretical year of departure somewhere between early 1847 and
early 1848.
Page 58 of 79
Sarah Bagshaw’s appearance as the
Informant on Martha Jackson’s 1842 death certificate was the incredibly
fortunate key that, in one decisive blow, established these certainties;
leaving the as yet unanswered and nagging question: Who then was “Martha” as she was recorded in
Hillsgrove in the 1850 US Census versus “Mary Goslip” that Grace stipulated as
being the 2nd wife of William Jackson in the “Souvenir”? One or the other
of these two sources is incorrect, and I proceeded as follows:
Marriages of William
Jackson’s to “Mary’s” and “Martha’s” in the 1840’s:
Search Scenario One:
Assuming Grace Jackson’s account
is correct and that the 1850 US Census is in error, and using FreeBMD to search
for all “Mary’s” who married a William Jackson between Mar of 1842 and Dec of
1847 the following results were returned:
Surname First
name(s) District Vol Page
Marriages Dec 1844
Marriages Dec 1846
Search Scenario Two:
Assuming the 1850 US Census record
is correct and that Grace Jackson’s account is in error, and using FreeBMD to
search for all “Martha’s” who married a William Jackson between Mar of 1842 and
Dec of 1847, the following results were returned:
Surname First
name(s) District Vol Page
Marriages Jun 1842
YEARDLEY Martha
Marriages Mar 1847
LOUKES Martha
Neither of the bride’s surnames in
“Search Scenario Two” were “Goslip” or Glossop.
In addition, the event dates are at opposite date extremes, where the June
1842 marriage is too early, i.e., too soon after William’s 1st
wife’s death in January of 1842, and the Mar 1847 marriage is uncomfortably
late and/or too close to John and Mary’s immigration to the US in 1848,
especially if we accept Grace’s assertion that William preceded John by “6
years.”
The marriage dates in “Search
Scenario One” fall comfortably in the middle between 1842 and 1848. Because the surname of the 1846 bride is “Davis”
and not “Goslip” or Glossop, that marriage was eliminated from consideration. The surname of the remaining 1844 bride,
“Mary Jackson,” presents an obvious “same surname” problem, i.e., a Mary
Jackson marrying a William Jackson.
Page 59 of 79
On this date, and despite the
bride’s surname being “Loukes,” and despite it’s uncomfortably late in the
decade occurrence, I ordered the 1847 marriage certificate, Vol 22, Page 445.
On this date the above certificate
arrived and it is not the correct William Jackson marriage. The recorded ages of the groom and the bride
are 25 and 22 respectively, and are therefore eliminated.
On this date, and because I was
quite sure that William’s 2nd wife was not “Mary Ann Davis,” per
“Search Scenario One,” I ordered the remaining, though admittedly only remotely
correct, marriage certificate: the Dec 1844 marriage of William Jackson and
Mary Jackson, Vol 22, Page 541. There is
the optimistic possibility that Mary may appear on the certificate as “Mary
Jackson, formerly Glossop,” and that their recorded ages will also appear as being
about 51 yrs of age for William and 53 for Mary.
On this
date the above Marriage Certificate arrived, and it is obvious that it is not
the correct William Jackson marriage. The
bride and the groom are 19 yrs of age, and any remote notion I had that there
was some kind of a data anomaly at play regarding the bride’s maiden surname record
is eliminated from consideration. In
this particular case, a William Jackson did in fact wed a Mary Jackson; both
sharing the same surname prior to marriage.
What all of this implies is that “our” William Jackson did not actually
wed a Mary, nor did he wed a Martha in
Since it has been established that
William’s 1st wife was in fact “Martha,” serious doubt is cast on
the validity of the 1850 US Census record in Hillsgrove where William’s wife
was recorded as “Martha,” and I am now more willing to assume and even believe
that Grace’s assertion was correct - that the name of William’s 2nd
“wife” was Mary. This problem is not too difficult to overcome
when one also knows and considers the fact that the same 1850 Census Enumerator,
(William J. Eldred), recorded the John Jackson family as “Johnson” or
“Johnston,” depending on how one reads the scrawled handwriting on the actual
Census page.
Also, the official Census date for
every Census between the years 1830 and 1880 was June 1st. It
appears that the Census in Hillsgrove was conducted two months late, and it
could be argued that it was perhaps conducted in a hurry, with William Jackson
and “Martha” being recorded on the 31st of July and the John Jackson
family (appearing as “Johnson or Johnston”) being recorded on the 1st
of August. One can speculate that in the
heat of the Census moment, William Jackson may have mentioned his prior or
first wife’s name “Martha” and that the enumerator may have simply, and
hastily, recorded the wrong name (“Martha” and not Mary) on the Census page.
Discounting Grace’s notion that
Mary’s prior surname was “Goslip,” I think we can chalk one up for Grace in the
“Correct Column” regarding her assertion that William’s 2nd “wife”
was in fact “Mary.”
Specific dates as well as unusual names
like Glossop are easily forgotten, misremembered or corrupted over time, while one
is much less likely to do the same to a name like “Mary.”
Page 60 of 79
Mary (Goslip/Glossop)
For the record and as an addendum
to this most recent research, the following exchange is the verbatim text of my
online forum thread at Sheffield & District FHS regarding this and other
related questions and problems that I was wrestling with at around the same
time that I was conducting these many searches, ordering the various BMD
certificates, and arriving at my various conclusions:
==========================================================================
Sheffield & District FHS Message Forum / General Family History / Another
head-banger
Posted by: mgc, August 4th, 2008, 12:25pm
What are the chances or the likelihood
in Britain of the 1830's to 1840's, that a widower with at least
a few children gets together with a widow and that these two people
don't officially marry in the classic sense, but rather live together posing
and operating as a married couple?
Multiple searches using varied time-frame and period search criteria at a
couple different search sites (LDS and Free BMD specifically) yield zero
apparent hits for a William Jackson marrying a Martha (surname Glossop
presumed) any time between 1820 and 1847.
The 1841 Census shows a William
Jackson (45 yrs old) seemingly married to a Martha (50 yrs old) at Castle Yard
Manor,
Any ideas or is this a hopeless brick wall?
Mike
Posted by: HughW, August 4th, 2008, 5:01pm; Reply: 1
Hello Mike,
Where does the name GLOSSOP come from, and is it Martha’s maiden name or the
name of her previous husband?
Any marriage between these two
in
Marriage at
volume U page 248 entry 743 (volume covers Nov 1824 to Nov 1825)
William JACKSON Martha HUTTON
Hugh
Page 61 of 79
Posted by: mgc, August 4th, 2008, 5:52pm; Reply: 2
Hi again Hugh,
The surname Glossop comes by way of my own deductions:
There exists a circa 1934 publication here in the
“Johnny Jackson’s father,
William, after raising a large family of which Johnny was the
oldest, lost his wife in England and later married a widow named
Mary Goslip, who with her son, Jack, accompanied Johnny’s father to
Philadelphia...”
I determined by searches that there were zero “Goslip’s” in
the Passenger Manifest), and her
two children. From this I concluded that Ann’s actual married
surname was Glossop; that “Glossip” was an error originating with the Passenger
List recorder, and that she was the likely spouse of “Jack”
above. There were no “Jack Glossops” in
The eldest child of “Ann Glossip” on the 1848 Passenger Manifest was a “Jane
Glossip” at 9 yrs of age, making her YOB about 1839. Searches in the 1841 Census for a John
Glossop married to an Ann Glossop with a child “Jane” about 1 yr old yielded zero
results, but further searching revealed a John Glossop married to an Ann
Glossop with a 1 yr old “Sarah Jane Glossop” at 1 Burnt Tree Lane in 1841.
Getting back to William and spouse... It is my opinion that “Mary Goslip” as
she was recorded was an error by the person who wrote this familial tribute in
this 1934 publication, roughly 90 yrs or more after the fact, and that her
actual name is Martha Glossop. I’m thinking too that Ann Glossop was
Martha’s daughter-in-law.
The forename: “Martha,” I got
from the 1850 US Census whereon she is recorded as “Martha” living with and
presumed wife of William Jackson. He being 58 yrs old, and she being
60 yrs old with no children in the household. Eldest son John “Johnny”
Jackson and family were on top of a nearby mountain eking out an existence.
I believe Glossop to be Martha's former married surname, since she appears to
have had a son John "Jack" Glossop.
I too saw the record of marriage at Sheffield Parish Church (SS Peter &
Paul), but what throws me on that one is the trail of Jackson births for whom I
believe are the 1841 Castle Manor Jackson family children. That
trail of births, if correct, begins in Greasbrough in 1815 with John Jackson,
then on to Ecclesfield for 4 more births, then the last one appearing to be in
Glossop is a very unusual name
here in the States, and to the American ear, and indeed years and years later,
"Glossop" could very easily be mis-remembered as "Goslip."
I hope I didn't make complicated that which isn't really all that complicated.
Thanks, Mike
p.s., Why was the LDS prevented from filming certain registers,
whereas it appears that they were permitted to film as much as they did?
Posted by: Angela, August 4th, 2008, 6:41pm; Reply: 3
Hi Mike.
The Dean of Sheffield at that
time would not allow it. The records that have been filmed are the Bishops
Transcripts. Have you also seen the
recent ruling by the RC church.
Angela
Page 62 of 79
May
5 2008
A recent letter issued by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy directs Roman
Catholic dioceses worldwide to keep The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints from "microfilming and digitizing information" contained in
Catholic sacramental registers, according to a report in the Catholic News
Service.
The reason give for the move is
to prevent
The
"ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in [each
bishop's] territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not
to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints."
Angela
Posted by: mgc, August 4th, 2008, 7:35pm; Reply: 4
I sort of thought that the LDS was up to something like
that. And it stands to reason too that many people of various faiths
would have a problem with it. Of course, the genie's out of the
bottle now, what with so many having been filmed.
One could
argue too that by disallowing the LDS to copy registers somehow legitimizes,
bows to, or gives credence to their proclaimed power, as if by filming and posthumously
conducting some kind of baptismal ritual over a name on a microfilm, they are
somehow cancelling-out or superseding a prior religious rite conducted with and
upon the once and actually living person. Somebody should advise
them that many names are nicknames and/or errors of one kind or another, and
don't really represent anybody, as in Jane Glossop vs Sarah Jane Glossop vs
Jane Glossip, etc, etc... But that's probably a debate for another forum lol.
I've been attempting to contact an LDS 'Family History Center' near here with
no luck... nobody answers the phone. Might be on some kind of
vacation or something. Or I might have to go to the next nearest one
a bit further away.
Thanks,,,,,, Mike
Posted by: HughW, August 4th, 2008, 7:55pm; Reply: 5
Thanks for the explanation. I
note that the Sheffield Indexers’ new project to transcribe the baptisms in the
‘black hole’ has already reached that of Sarah Jane GLOSSOP:
Glossop, Sarah Jane (of
Baptized December 25, 1839, by J Gibson at
Parents name(s) are Ann & John (Cutler).
[from http://sheff-indexers.thewholeshebang.org]
Hugh
Posted by: mgc, August 4th, 2008, 8:13pm; Reply: 6
Hugh.... Thank You for finding
that!
Well, that’s another piece of the puzzle.
Sarah Jane Glossop, later and familiarly known as “Jane.” She,
it appears, was left with a family in
Ann’s presumed husband, John “Jack”
Glossop, appears nowhere here, and I think he died an early death relatively
soon after arrival. Ann, Sarah Jane’s mother, incredibly moved on
and north without her and I don’t think the two of them ever saw each other
again.
Thanks again, Mike
Page 63 of 79
Posted by: andy wragg, August 5th, 2008, 1:26pm; Reply: 7
A possible explanation could be
that William Jackson had left his original wife rather than “lost” her or that
Martha was separated from or abandoned by her original husband – divorce was
almost unknown amongst the working classes at the time. This would mean they
could not remarry but started a new life living as man and wife.
Posted by: mgc, August 5th, 2008, 3:40pm; Reply: 8
Hi Andy and Thanks,
Agreed... “lost” is a rather
relative term. The person who wrote that piece back in 1934 was
about 20 – 30 yrs away from even being born when all this went down in and
around Sheffield in the 1830’s and 1840’s, (she was born in 1868 in the U.S.),
so basically, that particular snippet was written 90+ yrs after the fact or
facts and an ocean away to boot! And what she wrote, she wrote from
lonnnng ago memories of what she either heard these Jackson’s say, or was told
second-hand intermittently and as the years of the 19th century
succumbed to the 20th.... hence, errors like the imperatively stated
surname: “Goslip” which, it turns out, was actually “Glossop,” etc.
“Lost” can mean just about
anything. The assumption has been that “lost” in this case implies
death, and though it may be true that divorce was practically unknown, death
was certainly in the picture. I was
thinking too that Wm and Martha, he a widower and she a widow, may have simply
joined forces, so to speak, as opposed to being classically married, and
really, who was going to question their status if they came to Sheffield from,
say, Ecclesfield and beyond? But all that is conjecture without
further evidence. The “black hole” of
unfilmed and/or untranscribed information that Hugh alluded to may hold the
answer or answers to some of these questions, and whereas I was hoping to
tie-up all these loose ends in a year or less, it looks now like it will be
longer than that.
Mike
Posted by: mgc, August 5th, 2008, 5:36pm; Reply: 9
Today I ordered a marriage
certificate for John (“Jack”) Glossop and Ann (
Assuming all this happens as is
hoped, and if John's mother is "Martha"... I will likely have to pick
myself up off the floor before pouring a celebratory slammer.
Go ahead Angela, Hugh or Doug, and tell me it's not going to happen that
way.... :'(
Mike
Posted by: Angela, August 5th, 2008, 7:07pm; Reply: 10
Hello Mike.
My lips are sealed :X
until you get the certificate...then we can consider the facts ;D
;D
Angela
Posted by: mgc, August 5th, 2008, 7:16pm; Reply: 11
lol, very.... diplomatic!
Thus begins the 2 - 3 week wait.
Mike
Posted by: Procat, August 6th, 2008, 8:34am; Reply: 12
Angela is the boss around here.
What she says goes. ;D
Posted by: andy wragg, August 6th, 2008, 10:14am; Reply: 13
If they are
Date of registration. Quite a lot to go
on.
Page
64 of 79
Posted by: mgc, August 6th, 2008, 11:34am; Reply: 14
Thanks Andy,
The certificate ordered is an 1838 UK Marriage Certificate, and I'm just gonna
sit tight and turn blue until it gets here.
Mike
Posted by: andy wragg, August 6th, 2008, 12:07pm; Reply: 15
Get a magnifying glass - the early
certificates are not easy to read.
Incidentally I stumbled upon this while looking something else up
Martha daughter of Thomas and Mary Glossop - Metalsmith - baptized September
27th 1801 in Sheffield Cathedral.
Posted by: mgc, August 10th, 2008, 3:06pm; Reply: 16
In the interest of perhaps
further confounding anybody who is following this, here is the set of Facts,
Inferences and Confusions in bullet form:
The Goal:
Establish or deny that William and Martha Jackson at "Castle Yard
Manor" in
Cast of Characters:
• “Mary [Goslip]
• “Jack Goslip” (alleged son of “Mary Goslip” per 1934 US
publication), is actually John Glossop (son of Martha [Glossop]
• “Ann Glossip, 30 yrs old” (per 1848 Passenger Manifest), is
presumed to be actually Ann Glossop (wife of John “Jack” Glossop, presumed)
• John Glossop / Ann Hudson,
• Sarah Jane Glossop, Sheffield birth Dec 1839 to John and Ann
[Hudson] Glossop (Birth Certificate ordered and pending, presumed certain)
• “Jane Glossip, 9 yrs old” (per 1848 Passenger Manifest), is
actually Sarah Jane Glossop (eldest child of John and Ann [Hudson] Glossop,
presumed certain)
Per 1841 UK Census:
• William Jackson (address: Castle Yard Manor), Age 45 (actual age
range 45-49)
• Martha Jackson (address: Castle Yard Manor), Age 50 (actual age range
50-54)
Per 1850 US Census:
• William Jackson, recorded age: 58
• Martha Jackson, recorded age: 60
Other Census Facts:
• There were zero “Goslips” in Sheffield in 1841
• There were zero “Glossips” in
Page 65 of 79
• There was 1, and only 1, married pair (inferred) of William and
Martha Jackson’s in
or share the
“Same-Names/Same-Ages” criteria of the William and Martha Jackson couple in the
U.S. 9 yrs later in the 1850 U.S. Census. That couple was the 1841
William and Martha Jackson couple at
Related Facts:
Immigration to the
I told ya it was a head-banger! But somewhere in this mess there is
truth... of that I am certain.
Mike
Posted by: mgc, August 11th, 2008, 7:47pm; Reply: 17
This just
in.... It turns out that the Martha Jackson at Castle Yard Manor in 1841 is
not... repeat not... the same Martha Jackson that appears 9 yrs later in the US
Census of 1850.
She is and they
are the correct
I won’t go into the “why’s” and
the “wherefore’s” of this because I think I’ve probably bloviated far too much
already on these problems, but I will say though that this information comes by
of and as a result of information just received that appears on the 1842 death
certificate for this Martha Jackson, and that this revelation is based purely
on, of all things, the “informant.” (See
NOTE below)
Of course, this still leaves Wm’s 2nd wife (the one that does appear
later in the 1850 US Census) a continuing unknown... for now…….Mike
======================================================================================
NOTE – The “informant” of this death was
none other than Sarah Bagshaw, the mother of John Jackson’s wife Mary. Sarah Bagshaw’s name appearing on this death established
this as being the correct William Jackson family in
======================================================================================
Posted by: mgc, August 27th, 2008, 1:37am; Reply: 18
For the record, and for the pure
joy of ancient gossip, here’s the latest:
No records of a marriage between a William Jackson and a Mary Glossop can be
found and it appears now that Mary (“Goslip”) Glossop was more than likely the
common law wife of William Jackson, beginning at some point after 1842 and probably
after 1843 in Sheffield.
The explanation for why William’s
“wife” (Mary) is recorded as “Martha” in the 1850 US Census is unknown, but since
it is known that William’s first wife was in fact “Martha Jackson,” it could be
that when the US Census enumerator showed-up in 1850, William may have started
shucking and jiving about his first wife in a Freudian sort of way,
(...deceased in England back in ‘42, yadda yadda yadda), whereupon the
enumerator mistakenly wrote “Martha” as opposed to “Mary” on the Census page.
There appears to have been one and only one Mary Glossop of the correct age (50
yrs) living in
Page 66 of 79
Her presumed to be son, John
(“Jack”) Glossop, married Ann Hudson in Dec of 1838 and to them was born Sarah
Jane Glossop in Dec of 1839. John’s father’s name was George Glossop
per John and Ann’s marriage certificate, but there is no record of a suitable
George Glossop living with a wife Mary in the 1841 Census. Also
there is no record of a suitable George Glossop death at any time between Sep
of 1837 and Dec of 1846…; 1846 being the cut-off year which would have allowed
Mary to mourn, meet and be courted by William Jackson prior to an alleged
“marriage” and their subsequent emigration to the US at some point in the
latter years of the 1840’s.
I am assuming therefore that
John Glossop’s father (George) was deceased prior to son John’s marriage, and
that the record of his death is somewhere in the “black hole.”
There is a record of death for a Henry Glossop in 1843 and if it’s the correct
Henry (above) then that would conveniently release what appears to be his wife
Mary (possibly) to the world of future romance, and William Jackson
specifically. Her status as “wife” is, of course, pure assumption
since no relationships were recorded in the 1841 Census. The 1843
death certificate for Henry Glossop is ordered and it will be interesting to
see what if anything it reveals. It could be conjectured that the
widowed Mary Glossop may have either married the brother (Henry) of her first
husband (George)…, or for want of a roof and support after George’s death, may
have simply been living with this relation by marriage: Henry Glossop, her
presumed brother-in-law. (Mary was born “out of county” per the 1841
Census).
Since there were no other
eligible and correctly aged Mary Glossop’s living in Sheffield at the time, I
just don’t know what else there is to suspect or assume regarding how William
Jackson ultimately hooked-up with what appears to be this one and only,
correctly aged Mary Glossop in the mid-1840’s in
William Jackson, a coal miner,
was upon the death of first wife Martha in 1842, left with a remaining gaggle
of as yet unmarried children, the youngest of which was 10 or 11. It
is therefore unlikely that he was ranging very far from home at Castle Yard
Manor, Sheffield in search of or dating any other Mary Glossop’s that may have
lived in other, more far-away places. Any
thoughts or arguments are welcome!
Mike
==========================================================================
The children of William and
Martha Jackson (possible correct birth and christening search results, per
FamilySearch.org):
JOHN
JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
THOMAS
JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
CHARLES
JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
MARY
JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Female Christening: 07 MAR 1825 Ecclesfield,
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
WILLIAM JACKSON
- International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
Page 67 of 79
HENRY
JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Birth: 10 MAY 1830
Christening:
Parents:
William Jackson and Martha
These birth and christening records, if correct, describe or
document a trail of what I presume to be
the family of William Jackson from Greasbrough to Ecclesfield to
The Glossop’s
Ann “Glossip” (as her last name was recorded on the Tuscarora’s 1848 Passenger Manifest) or Glossop (as I believe her surname to actually have been) and her two children: “Jane and John,” appear to have been traveling with John and Mary Jackson and family. I suspected and believe this to be true based on how they are lined-up or recorded in their mixed but logical formation on the Passenger Manifest. It is my guess and optimistic opinion that Ann Glossip (Glossop) was the daughter-in-law of William Jackson’s second wife, Mary “Goslip” (Glossop) and that she, Ann, was or may have been married to “Jack,” the purported son of Mary Goslip (Glossop) Jackson, and it was this marital connection that may explain why this woman, Ann Glossip (Glossop) was traveling to America with John and Mary Jackson.
- I
assumed that the surname “Goslip” was an error originating with Grace (
- I next assumed that “Jack Goslip” was very likely to most probably: “John Glossop.”
- I
searched for “Jane Glossop” in the 1841 UK Census in
- I
searched for all John Glossop’s who were recorded as being somewhere between
20 and 25 yrs of age in
- I checked each of these 3 John Glossop’s to see if any one of them was recorded as living with an Ann Glossop in 1841. The search result for one of these 3 yielded the following family:
|
John GLOSSOP |
25 |
1 Burnt |
1335/14 |
33 |
21b |
|
|
Ann GLOSSOP |
20 |
1 Burnt |
1335/14 |
33 |
21b |
|
|
Sarah GLOSSOP |
1 |
1 Burnt |
1335/14 |
33 |
21b |
|
Page 68 of 79
Noting the 1 yr old child, Sarah Glossop, (above), I next searched for the birth record of this child to John and Ann Glossop.
The search result was one, and only one, all-telling hit:
Surname First name(s)
District Vol
Page
Births Sep 1839
GLOSSOP Sarah Jane
From this, it appears that they did in fact use what is now revealed to be her middle name (“Jane”) when she was familiarly recorded 9 yrs later in 1848 on the Tuscarora’s Passenger List as “Jane Glossip.”
Next, a search for “John Glossop” marriages to “Ann’s” between Sep 1837 and Dec 1839 yielded one and only one hit:
Surname First name(s) District Vol
Page
Marriages
Dec 1838
GLOSSOP John
Cross-referencing
all “Ann’s” who married a “John Glossop” between the year 1837 and 1839,
revealed that Ann’s maiden surname was “
Surname First
name(s) District Vol Page
Marriages Dec 1838
.
A
search for a birth in
Surname First
name(s) District Vol Page
Births Dec 1845
GLOSSOP John
.
I ordered and later received all of the above corresponding Glossop Marriage and Birth Certificates. They are all correct and there were no surprises as to the information recorded on them. There was however, one very useful bit of information that appeared on John Glossop’s and Ann Hudson’s 1838 marriage certificate, and that was John’s father’s name: “George Glossop.”
Page 69 of 79
I reasoned that his name might in turn be useful in determining the identity of John Glossop’s mother, which optimistically is: “Mary” and which, if established as true, would:
1.) Confirm Grace’s assertion in the “Souvenir” that her name was in fact Mary and not Martha
2.) Confirm that Mary’s married surname was in fact Glossop and not Goslip
NOTE:
A search for all “Martha Glossop’s” living in Sheffield and recorded in the 1841 UK Census yielded 6 results, with none being viable possibilities since the oldest among them was only 35 yrs of age in 1841.
Mary “Goslip”
(Glossop presumed)
Per a search at “Sheffield Records
Online” and the 1841 UK Census, the total population of “Mary Glossop’s” living
in
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece_No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
35 |
Wadsley
Lodge |
1327/8 |
12 |
36b |
Ecclesfield |
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
14 |
New
Park Gate |
1328/4 |
23 |
45a |
Kimberworth |
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
25 |
Masbro |
1328/5 |
4 |
46a |
Kimberworth |
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
17 |
Rock
Street |
1329/2 |
5 |
26b |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
20 |
Well
Gate |
1332/11 |
2 |
24b |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
4 |
|
1333/5 |
6 |
10b |
Ecclesall
Bierlow |
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
8 |
|
1335/14 |
33 |
22a |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
30 |
|
1336/1 |
9 |
34b |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
30 |
Cheyney
Row |
1337/1 |
2 |
36a |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
50 |
Eyre
Lane |
1337/8 |
17 |
15b |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
21 |
|
1338/3 |
7 |
39b |
|
Of the Mary Glossop’s returned, there is one and only one
that satisfies or matches the expected age requirement 9 yrs later in the 1850
US Census in Hillsgrove, and she is Mary Glossop, age 50, living on
The actual 1841 UK Census page
image whereon this particular Mary Glossop is recorded shows her in what
appears to be the following 3-person household:
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece_No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
Henry
GLOSSOP |
50 |
Eyre
Lane |
1337/8 |
17 |
15b |
|
|
Mary
GLOSSOP |
50 |
Eyre
Lane |
1337/8 |
17 |
15b |
|
|
John
FROST |
20 |
Eyre
Lane |
1337/8 |
17 |
15b |
|
There is no sign of “George
Glossop” and it is not clear if Mary Glossop is in fact the wife of Henry Glossop
since the 1841 UK Census did not require that relationships or marital status
be recorded.
Page 70 of 79
If it is assumed that these two
were married, then this Henry must first have died before this particular Mary
would be free to start a relationship with William Jackson. A search at “FreeBMD” for the deaths of all
Henry Glossop’s that died between June of 1841 and December of 1851, yielded
one and only one record, but without the Death Certificate, it is entirely
unknown how old this person was at the time of death. The deceased’s address might link the 1841
Census record to the following deceased individual:
Surname First
name(s) Age District Vol Page
Deaths Mar 1843
GLOSSOP Henry
On this date I ordered the certificate of death for the above Henry Glossop.
On
this date I received the Henry Glossop, January 1843, death certificate. It appears this is the correct Henry Glossop
since the place of death is
Henry Glossop marriages, 1810 – 1820, per
FamilySearch.org
1. HENRY GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Amy Newton
2. HENRY GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 11 APR 1813 Cathedral,
Bride: Mary Broomhead
There
is nothing definitive as it pertains to either of these two search results with
the exception that the bride’s name in record No. 2 is “Mary.” This marriage occurred in
There are a whole host of reasons that can be invented or imagined to explain why it is that Mary Glossop does not appear as the informant on Henry Glossop’s death certificate. One thing is certain however: per FreeBMD, there were no Mary Glossop deaths in Sheffield between June of 1841 (the month of the Census in which she appears) and Dec of 1847, so it can be assumed that the Mary Glossop, who appears living with Henry in June of 1841, was still living at the time of Henry Glossop’s death in March of 1843. Since John (“Jack”) Glossop’s father was George Glossop, and because there is no apparent record of a suitable GRO record of death for a George Glossop in Sheffield between Sept 1837 and Dec 1847, it can be assumed that George Glossop died prior to Sept 1837, and therefore prior to implementation of the GRO System and that the record of his death is in the pre-Sept, 1837 “black hole” of un-filmed and un-transcribed British BMD records.
Page
71 of 79
John “Jack” (“Goslip”) Glossop Birth, per
FamilySearh.org
According to the John Glossop and Ann Hudson marriage certificate, John’s father’s name was George Glossop. John Glossop was 22 yrs old at the time of his marriage to Ann in December of 1838, making his birth year about 1816. A search at FamilySearch.org for the birth of a John Glossop to a father George Glossop yielded two birth and christening results for the same person:
1. JOHN GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Birth: 02 MAY 1816
Parents: George Glossop and Elizabeth
2. JOHN GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening:
Parents: George Glossop and Elizabeth
The problem with these records is, of course, that this John Glossop’s mother’s name is “Elizabeth” and not the hoped-for “Mary.”
George
Glossop Marriages, 1801 – 1821, per FamilySearch.org
With nothing else to go on as it
pertained to a Mary Glossop specifically, I pursued the above George and
Elizabeth pair, hoping that maybe
1. GEORGE GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Martha
Mosley
2. GEORGE GLASSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 25 DEC 1809 Cathedral Saint Peter, Sheffield,
Bride:
Elizabeth Sarah Houlden
3. GEORGE GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 27 MAY 1813 Hope,
Bride: Rachel Chetham
4. GEORGE GLOSSOP - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Ann Turton
What
is most significant or odd is
Page 72 of 79
The only possible way of determining the name of John Glossop’s mother, including her maiden surname might be the unearthing of John Glossop’s birth record. GRO Birth Registry records post Sept 1837 included both the mother’s first and maiden names and there is a chance that the same convention might be true for pre-Sept 1837, “black hole” birth registrations.
Getting
back to the Mary Glossop who appears as living with Henry Glossop on
The
identity of Mary (“Goslip”) (Glossop presumed)
Mary
“Goslip,” (Glossop presumed), the 2nd and likely common law
wife/companion of William Jackson circa the mid-1840’s in Sheffield, was
erroneously and mysteriously recorded in the 1850 US Census as “Martha” and
living with William Jackson in Hillsgrove and is not recorded in the 1860
Census. According to Grace (
The exact burial locations of William Jackson, Mary (“Goslip,” Glossop), John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson are unknown, but it is certain that they are all buried in the Hillsgrove Cemetery and my best guess is that they are all buried in the general vicinity of and perhaps on either or both sides of Sarah Jackson’s grave site location where today, small, unmarked stones mutely mark the locations of the unknown but suspected remains of they who lie beneath.
All
in all, the Glossop story appears to have been a rather complicated and sad
tale, most especially as it pertains to Ann (
Ann (
For some reason unknown, Ann (Glossip) Glossop does not appear in the 1850 US Census. She does however appear in the 1860 US Census – 39 yrs of age, born in England and residing as a “housekeeper” with a family by the name of Rogers in Wolf Twp, east Lycoming County, PA - the head of household being William Rogers, a farmer and apparent widower with 5 children.
Page 73 of 79
Ann’s youngest child, John Glossop (Jr.), by then about 14 yrs of age, also appears in the 1860 US Census, but living with an older and childless couple in Penn Twp, east Lycoming County, PA which is directly adjacent to Wolf Twp., and probably not more than a few miles away from Ann. There is no US Census evidence of Ann’s presumed husband, John “Jack” Glossop.
Oddly,
Ann Glossop’s 1st born child, Sarah Jane Glossop, appears in the
1850 Census, but living with a family in
I
have to believe that after separating in
Ann
and her young son, John, must have been traveling with the William and John
Jackson family on their journey northward toward Sullivan County from
Philadelphia, but upon arrival in the general Wolf Twp, Hughesville area, she
may likely have been unwilling to venture further north and east into what is
to this day the veritable wilderness we know as the Endless Mountains region
and the harsh existence that hacking-out a living there involved. Instead, she remained in the relatively more
civilized and established environs of the greater Hughesville area: Wolf Twp, east
Ann Glossop does not appear in the 1870 Census, but reappears in the 1880 Census; having moved a bit south in the meantime and living in Northumberland Co, PA, in the McEwensville area specifically, where she was recorded as a “widow,” age 58 yrs, born in England, and apparently living alone.
Online
searches of burial indexes in
And so it appears, that after a rather significant and auspicious beginning in 1848 aboard the Tuscarora in company with John and Mary Jackson; inspired by the presumed goal of reuniting with her husband, and with a view and a hope of a new life in a new world, Ann (Hudson) Glossop and her two children, like husband and father before them, each in their turn, simply, slowly and quietly vanished into the peace and obscurity of oblivion.
------------------------------------------------------------
Page 74 of 79
Summary of John and Mary Jackson’s Significant Life Events
John Jackson
|
Place of Birth (presumed) |
Approx Date of Birth |
Date & Place Christened (presumed) |
Parents |
Date & Place of Death |
Approx Age at Death |
|
Greasbrough, south |
|
|
William & Martha ( |
|
88 yrs, 8 mos, 10 days (based on date christened) |
Mary (Bagshaw)
|
Place of Birth |
Approx Date of Birth |
Date & Place Christened |
Parents |
Date & Place of Death |
Approx Age at Death |
|
Sheffield, south |
Sep, 1816 |
|
Charles & Sarah (Bingham) Bagshaw |
14 May 1900, Hillsgrove, Sullivan Co, PA |
83 yrs, 7 mos, 22 days (based on date christened) |
Married:
for a total of: 64 yrs, 5 mos, 1 day
1841
Surnames in this study:
Surnames Total
# of Persons
|
|
716 |
|
Bagshaw |
244 |
|
Glossop |
238 |
|
Goslip |
0 |
|
Glossip |
0 |
|
|
391 |
|
Houlden |
18 |
|
Holden |
58 |
|
|
3 |
|
Ashmore |
115 |
Source:
http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
Page 75 of 79
Summary:
Some Questions Some Answers
|
The William Jackson family residing at Castle Yard Manor, |
|
Martha (maiden surname “ |
|
|
|
“Mary Glossop,”( presumed), no record of a marriage
found; common law relationship likely. |
|
Late 1850’s, |
|
About 1878,
|
|
John Glossop (most likely). It is assumed that “Jack” was a nickname. |
|
Most likely between early 1847 and early 1848 |
|
Wife of John “Jack” Glossop; probable daughter-in-law of “Mary Goslip,” (Glossop presumed) |
|
·
John “Jack” Glossop
- no record in the ·
Ann Glossop –
no record in the 1850 census. Per 1860
Census living in Wolf Twp, Lycoming ·
Sarah Jane
Glossop – Recorded in ·
John Glossop
Jr. – no record in the 1850 census. Recorded in Penn Twp, Lycoming Co, PA per
1860 census, and no census record thereafter. |
Page 76 of 79
Benjamin Jackson’s
1942 Obituary (4th child born to John and Mary Jackson)
======================================================================================
The Sullivan Review
March 19, 1942
Benjamin Jackson died Thursday morning at the home of Aaron Faulkrod at Estella
at the age of 92 years. He is survived by one daughter, Mrs. Byron Williams of
Funeral service will be held at the church at Shunk, Sunday afternoon at
======================================================================================
Calendar for March, 1942
|
Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
Benjamin must have
died
- The official date of the 1860 Fed Census was June 1st, and Benjamin was recorded as being 8 yrs old, which suggests his YOB was 1852 and not 1850 as the obituary implies.
- In the 1870 Fed Census, Benjamin was recorded as being 19 yrs old, suggesting his YOB being 1851. The official date of the 1870 US Fed Census was again June 1st. The instructions to the enumerator pertaining to “Age” were to record each person’s age at their last birthday.
- In the 1900 US Census, also officially conducted on June 1st, Benjamin was recorded as being 49 yrs of age suggesting a birth year of 1851. His birth month was recorded as “Aug” and his birth year was recorded as 1850. (see Page 9 regarding Census Instructions as it pertains to Age).
I’m going to theorize that a birth in August, 1850 implies conception in December, 1849 which in turn seems to me to be uncomfortably close to the challenges and trials that John and Mary and their 3 small children faced and endured at that particular time in their lives: Massive life changes, hardships and deprivations which we can hardly imagine, and conditions made worse by the onset of the winter of 1849. And they, having by then only just recently arrived in the Hillsgrove area, and up on High Knob no less, where, according to Grace Jackson in the “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” they spent the first winter on High Knob in a newly completed log cabin and used a blanket as a door. Despite the notion that anything is possible, (even romance in a cold cabin without a door), I’m thinking that 1850-1851 might be a logically and logistically more plausible period of conception and birth for Benjamin: John and Mary’s 4th child; the 1st of their two documented and surviving US-born children.
Page 77 of 79
John Lyman Jackson’s 1929 Certificate of Death (5th
and last child born to John and Mary Jackson)
Recent receipt, (Sept of 2008), from Bill Brenchley: Scanned image of John Lyman Jackson’s 1929
The portion which stipulates, among other things, Date of Birth and Mother’s Maiden Name:
The portion which stipulates Date of Death:
John Lyman Jackson
Born:
Died:
Burial:
Age at Death: 73 yrs, 2 mos, 21 days
Page 78 of 79
Recent
Successes:
1.) Discovery of John Jackson’s mother’s name: “Martha,” with a strong indicator pointing to her maiden surname being “Sidney,” and the date and place of a John Jackson christening in Greasbrough, Yorkshire, basically and strongly agrees with the allusion to “Grisbrook” as the place of his birth per his 1903 obituary.
2.) The
discovery of a record of marriage between a William Jackson and a Martha Sidney
in July of 1813, Bolton Upon Dearne,
3.) The certain discovery of the correct family of William Jackson in Sheffield at the time of the 1841 Census, and the death of William’s 1st wife, Martha, in Jan of 1842 which was most fortuitously reported by none other than: Sarah Bagshaw, the mother-in-law of William Jackson’s oldest son, John Jackson.
4.) Discovery of the dates and places of George, Sarah and Martha Jackson’s births by acquisition of the correct Birth Registration Certificates for each.
5.) The
Nov 2007 discovery and acquisition of the watercolor image of the ship “Tuscarora” as it lay anchored in the
Delaware River at
A Couple Remaining Unknowns:
1.) As yet, no definitive ID or verification of Wm Jackson’s 2nd wife, Mary “Goslip” (Glossop).
2.) The precise year of William Jackson’s emigration remains unknown.
Future Actions:
1.) Search and copy all microfilmed LDS (Church of Latter Day Saints) records as they appeared at FamilySearch.org that pertain to all BMD records found, (pages 32 through 71).
2.) Any future discoveries or new information will be added to this work as Addenda to it, beginning and appearing as: “Addendum 1,” “Addendum 2,” and so on.
Bill Brenchley
Meeting Bill Brenchley in August
2007 turned out to be a most fortunate happenstance. For me, that chance occurrence resulted in
the inspirational jump-start needed to advance our
Page 79 of 79
To the Reader
It is my hope and intention that with this documentation, certain
heretofore Unknowns are now Knowns, and that at least a few persistent past
confusions or discrepancies in facts and details are now resolved. Also, by including many or most of the false
leads and dead ends in this examination, as well as the train of my thoughts as
they occurred, it is hoped that duplicate efforts by future researchers may be
avoided.
Over the course of this past year, I began to feel like I actually came
to know John and Mary Jackson, and so too most of the other persons included in
this study that surrounded and were contemporary to them. As strange as I am sure it sounds, I will
even assert that on more than a few occasions, I got the sense that perhaps one
or more of them were looking over my shoulder if not, in fact, helping me
along.
In addition to gaining some understanding of the particulars pertaining
to the lives of John and Mary Jackson, it is hoped that the reader or
researcher will likewise be as intrigued as I am by the history of their time on
this planet as well as the story of their immigration: That inspired journey aboard the Tuscarora in late1848
which took them from the world of Dickens in Sheffield, England, to the rugged
and verdant wilderness of High Knob and Hillsgrove, Sullivan County,
Pennsylvania.
High Knob, aka
“Continuity with the past is a necessity, not a duty.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1841 – 1935
=================================== END OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ===============================
Kitchen Utensils Manufactured by John Jackson
Hillsgrove, PA
Late 19th Century
Note Modern Pliers in Photo is 6 and 1/2 inches long.
See Addendum 3 below for more details.
Photo by Mike Clarke October 2008
ADDENDA
April 2009
Addendum 1:
The burning of John and Mary
Jackson’s home, Hillsgrove,
|
Board: |
|
|
Sullivan
Review |
|
End of Addendum 1
Addendum 2:
John and Mary Jackson’s Old Storage
Trunk
Ancillary to “Addendum 1” is my recent (spring of 2008)
reconnecting with my heretofore “lost” and widely scattered cousins and the
subsequent revelation of the existence of an old trunk, which is in the
possession of one of these cousins who lives in
This trunk was for many decades kept in the attic of my
G-Grandparents: Raymond E. and Anna D. (Gilbert) Jackson, once living at
Ray Jackson and Anna Gilbert were onetime residents of
Hillsgrove, and were married in Dushore, Sullivan
County, PA in the year 1901. Upon the
decline of the tannery business in Hillsgrove, post 1910 and prior to WWI, Ray
E. Jackson sought and obtained employment with the Endicott-Johnson company, in
As a child, I remember the trunk was in their attic at their
then
I am quite sure that this trunk was one of those items that were hastily removed from John and Mary Jackson’s burning home (see Addendum 1): “They succeeded in carrying everything out down stairs but the cook stove and all the bedding and provisions were destroyed.”
Mary Jackson died 6 yrs after the fire, in May of 1900, and John died 3 yrs after her, in September of 1903. According to the 1900 Census, the elder John Jackson was living in the household of his youngest son, John Lyman Jackson in Hillsgrove. John Lyman Jackson, like his son Ray E. Jackson, moved from Hillsgrove to Endicott for the same employment reasons, and it was likely during that time of change and general upheaval that the trunk switched hands from being formerly in the home and possession of John Lyman Jackson to the home and possession of Ray E. Jackson and wife Anna.
My cousin in
According to Grace (Salisbury) Jackson (2nd wife of John Lyman Jackson) who wrote the Jackson Family tribute for the 1934 publication “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” John and Mary Jackson’s youngest child, 8 month old Martha, became seriously ill during the voyage and there was fear that she might die as a result.
I would suggest and one could imagine that it was on or about the 14th day into the voyage when Martha became as seriously ill as Grace documented and that it was at that point that counting the days of the voyage and recording the count using hash marks on the inside of the trunk became far less important than their infant Martha’s suffering and precarious health… That unhappy event coinciding, of course, with all of the other miseries associated with 5-6 weeks at sea on a rolling sailing ship crowded with over 300 other passengers in Steerage Class. I believe that it was at that point, somewhere approaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and probably in mid-October, 1848; 14 days into the voyage, that interest in counting or marking the days on the inside of the trunk lid ceased.
End of Addendum 2
Addendum 3:
Julia A. (Fuller)
Ancillary to “Addendum 1” is a set of 3 long-handled, iron
kitchen implements or utensils which I have in my possession. I have an old and somewhat vague memory of
being told that these utensils belonged to Julia A. (Fuller)
The set includes one 2-tined fork, one ladle and one
draining ladle. The ladles measure 19”
in overall length, and are each approx. 5 3/8” in width. The fork is 16” in overall length. This set was given to my father, Gilbert W.
Clarke, by his mother, Florence Mildred (Jackson) Clark, sometime in the mid
1960’s, and the set of utensils, like the trunk documented in Addendum 1, came
out of the home of Ray E. and Ann D. Jackson,
Today, this 3-piece set hangs on hooks, mounted on an oak board, on a wall in my kitchen. A photo of this set is included with this collection.
End of Addendum 3
Addendum 4:
Yorkshire Girl
1880s, Yorkshire, England
The community likely was very similar thirty years before
when the Jacksons and Glossops lived in Sheffield.
Photo by Mike Clarke
Source: An old postcard he purchased on eBay in April 2009
Ann (
Ann (
Baptism Record of Frederick George Hudson:
Frederick George, son of George and Catherine Hudson cutler ("cutler" would be the father's,
(George's), occupation). Baptism
Registration Date at Parish Church 13 Feb 1791, (“
Frederick George Hudson was about 47 when his daughter Ann married, and he was
about 26 yrs old at the time of Ann's birth, which may mean that she may not have
been his first child, since he was old enough to have had a couple children
prior to her birth, but that is pure speculation. Per the Sheffield Marriages Indexes, there is
a record of marriage between a "Frederick Hudson" and a "Martha
Longley," Sts Peter and Paul, Sheffield, that occurred some time between
Jan 1813 and Aug 1814. This same record
also appears at the LDS (FamilySearch.org) as:
Marriage Record of Frederick George Hudson:
FREDERICK GEORGE HUDSON - International Genealogical Index /
BI
Gender: Male Marriage:
Bride: Martha Longley
Marriage Record of George Hudson:
GEORGE HUDSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Marriage: 21 MAR 1790 Cathedral Saint Peter, Sheffield,
Bride: CATHERINA RAWORTH
Summary:
Ann (
George and Catherine (Raworth) Hudson were the
parents of Ann's father, Frederick George Hudson; the grand parents of Ann, and
are therefore the maternal great-grandparents of Sarah Jane and John Glossop
(Jr); the two Glossop children that appear on the Tuscarora’s Nov 1848 Passenger List.
End of Addendum 4
Addendum 5:
Burial Record of: Martha Jackson
(wife
of William Jackson and birth mother of John Jackson)
Burial Record of: Charles Bagshaw
(husband
of Sarah Bagshaw and father of Mary (Bagshaw)
On this date I received a number of transcribed parish
burial indexes for the various churches of
The particulars of these respective records appear as
follows:
|
Name |
Burial Date |
Age |
Abode |
Occupation |
|
JACKSON, Martha |
|
50 |
Attercliffe |
n/a |
Church of St.’s
Peter and Paul, Sheffield, YKS
(
|
Name |
Burial Date |
Age |
Abode |
Occupation |
|
BAGSHAW, Charles |
|
47 |
|
Cutler |
(The burial indexes
were sent to me by a source in
End of Addendum 5
Addendum 6:
Burial Record of Charles
Jackson (infant son of John and Mary Jackson)
Name of Deceased Burial Date Age Abode Father/Occupation
|
JACKSON, Charles |
|
infant |
|
John, cutler |
Search results of the 1841 UK Census stats for all “
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
Matthew
JACKSON |
35 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Ann
JACKSON |
35 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Mary
JACKSON |
35 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Charles
JACKSON |
35 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
John
JACKSON |
25 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Mary
JACKSON |
20 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
John
JACKSON |
13 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Mary
Ann JACKSON |
11 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Mary
Ann JACKSON |
10 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Catherine
JACKSON |
2 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Amelia
JACKSON |
1 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Henry
JACKSON |
30 |
Andrew
Yard |
1335/13 |
30 |
17A |
|
Only one of the above persons is a potential or possible
father with a first name of “John” and who resides on “
Surname First name(s) Age District Vol Page
Deaths Dec 1840
1840 Death in the
When/Where Name of Age Occupation Cause of Informant When
Died Deceased Death Registered
|
|
Charles
Jackson |
5 months |
Son of John Jackson,
table blade striker |
Water in
the head |
X The mark of
Sarah Bagshaw, occupier, Present at death, Andrew Street |
|
With this information it is certain that this child is a deceased infant son of the correct John and Mary Jackson, and is one of the four heretofore alleged, unknown and unaccounted other children as was recorded in John Jackson Sr.’s 1903 obituary notice, (see Page 2 of 79).
Thus far, the births and deaths of the three remaining alleged and unaccounted children of John and Mary Jackson have not been discovered.
Note: Bob Sweeney, Webmaster of the "Sullivan County Genealogical Project," pointed out that the cause of death; recorded as "Water in the head" was the old or archaic terminology and diagnosis for what is now known and regarded as being hydrocephalus; an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the cavities of the brain. Further research indicates that hydrocephalus occurs in about one out of every 1000 live births.
End of Addendum 6
Addendum 7:
Gravesite discovery of Ann (Hudson) Glossop, and dau. Sarah Jane (Glossop) Romig
05 April 2009
On this date, after collaboration with a descendant of John H. Glossop, (son of John and Ann Glossop), who happens to live in Snohomish, WA, and on a tip provided by the Lycoming County Historical Society, I went to the Northside Cemetery, Turbotville, Northumberland County, PA and found the graves of Ann (Hudson) Glossop, her daughter Sarah Jane (Glossop) Romig, and Ann’s grand daughter, Frances (Romig) Smart, (daughter of Sarah Jane); a photo of Ann’s grave stone accompanies this Addendum.
Sarah Jane Glossop (b. 1839), and John H. Glossop (b. 1845) were the two Sheffield-born Glossop children that appear on the Tuscarora’s Passenger List along with mother Ann (Hudson) Glossop; in company with the John Jackson family, 08 Nov 1848, Liverpool to Philadelphia.
Turbotville, Nothumberland Co, PA is about 41 miles from Hillsgrove, Sullivan Co, and about 20 miles from the location of the suspected 1860 Rogers farm; presumed situated along US Hwy 220, between Hughesville and Picture Rocks, Wolf Twp, Lycoming Co, PA. Per the 1860 Census, Ann Glossop was recorded as residing with a family by the name of Rogers in Wolf Twp, as a “housekeeper.” The Rogers family head of household was a certain William Rogers; farmer and apparent widower with 5 children. The presumed and specific location of the Rogers farm comes by way of a circa 1870 map of Wolf Twp which includes familial surname house/farm location designations.
Ann’s youngest child, John (Jr), was recorded in 1860 as residing in the adjacent Penn Twp with an older, childless couple by the name of Lockard. In 1850, Sarah Jane, Ann’s eldest child, was recorded as residing with an Ashmore family in Philadelphia where Ann, it appears, left her temporarily in 1849 with an Ashmore family. There is good and very reliable evidence provided by descendants of Ann (Hudson) Glossop and her son John (Jr) that Mary Ashmore, among the family group of Ashmore’s living in Philadelphia as recorded in the 1850 Census, and with whom Sarah Jane was at least temporarily deposited or boarded, was the twin sister of Ann (Hudson) Glossop’s mother: Martha (Longely) Hudson, i.e., Mary Ashmore was Ann’s aunt. It is worth noting that according to the 1841 UK Census, there was a sizable family of Ashmore’s living on Cricket Inn Road, a location very near the Castle Manor Yard, and Sheffield Park areas; the areas of Ann’s one-time address per that which was recorded on her 1838 marriage certificate to John Glossop.
Per the 1860 Census, Sarah Jane was married to a certain Eliend Romig, and living in or near Turbotville, Northumberland Co, PA; the general locale where Sarah Jane’s mother, Ann, would later also appear. Ann’s son John Glossop (Jr) went on to serve for a relatively short time with a Pennsylvania Vol Cavalry unit in the last year of the Civil War, and later wound-up living in or near St Joseph, Michigan where he fathered a very large family over the course of 3 marriages.
End of Addendum 7
Addendum 8:
The Underground Railroad at
Hillsgrove and the
27 May 2009
On this date I “rediscovered” a
publication I had stored away that was a one-time possession of my father,
Gilbert W. Clarke. Where or how he came
to acquire it is unknown, but it may have come out of (and likely did come out
of) the house of his mother and her parents, all of whom were former residents
of Hillsgrove: Florence Mildred (Jackson) Clark and Raymond E. and Anna D.
(Gilbert) Jackson respectively;
Page 46 includes the following 2 paragraphs, the author of which is unknown:
Fig 1: Excerpt from Sullivan Co Industries, Then and Now
It is a certainty that these
persons: William Jackson and son John Jackson, are the
correct
Grace (
Addendum 8 continued…
The White farm would have been located near the end of what is now known as Norton Road, just outside of Hillsgrove proper, where the one and only known photograph image of John Jackson was taken of him seated in front of the Jackson cabin home, (photo included in the front portion of this collection). It should be noted that at this writing, (May 2009), this particular property (the one-time or former White-Jackson farm) or at least that portion of it’s former size which includes the lot upon which the farm home or cabin was once situated, is currently the real estate possession of Sherman and Marion Higley, Norton Rd, Hillsgrove, PA; the Higley home being situated immediately adjacent to the now empty lot upon which the old cabin once stood.
In the Souvenir of Hillsgrove, (Fig. 2), Grace (Salisbury) Jackson refers vaguely to the wife of William as “the step-mother,” and the reader must not make the mistake of inferring from this that Grace’s intended meaning was that this woman was the step-mother of Sarah since, as we know, Sarah was the daughter of John and her very much alive birth mother: Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson; while William was Sarah’s paternal grandfather and “the step-mother,” or “Mrs. Jackson,” as she was described in the account above, (Fig. 1), was in fact Sarah’s paternal step-grandmother: Mary (Glossop) Jackson; the 2nd wife of William Jackson and step-mother of John Jackson.
Fig 2: Excerpt from Souvenir of Hillsgrove
Addendum 8 continued…
Personally, I see no
justification, per se, in Grace’s assertion or implication that because William
and John Jackson were not naturalized citizens, that it was they and their
home(s) which were chosen as participants and stations along the Underground
RR. Indeed, many or most participants
and homes along the various pathways of the Underground RR network were those
of legitimate
In retrospect, it’s a shame that neither of these short snippets of familial history contain more detail and elaboration, but we can be most grateful that they exist at all and that although their documentary occurrences are separated by 20 yrs and roughly 75 to 95 yrs each respectively after the fact, they do support one another in content.
End of Addendum 8
Addendum 9:
Sarah (Bingham) Bagshaw, mother of Mary (Bagshaw)
None of her modern-day descendants
on this side of the
1.) In this study she is first recognized
as she appeared in the 1841 UK Census, living on
2.) Later, she most fortuitously
reappeared as the recorded “informant” on the Jan 1842 death registration
certificate of Martha Jackson (1st wife of William Jackson), thus decisively
establishing a certainty of ID and locale as it pertained to the 1841 William
Jackson family, living in the Sheffield neighborhood known and recorded as
Castle Yard Manor, and also established a certainty of ID as it pertained to John
Jackson’s birth mother, as well as John Jackson’s 5 siblings; the “large family” of William Jackson that Grace
(Salisbury) Jackson alluded to in the “Souvenir
of Hillsgrove,” (see Page 50 of 79).
3.) She next appeared as the recorded
“informant” on the Sep 1840 death registration certificate of her deceased 1st
husband, Charles Bagshaw, (see Page 49 of 79).
4.) She reappears once more as
the recorded “informant” on the Nov 1840 death registration certificate of her
grandson, 5 month old Charles Jackson, infant son of John and Mary Jackson;
Charles being one of the 4 heretofore alleged but unidentified children of John
and Mary Jackson as mentioned in John
Early in Jan 2009, using
FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/), in an effort to determine or discover
the fate of Sarah Bagshaw after her appearance as informant on Martha Jackson’s
1842 death certificate, I searched all “Sarah Bagshaw” deaths in
Next, assuming that she
hadn’t in fact died, but instead remarried, I searched “Sarah Bagshaw”
marriages in
Surname First
name(s) District Vol
Page
Marriages Sep 1844
BAGSHAW Sarah
Marriages Dec 1845
BAGSHAW Sarah
Marriages Dec 1847
Bagshaw Sarah
I chose to focus on the Sep 1844 marriage for two
reasons: 1.) Not knowing who she may have married, there was no way of
cross-referencing by groom, and 2.) I
was therefore left with having to start somewhere, and of the three, the 1844 marriage
seemed to be the most likely event year based on its tidy and acceptable
occurrence four years after the death of first husband, Charles Bagshaw. In late January of 2009 I ordered the
corresponding Sept 1844 marriage registration certificate from
Addendum
9 continued…
|
When Married |
Name and Surname |
Age |
Condition |
Rank or Profession |
Residence at the Time of Marriage |
Father’s Name and Surname |
Rank or Profession of Father |
|
|
John Ridgway Sarah Bagshaw |
50 55 |
Widower Widow |
Cutler |
“ditto” |
Benj.
Ridgway John
Bingham |
Confectioner Button mkr. |
Fig. 1
Partial transcription of the 1844 Ridgway/Bagshaw
marriage registry certificate
1.) Earlier in this study, it
was assumed that Sarah’s maiden surname was “Bingham” prior to marrying her
first husband, Charles Bagshaw, and happily this assumption agrees with the
above information, however, whereas we heretofore believe or assume her
father’s first name to have been “Martin,” (see Pages 26-28, and 35-36 of 79),
the father of the bride in the table above was recorded as “John.”
2.) The Sarah Bagshaw bride
above was recorded as being 55 yrs of age at the time of this marriage, which one
can say “roughly squares” with her heretofore presumed christening per FamilySearch.org
(LDS) which returned a christening of a Sarah Bagshaw in
3.) The Sarah Bagshaw bride
above was recorded as being a widow, which squares perfectly with what we know
to have been her marital status as of September, 1840.
4.) And last but not least, the
address:
Next, I searched all Sarah Bagshaw’s living in
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece_No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
12 |
Upper Gate |
1327/3 |
15 |
37a |
Bradfield |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
27 |
|
1327/7 |
9 |
44b |
Ecclesfield |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
35 |
|
1329/1 |
3 |
51b |
Brightside |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
13 |
|
1329/1 |
3 |
51b |
Brightside |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
50 |
|
1329/2 |
4 |
9b |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
27 |
|
1329/4 |
11 |
25b |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
56 |
Harvest Lane |
1329/4 |
11 |
32b |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
30 |
Gate Field |
1334/5 |
10 |
11a |
Nether Hallam |
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
25 |
|
1335/1 |
2 |
33a |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
15 |
Vicars Yard Pea Croft |
1335/4 |
9 |
34b |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
35 |
|
1335/4 |
9 |
37b |
|
|
Sarah BAGSHAW |
44 |
|
1335/8 |
17 |
9b |
|
|
Sarah
BAGSHAW |
11 |
|
1335/8 |
17 |
9b |
|
|
Sarah
BAGSHAW |
55 |
Paternoster Row |
1337/6 |
12 |
30a |
|
|
Sarah
BAGSHAW |
20 |
Balm Green |
1338/7 |
17 |
49b |
|
Fig. 2
Source: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
Addendum
9 continued…
Of the fifteen “1841 Sarah
Bagshaw’s” listed in the table above, (Fig.
2), there is one and only one who would have been about 55 yrs of age four
years later in 1844 at the time of her 2nd marriage, and that person is who we know
to be the correct Sarah Bagshaw, (5th from the top), residing on
Andrew Street, Sheffield, Brightside.
On this date, again at FreeBMD, I searched all “Sarah
Ridgway’s” who died in
Death Search 1: Sarah “Ridgway” deaths,
Surname First name(s) Age
District Vol Page
Deaths
Mar 1858
Ridgway Sarah Ann
Deaths
Dec 1867
Ridgway
Sarah 34
Next,
I altered the spelling of her married surname from “Ridgway” to “Ridgeway” and searched
all “Sarah Ridgeway’s” who died in
Death Search 2: Sarah “Ridgeway” deaths,
Surname First name(s) Age District Vol
Page
Deaths
Mar 1874
RIDGEWAY
Sarah 86
This 86 yr old Sarah Ridgeway would have been born
about 1788, which more or less squares with the implied year of birth for Sarah
Bagshaw as per the 1844 Ridgway/Bagshaw marriage registry certificate, (see Fig. 1), and on this date (10 Jun 2009)
I ordered the 1874 Sarah Ridgeway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The John Ridgway household in 1851,
1851
|
Street Address |
Name |
Age |
Relationship |
|
Place of Birth |
Occupation |
Piece |
Folio |
|
61-6 |
John RIDGWAY |
57 |
head |
|
|
Table Knife Hafter |
2340 |
33 |
|
|
Sarah RIDGWAY |
58 |
wife |
DBY |
Norton |
|
2340 |
33 |
|
|
William BAGSHAW |
3 |
grandson |
YKS |
|
|
2340 |
33 |
|
|
William
Stones |
42 |
lodger |
YKS |
|
Shoe Maker |
2340 |
33 |
Fig. 3
Sources: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
http://www.ancestry.com/
Addendum 9 continued…
On
this date at Family Search.org (LDS), I searched all Sarah Bingham’s born in
Birth Search 1
- Sarah Bingham’s born to a father named “John Bingham”:
|
International
Genealogical Index - |
|
|
|
|
1.
SARAH BINGHAM - International Genealogical Index / BI Parents: John Bingham and Elizabeth |
|
|
|
2.
SARAH BINGHAM - International Genealogical Index / BI Parents: John Bingham and Rebecca |
|
|
|
3.
SARAH BINGHAM - International Genealogical Index / BI Parents: John Bingham and Mary SARAH BINGHAM - International Genealogical Index / BI Gender: Female Christening: Parents: John Bingham and Mary |
|
Birth Search 2
- Sarah Bingham’s born to a father named “Martin Bingham”:
|
|
International Genealogical Index - |
|
|
1.
SARAH BINGHAM - International Genealogical Index / BI Parents: Martin Bingham and
Mary |
My thoughts
and conclusions:
1.) Because there were apparently no other correctly aged
Sarah Bagshaw’s living in Sheffield in 1841, (see Fig. 2), it is my belief that the Sarah Bagshaw who married John
Ridgway in 1844 is the correct, (my/our), Sarah Bagshaw. I am also assuming and believing that she
knew the name of her father, who was recorded on the marriage certificate as
“John Bingham;” a Button Maker by profession.
2.) Because there are no other disputing or contradictory facts
noted per the information recorded on the 1844 Ridgway/Bagshaw marriage
registry certificate, “John Bingham” is, in fact, the correct father of the
correct Sarah (Bingham) Bagshaw, and whereas the single result of “Birth Search
2,” (above), neatly occurred in Sheffield proper, and on a roughly
acceptable date, the father “Martin Bingham” is not the father that our Sarah
Bagshaw herself stipulated: “John Bingham;” he who was therefore duly recorded
on the marriage registry certificate as father of the bride at the time of her
marriage to John Ridgway in 1844.
3.) The next question is which of the two John Bingham’s
above, (Birth Search 1, Records 2 and 3), is the correct one since both
involve a Sarah Bingham born to a father John Bingham? For that answer I will point the reader to Fig. 3, the John Ridgway household in
1851. Happily, the 1851 UK Census
required place of birth to be recorded. Sarah’s
place of birth was recorded as “Norton, DBY” which squares perfectly with Birth
Search 1, Record 2. To that end, the
correct Sarah Bingham christening record, and the correct set of parents of
Sarah Bingham are those described in “Birth Search 1, Record 2.”
Addendum 9 continued…
4.) I will also suggest that Sarah Ridgway’s age at death
(86 yrs) more precisely squares and agrees with the
Year
of death: 1874
Age at death:
- 86
1788 = Year
of birth
5.) I therefore and hereby Assert For The Record, that any/all
prior notions and references pertaining to Sarah Bingham’s possible but
uncertain birth, christening and parentage that appear earlier in this study be
officially ignored and regarded as false leads.
Specifically, I am referring to information pertaining to her which I gathered
and documented on “Pages 26-28 of 79” and “Pages 35-36 of 79,” and replace all
of them with the following certifiably correct christening and parentage information:
SARAH BINGHAM
Christened:
Parents: John Bingham and Rebecca
On this date, a search of the “Sheffield Records
Online” 1861,
To address this problem I posted a query at the “Sheffield
Records Online” message forum. Below is
my thread and the response I received regarding this question and the possible whereabouts
of Sarah Ridgway/Ridgeway in the 1861 and 1871 UK Census records:
|
Sheffield Records Online >> Brickwalls
>> Sarah Ridgway or Ridgeway Message started by mgc on |
|
Title: Sarah Ridgway or Ridgeway I have a
record of death for a Sarah Ridgeway in |
Addendum 9 continued…
|
Title: Re: Sarah Ridgway or Ridgeway Hi Mike, |
|
Title: Re: Sarah Ridgway or Ridgeway Yes, that's
her, and thanks tons Doreen. Mike |
Notes and a bit of Geography:
At
this writing, (14 Jun 2009), although the 1861 UK Census is transcribed and
searchable at “Sheffield Records Online,” (
- Norton, in Derbyshire,
is not more than 5 miles south of Sheffield center, south
- Norton Lees, in south
Yorkshire, is about 3 miles south of
- Heeley, in south
Yorkshire, is about 1.5 miles south of
Fig. 4
- 1861
|
Parish or Twp |
Municipal Borough of |
Street Address |
Name and Surname |
Relation to Head of Family |
Condition |
Age |
Rank, Profession or Occupation |
Where Born |
|
Attercliffe, Darnall |
|
Canal Side |
Sarah Ridgeway |
Head |
Widow |
70 |
Shop Keeper |
YKS, Heeley |
Fig. 5 - 1871
|
Parish or Twp |
Municipal Borough of |
Street Address |
Name and Surname |
Relation to Head of Family |
Condition |
Age |
Rank, Profession or Occupation |
Where Born |
|
Attercliffe |
|
Canal Side |
Sarah Ridgeway |
Head |
Widow |
82 |
|
YKS, Norton Lees |
Source for Fig.
4 and Fig. 5: http://www.ancestry.com/
Addendum 9 continued…
John Ridgway death (2nd husband of Sarah Bingham / Bagshaw)
As
far as John Ridgway goes, (Sarah’s 2nd husband), we know he was
still around in 1851 (see Fig. 3),
and we can assume, or in fact believe, based on the exchange above, that Sarah (Bingham/Bagshaw)
Ridgway was a widow for the second time as of the 1861 UK Census, which was conducted
the night of April 7, 1861. A search at
FreeBMD for a John Ridgway death in Sheffield between the years 1851 and 1861 yielded
the following, one and only, highly certain hit, and without ordering the
certificate, we can assume that Sarah was once again recorded as the unhappy “informant”
of this death as well:
Surname First name(s) Age District
Vol Page
Deaths
Dec 1855
Ridgway John
Sarah Ridgeway Burial Record
On
this date I found the following 1874 Darnall Municipal Cemetery burial record
of Sarah Ridgeway in a set of Sheffield burial indexes that I was given by a
researcher in
Burials: 1859 - 1901
|
Surname |
Forename |
Death Day |
Death Month |
Death Year |
Age |
Occupation |
Abode |
District |
Plot |
|
Ridgeway |
Sarah |
16 |
Jan |
1874 |
86 |
widow of a labourer |
Darnall |
Darnall |
1631uc |
Fig. 6
This
record (Fig. 6) includes the Plot #,
which suggests that a visitor to this cemetery could presumably pinpoint the
actual burial location. Note too that
Darnall is a sub-district of Sheffield, east of and adjacent to the
sub-district of Attercliffe, with both districts being situated to the east of
and adjacent to the sub-district of Brightside-Bierlow; Attercliffe and
Brightside being the areas within which John and Mary Jackson as well as John
Jackson’s father William Jackson and family once lived and/or worked, circa
early 1830’s – late 1840’s.
John Ridgway Burial Record
On
this date I found the 1855 burial record of John Ridgway in the “
|
Surname |
Forename |
Address |
Death Day |
Death Month |
Death Year |
Age |
Church |
District |
|
RIDGWAY |
John |
|
28 |
Oct |
1855 |
62 |
|
|
Fig. 7
Addendum 9 continued…
As it pertains to grandson, William Bagshaw
A
search at FreeBMD for all William Bagshaw’s (see Fig. 3) born in Sheffield between Mar 1847 and Dec 1849 yielded the
following 2 results, with the first birth, (Mar 1848, Vol 22, Page 5[16]1),
being the most likely correct William Bagshaw, and without ordering the birth
registry certificate, it is my guess that this child was possibly born to John
Bagshaw who was, in turn, the son of Sarah (Bingham/Bagshaw) Ridgway:
Surname First name(s) District Vol Page
Births
Mar 1848
BAGSHAW William
Births
Sep 1849
BAGSHAW William
Sarah Ridgeway 1874 Death Registry Certificate
On
this date I received the1874 Sarah Ridgeway,
|
When and Where died |
Name and Surname |
Sex |
Age |
Occupation |
Cause of Death |
Signature, description & residence
of Informant |
When Registered |
Signature of Registrar |
|
12 Jan 1874 |
Sarah Ridgeway |
Female |
86 Years |
Widow of John Ridgeway, a Table Knife Cutler |
Senile, Decay, Certified |
X The mark of Elizabeth Bagshaw Present at Death 15 Canal Side, Attercliffe |
|
Geo. Hy Chapman, Registrar |
Fig. 8
So
it was as it appears – Sarah (Bingham/Bagshaw) Ridgeway lived to the ripe old
age of 86, and died at 3 Fisher Lane, Darnall; an eastern sub-district of Sheffield,
at an address that exists to this day and which can be viewed on Google
Maps. The informant of her death was
Elizabeth Bagshaw, who I am going to assume was her daughter in law; the
probable or possible wife of son, John Bagshaw.
Given that Sarah Ridgeway appeared in both the 1861 as well 1871 Census
records living alone at an address recorded as “Canal Side,” there is the
better than good chance that she died not in her own home, but rather in the
home of her son and daughter in law: John and Elizabeth Bagshaw; 3 Fisher Lane,
Darnall.
Addendum
9 continued…
Back on the
12th of June, 2009, at the Sheffield and District FHS Forum, (http://www.sheffieldfhs2.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?),
I posted a query regarding the various place names that were recorded as
Sarah’s place of birth in the 1851, 1861 and 1871 UK census records: “Norton,”
“Heeley,” and “Norton Lees” respectively, (see Fig. 3, Fig.
4 and Fig. 5). This forum thread ran for most of the rest of
the month. Below is the verbatim, copy
and paste, forum exchange which ultimately resulted in the determination of
Sarah Bingham’s nearly exact birthplace; supplied by the Rector of Norton, Mr.
Geoffrey White:
Sheffield &
District
Posted by: mgc,
June 12th, 2009, 8:31pm
Is/are/were the Norton/Heeley
areas, (south of
Also, are either one of them, or were either one of them just over the YKS /
DBY county line and in DBY circa 1790 to whenever? This is a small point, but a sticky one
nonetheless, genealogically speaking, of course.
Mike
Posted by:
Angela, June 13th, 2009, 6:58am; Reply:
1
Hi Mike.
Norton was in North East Derbyshire. There has been a number of county boundary
changes over the years.
Also see: http://www.andrewspages.dial.pipex.com/dby/kelly/norton.htm
Gbwhite who posts on here might also like to put his two penneth in
as he is the rector at the present time. :)
Angela
Posted by: mgc,
June 13th, 2009, 10:23am; Reply:
2
Thanks again Angela. I'm chasing
a few Binghams and perhaps a Bagshaw or two in that area, and it appears those
old names appear there still today per the webpage you pointed me
to. Very informative!
Posted by: HughW,
June 13th, 2009, 10:50am; Reply:
3
Heeley was part of the Parish of
Sheffield, being a detached part of
I haven't investigated the reason for the complicated boundaries
between Nether Hallam and Ecclesall Bierlow (with 'pockets' of one wholly
surrounded by the other) but I have always assumed it related to the ownership
of the land at the time when the Township system was 'crystallized'
in the Medieval period.
Hugh
Posted by: mgc,
June 13th, 2009, 12:02pm; Reply:
4
Thanks Hugh…, Excellent map, the image of which I am of
course saving for future reference. Good stuff!
Mike
Posted by:
gbwhite, June 26th, 2009, 3:16pm; Reply:
5
Sorry, just posted quite a long
reply, & it got lost when I pressed 'post'. So, here goes with a shorter
one.
Norton parish came right down to the Sheaf & the Meersbrook, & people
often moved from one side to the other, sometimes retaining links with Norton
Church. The Binghams go back a long way
in our registers, & lived mainly at Woodseats & Greenhill, if I
remember correctly. The Bagshaws lived for a couple of hundred years at
Regards, Geoffrey White, Rector
of Norton. :)
Addendum 9 continued…
Posted by: mgc,
June 26th, 2009, 5:07pm; Reply:
6
Hello Mr. White! and Thank You
for your post.
The Bingham record I have, I found at the LDS, and is as follows:
SARAH BINGHAM
Christened: 01 Feb 1789, Norton, Derby
Parents: John Bingham and Rebecca
Sarah Bingham married Charles Bagshaw in 1814, in Sheffield:
CHARLES BAGSHAW
Gender: Male Marriage: 28 AUG 1814 Cathedral Saint Peter
Bride: Sarah Bingham
I don't know the origin of Charles Bagshaw's parentage, which may or may not have
been outside of Sheffield.
Charles Bagshaw died in Sheffield in Sep of 1840, and Sarah remarried 4 yrs
later (1844), in
The 1851 Census shows the John Ridgway household as living on
John Ridgway - born:
Sarah Ridgway - born: DBY, Norton
1855 John Ridgway died.
The 1861 Census, Sarah moves, presumably closer to off-spring living in, I
think, Darnall:
Sarah Ridgeway - widow, Canal Side, Attercliffe, born: YKS, Heeley
The 1871 Census:
Sarah Ridgeway - widow, Canal Side, Attercliffe, born: YKS, Norton Lees
1874: Sarah (Bingham/Bagshaw) Ridgeway dies.
I guess the question is Sarah Bingham's parents: John Bingham and Rebecca, and
if there is some record of their marriage in DBY; Norton presumed.
Also, Charles Bagshaw's (Sarah's 1st husband's) parents. The only
possible or plausible record I have for him is the following somewhat uncertain
christening:
CHARLES BAGSHAW
Gender: Male Christening: 06 SEP 1793 Cathedral Saint Peter
Parents: Edward Bagshaw and Martha
Thanks again......... Mike
Posted by:
gbwhite, June 26th, 2009, 9:57pm; Reply:
7
Some small progress on Sarah:
her parents at her baptism are described as of 'Four Lane Ends' -i.e. near the
Cross Scythes on
Geoffrey :)
Posted by: Barry,
June 27th, 2009, 7:14am; Reply:
8
Hi Geoffrey, you state that Four
Lane Ends was/is in Derbyshire Lane however the cross roads at Norton
Roundabout was always known as Four Lane Ends before the roundabout was built.
Could it be that there were two in the area? Regards Barry
Addendum 9 continued…
Posted by:
gbwhite, June 27th, 2009, 8:55am; Reply:
9
I grew up in Abbeydale, & I
agree Norton 4-lane-ends always meant what has become the Meadowhead
roundabout, but when it occurs pre-1900 it always seems to mean the top of
Scarsdale Rd; which agrees with 'Norton Lees' as a birthplace on a census
return.
Geoffrey. :)
Posted by:
gbwhite, June 27th, 2009, 9:15am; Reply:
10
PS
There's a Sheffield marriage on IGI of John Bingham & Rebekah
The only Chas Bagshaw(e) baptized at Norton was born 1801.
Geoffrey
Posted by: mgc,
June 27th, 2009, 11:12am; Reply:
11
Thanks Geoffrey... I
There appears to be a large cemetery along one side of
I didn't "tour" the full length of
Also, the Cross Scythes is a pub, I presume? I noticed one building
on
Thanks.... Mike
Posted by: mgc,
June 27th, 2009, 11:38am; Reply:
12
I “revisited”
Well, that's another piece of the puzzle! and I just love it when specific
points like "4-lane-ends" surface. For Sarah Bingham/Bagshaw Ridgway
I now have just about every significant address point spanning her entire life,
1788 - 1874, including her final "address" in Darnall Municipal Cem.
And once again, Thanks heaps!
Mike
End of Forum Thread
Print page generated: June
27th, 2009, 3:59pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So with this exchange, we now have the exact (or nearly exact) location of Sarah Bingham’s birth; that being at the intersection of Derbyshire Lane, Norton Lees Lane and Scarsdale Road, Norton Lees, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England; locally and historically known as “4-lanes-end;” an intersection notably land-marked by “The Cross Scythes” pub which stands as well at that residential crossroads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum
9 continued…
A
search of the Sheffield Marriages Index
of all “Bingham” marriages that occurred at the Sheffield Cathedral, (Sts Peter
and Paul), within the period Oct 1776 – Sep 1783 revealed the following, copied
and pasted, record:
Fig. 9
Detail from: “
This record agrees with Geoffrey White’s (Rector of Norton) assertion in the preceding forum thread, and these are the certifiably correct parents of the correct Sarah Bingham.
Postscript and Conclusion
I
am absolutely certain that Martha Jackson’s 1848 birth on
I
often wonder whether or not Sarah and her daughter, Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson, had
any contact after John and Mary arrived in the US in Nov of 1848, and I invariably
find myself speculating about mail, and how mail may or may not have worked in
those mid-19th century years, especially between far-distant locales
such as Sheffield, England and Hillsgrove, PA.
Another complication is that John and Mary’s first few years were spent
eking-out an existence on High Knob, while back in
Sarah
(Bingham/Bagshaw) Ridgeway is my gggg-grandmother and to her I, (indeed we, her
descendants), owe a debt of gratitude; not only for life, but for her many and
critically important appearances along this genealogical journey that, for me,
began in mid-2007. Whereas prior to
January of 2008, (when I first encountered 50 yr old Sarah Bagshaw in the 1841
UK Census at Ancestry.com), she was
invisible, unknown, misplaced and potentially forgotten for eternity; I am
today most happy to have Sarah (Bingham/Bagshaw) Ridgeway back and installed in
this familial record for, I hope, posterity.
________________________________ __________________________
Michael
G. Clarke
“I was brought up to believe that the
only thing worth doing
was to add to the sum of accurate
information in the world.”
Margaret Mead
End of Addendum
9
Addendum 10:
The Family and Descendants of
John and Mary Jackson, Diagrammed Family Groups
I don’t pretend to know all there is to know about the numerous descendants of John and Mary Jackson. Those that I know best are the first generation children of John and Mary and those persons that include my own direct predecessors as well as my familial-descent contemporaries.
The line of descent begins, of
course, with the parents of John Jackson: William Jackson and his 1st
wife Martha, (maiden surname
William and Martha Jackson produced 6 known British-born children with John Jackson being the eldest. John and Mary (Bagshaw) Jackson, in turn, had 6 known children, and were survived by 4 in the following birth order: George, Martha, Benjamin and John Lyman, and each of these children produced numerous offspring of their own.
My line of descent, is by way of John Lyman Jackson; last-born child of John and Mary Jackson. John Lyman Jackson had two wives, and it is by his first marriage to Julia Ann Fuller that I am descended. There are a lot of unknowns and blank spaces as it pertains to the birth, marriage and death particulars of many of John and Mary Jackson’s children and grandchildren, but what I know I inserted in the following abbreviated familial diagrams and, by necessity, must leave the problem of filling-in the blanks to the descendants of those various other children of John and Mary Jackson.
It has been observed by many that a picture or a diagram speaks volumes and eases understanding in a great way. It is for that reason that I diagrammed the family of John and Mary Jackson and the families of their offspring, (10 Diagrams in all).
End of Addendum 10
Addendum 11:
John Jackson’s birth and
baptism record, 1814 – 1815 respectfully, Greasbrough,
On this date I received a scanned
image of John Jackson’s 1814 birth and 1815 baptism record which is stored on
microfiche at the Rotherham Archives, Rotherham, YKS,
Fig. 1
Transcription of the 4th
Record from the Top
|
When Baptised |
Child’s Christian Name |
Parents Christian Name |
Parents Surname |
Abode |
Quality, Trade or Profession |
By Whom the Ceremony was Performed |
|
Jan 8 (1815 implied) |
John son of |
William & Martha |
|
Greasbro. (Greasbrough implied) |
Laborer (Father Wm Jackson implied) Born Dec 8 (1814 implied) |
B. Birkett Curate |
Fig. 2
With this now
certain knowledge of John Jackson’s actual date of birth, and because his date
of death is known to have been 18 Sep 1903 his age at death, using the “8870
Formula,” is calculated as follows:
DOD = 19030918
DOD = - 18141208
889710
- 8870
880840 = 88 yrs, 9 mos, 10 days
========================================
This birth and baptism discovery puts to rest any incorrect argument or
notion that, per John Jackson’s 1903 obituary notice, his place of birth was
“Grisbrook.” This record also stipulates
his actual date of birth, which, as with his age at death, has so often been
the misrepresented result of repeated and incorrect guess-work and estimation.
There would be at least 5 more children born to William & Martha Jackson in the years to follow.
Footnote:
It is certain that “B. Birkett,” the curate listed
above, was actually Rev. Benjamin Birkett, curate of Whiston and Headmaster of
Rotherham Grammar School, “Jesusgate.”
Also, per the Source: , Rev Benjamin Birkett
died at the age of 66 yrs on 18 Apr 1839.
End of Addendum 11
Addendum 12:
William Jackson &
Martha Sidney, 1813 Marriage Record –
On this date, by the gracious goodness of a genealogy
contact and benefactor in
This is a copied and pasted image of the 1813 marriage registry page:
Fig. 1
Transcription:
“William Jackson of this Parish, Servant in
Husbandry, and Martha Sidney of this Parish, Spinster, were married in this
Church by Banns with Consent of Guardians this 2nd Day of July in the Year One
thousand eight hundred and Thirteen, By me Tho.’s Bell, Curate. This Marriage was solemnized between us,
William Jackson, his “X” Mark, Martha Sidney, her “X” Mark; In the Presence of:
George Ellis, (and), Tho.’s Rodwell.”
------------------------------------------------------------
It is certain and verified that my/our William Jackson did indeed wed a Martha, (see Pages 55-58 of 79), however, at this writing, there is no certainty, per se, that this wedded pair at Bolton Upon Dearne is, in fact, the correct William Jackson and Martha. The primary reason for this is that Martha’s maiden surname is not a heretofore known. What is certain though, are the following facts:
·
John Jackson was the first-born child of William
and Martha Jackson, born
·
This July 1813 marriage at Bolton Upon Dearne
between a William Jackson and a Martha squares perfectly with the possibility
of a first-born child 21 months later,
·
Greasbrough,
· Per the 1841 UK Census, Martha’s “census age” was recorded as “50,” which defines her as being older than William by anywhere between 1 and 5 yrs, (for info regarding ages as they were recorded in the 1841 UK Census, see Pages 14-15 & 55-56 of 79).
· Per Grace (Salisbury) Jackson’s account in the 1934 publication, “Souvenir of Hillsgrove,” William Jackson had fathered and “raised a large family [sic]” in England, prior to his emigration to America sometime in the mid to late 1840’s, (see Page 50 of 79).
·
There is a documented series of at least 4
births/christenings to parents William Jackson and Martha in the
·
Ecclesfield is only about 7 miles to the west of
Greasbrough, and about 7 miles north of
·
Martha Jackson, William’s 1st wife
and birth mother of John Jackson, died almost 7 months after the 1841 UK Census
was conducted. She died:
The contact who sent me the scanned 1813 Bolton Upon Dearne marriage registry page pointed out the phrase: “with Consent of Guardians” as it appears on the registry page; and indicated that it was the opinion of persons at the Sheffield Archives, that this reference to “Guardians’ consent” was somewhat unusual and might suggest or point to one or both of them, (William and/or Martha), being a minor; as in one or both of them being under the age of 21.
Per the 1841 UK Census, William’s age was recorded as 45
and Martha’s age as 50. As we know, the
ages of persons over the age of 15 were rounded-down to the next lowest
multiple of 5 if their actual ages were not exact multiples of 5 at the time
the census was conducted, (see Pages 14-15 of 79). With this in mind, William’s actual age was
anywhere between 45 and 49 and Martha’s was anywhere between 50 and 54. Per the 1850 US Census, William’s age was
recorded as 58, and per the 1860 US Census, William’s age was recorded as
68. Both of these US Census ages point
to 1792 being William’s likely year of birth, and if we accept that as gospel,
or at least close enough, then William’s actual age when the 1841 UK Census was
conducted was 49. William’s calculated
birth year, 1792, suggests that he was 21 yrs of age in 1813, and not a minor
as we historically define it, and since we also know that Martha was at least 1
or more years older than William, she too does not fall into the category of
being a minor circa 1813. Per Martha’s
The question is: Why then was “with Consent of Guardians” filled-in on what I am presumptively assuming to be the correct William Jackson and Martha, Bolton Upon Dearne, 1813 marriage registry?
And then there’s William’s recorded occupation: “Servant in Husbandry.” I did some research online, and found an excellent source: “Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England,” by Ann Kussmaul, 1981, from which I gleaned the following basic and paraphrased information:
In early modern rural England, young, unmarried individuals, (mid teens
to mid 20's), were customarily hired into contracted "farm service,” with
the agreement being that in addition to performing certain duties, they would
be housed and fed by the farmer/landowner, and were regarded as being members
of their employers’ households. It appears that on an annual basis, these
Servants either renewed expired employment contracts, or signed their lives
over to the direction of new landowner/farmer employers.
This might
explain (and I think it does) why "with consent of Guardians" was filled-in on the marriage registry page because
for William to marry Martha, a “release” in the form of permission (“Consent”)
would have been required to terminate the contractual employment agreement with
his “master,” since it also appears that farmers and landowners did not and
were not also expected to feed and house any potentially growing families of
annually contracted servants, and this is why all farm servants thus employed
were, by definition, young and unmarried.
My assumption is that William, at 21 yrs of age in 1813, but under
contract as a “Servant in Husbandry,” (and perhaps Martha as well), would necessarily
have had to be consensually released by his/their "Guardians," i.e.,
his/their landowner/farmer employer(s).
It is certain that the “In the Presence of” signatories at the bottom the marriage document, which appear as: George Ellis and Thomas Rodwell, were not the biological fathers of either William Jackson or Martha Sidney, and if, per the Curate, “With Consent of Guardians” was a stipulated requirement (legal or otherwise) as it pertained to this marriage, who then would Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell have been if not the designated and aforementioned “Guardians” themselves? Where parents are normally regarded as Guardians, then the parents, or at least the fathers of William and Martha, would have been the designated “In the Presence of” and “With Consent of Guardians” signatories, but these signers do not appear to be the fathers, biological or otherwise, of William or Martha.
The list of arguably possible scenarios that might explain this “With Consent of Guardians” problem, and the “In the Presence of ” witnesses, George Ellis and Thomas Rodwell, is as follows…….
1. Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell may have been friends or
familial relations of the bride and groom.
2. Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell may simply have been
persons off the street or employees of the church, who, for want of witnesses
supplied by the bride and groom, were brought in by the Curate to serve the purpose
of Witnessing the event; thus satisfying any presumed requirement, legal or
otherwise.
3. Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell may have been the adoptive
or surrogate parent/fathers/guardians of the bride and groom who themselves may
have been orphaned by the earlier deaths of their actual birth-parents/fathers/guardians.
4. Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell may have been the groom’s
and/or bride’s farmer/landowner, contractual employer(s), being thereby the
legally defined “Guardians,” and by definition therefore, the required “with
Consent of Guardians,” and “in the presence of ” witnesses to the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations and Statistics: Bolton Upon Dearne, Greasbrough, and
Early 19th century Population
Statistics of Bolton Upon Dearne,
|
Year |
Population |
|
1820 |
623 |
|
1841 |
671 |
|
1849 |
771 |
Fig. 2a
Source: http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/district/bolton.htm#top
Early 19th
century Population Statistics for the Twp’s of Rotherham Parish,
|
|
Population
in 1801 |
Population
in 1811 |
Population
in 1821 |
Population
in 1831 |
|
|
3070 |
2950 |
3548 |
4083 |
|
Brinsworth |
183 |
208 |
225 |
227 |
|
Catcliffe |
135 |
170 |
202 |
196 |
|
|
225 |
264 |
225 |
187 |
|
Greasbrough (Chapelry) |
1166 |
1253 |
1252 |
1290 |
|
Kimberworth |
3326 |
3482 |
3797 |
4031 |
|
Orgreave |
45 |
42 |
47 |
35 |
|
Tinsley (Chapelry) |
268 |
302 |
327 |
368 |
Fig. 2b
Source: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Rotherham/Rotherham37.html
Enumerated Frequency of:
“William Jackson” and “Martha Jackson” singles and wedded pairs
in the 1841
|
First and
Last Name Combinations |
Instances
Recorded |
|
William Jackson |
45 * |
|
Martha Jackson |
9 * |
|
William & Martha Jackson wedded pairs |
1 |
138,824 total Census entries in the
Source’s database
Fig. 2c
Source: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
“William & Martha Jackson” wedded pairs (apparent or inferred) = 1 **
Total Number of
Jackson’s living in greater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enumerated Frequency of:
“William Jackson” and “Martha Jackson” singles and wedded pairs
in the 1851
|
First and
Last Name Combinations |
Instances
Recorded |
|
William Jackson |
46 * |
|
Martha Jackson |
5 * |
|
William & Martha Jackson wedded pairs |
0 |
155,094 total Census entries in the
Source’s database
Fig. 2d
Source: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
“William & Martha Jackson” wedded pairs (apparent or inferred) = 0
Total Number of
Jackson’s living in greater
* All forms of these forenames were counted and
included in the total (if they existed and appeared paired with either William
or Martha respectively as a seemingly married
** For the record, this one and only “William & Martha Jackson”
wedded pair in the 1841 UK Census is the certifiably correct (my/our) William
& Martha Jackson, then residing in the “Castle Yard Manor” neighborhood of
Sheffield, England, (see Pages 55 - 58 of 79, and “Addendum 10, Diagram 1”).
The pairing of “William” with “Martha” and then with “Jackson” as a wedded pair reduces the odds of those otherwise common names appearance together to the extent that there was only 1 instance in 1841 and 0 instances in 1851. In my opinion, in two large populations like these, this relative rarity is indeed a most significant and noteworthy fact.
Another Look at Fig. 2c :
William Jackson’s 1841 UK Census, Sheffield, YKS,
·
Total Census Population: 138,824 (1841
· Total Number of Jackson’s: 716
· Total Number of William’s: 10,208 (see Fig. 3b, ahead)
· Total Number of William Jackson’s: 45
· William Jackson’s of “marriageable age: 37 total
· Correctly Aged William Jackson’s (45-50 ys of age): 5
· Correctly Aged William Jackson’s (45-50 yrs of age) living with a Martha: 1
Martha Jackson’s per the 1841 UK Census, Sheffield,
YKS,
·
Total Census Population: 138,824 (1841
· Total Number of Jackson’s: 716
· Total Number of Martha’s: 2,009 (see Fig. 3b, ahead)
· Total Number of Martha Jackson’s: 9
· Martha Jackson’s of “marriageable” age: 6 total
· Correctly Aged Martha Jackson’s (45-55 yrs of age): 1
· Correctly Aged Martha Jackson’s (45-55 yrs of age) living with a William: 1
Fig.’s 2c
and 2d reflect data collected from
two British Census events, (Sheffield 1841 and Sheffield 1851), where each is a
snapshot of a large population. Fig.’s 2c and 2d also reflect the relative rarity or infrequency of a “William
and Martha Jackson” appearing as wedded couples in populations separated by 10
yrs in the urban
What this suggests is that among the two relatively large 1841 and 1851 populations of Jackson’s in Sheffield, the appearance of three otherwise common names: “William,” ”Martha,” and “Jackson,” where all three occur simultaneously and appear in combination as a wedded couple is a relative rarity, and that if one extrapolates these results down to the village and hamlet population level, i.e., Bolton Upon Dearne and Greasbrough, circa 1813 and 1814 respectively, then one can reasonably predict the unlikely or improbable (though admittedly not impossible) occurrence of two similarly aged “William & Martha Jackson” wedded pairs, with one pair being married at Bolton Upon Dearne, and the other residing in Greasbrough, separated by a mere 7 miles, at more or less the same time; mid 1813 and late 1814 respectively
Assuming this is
true, then the question that follows is this:
What are the mathematical chances that in the village of Bolton Upon Dearne, whose circa 1813 population was less than 625, that a William Jackson would marry a Martha on 02 July 1813, not more than 7 miles away from the village of Greasbrough, whose population was less than 1300, where the birth of John Jackson occurred 1 yr, 5 mos, and 6 days later, and born to parents William & Martha Jackson … the birth being the certified and correct birth of my/our John Jackson?
The problematic consequence
of doubt or disbelief is this:
If one chooses not to accept the 1813 marriage in Bolton Upon Dearne as being none other than the correct William Jackson and Martha pair, then one must also accept that there were two pairs of comparatively youthful and wedded “William and Martha Jackson’s,” residing within 7 miles of one another in a relatively sparsely populated area of what can be described as rural England at about the same time (1813 and 1814 respectively).
Verbatim Descriptions of
the
|
Described in the
1820s as a parish-town, in the lower-division of Strafforth and Tickhill,
liberty of Tickhill. It was situated 7½ miles north of Rotherham, Doncaster
and Source: http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/district/bolton.htm#top |
|
“BOLTON upon DEARNE is a parish
in the northern division of the wapentake of STRAFFORTH and TICK HILL, West
riding of the Source: Excerpt
from “A Topigraphical Dictionary of Google Books Online |
Most interesting are the references in each of the above two descriptions pertaining to “statute fairs” being held annually at Bolton Upon Dearne in early November for the purpose of hiring “servants.”
Definitions:
The definition of “statute fair”:
An assemblage of farming servants (held possibly bystatute) for the purpose of being hired; -- called alsostatute fair. [Eng. [1913 Webster] The definition of “Mop” as it is used and appears above, (ref.: 3d Mop, 2.): A fair where servants are hired. [Prov. Eng.
Source: http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/statute+fair
The definitions of “wapentake”:
Dialect term used in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire,
Main Entry: wa·pen·take
Date: before 12th century. Function: noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English wæpentæc, from Old Norse vāpnatak: act of
grasping weapons, from vāpn weapon + tak act of grasping, from taka, to
take; probably from the brandishing of weapons; as in weapon, take. A subdivision of some English shires
corresponding to a “hundred,” which may in and of itself allude to the number
of arms or armed men any given locale could raise.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wapentakes
Author’s note: The German word for weapon is “waffen,” (pronounced “vaffen”), an Anglo-Saxon derivative; phonetically similar and likely related in an etymological way to “wapen,” as in “wapentake.”
----------------------------------------------
It appears that yesteryear’s “statute fairs” are somewhat analogous to the oft-held “Job Fairs” of today, where “statute fairs” occurred in rural communities for the purpose of organizing and assembling farmers and other landowners together with prospective servant employees in one spot on a certain and defined day (annually) for the purpose of hiring those prospective employees as servants, specifically or primarily as farming servants of various duties and job titles.
If we assume that the parents of William Jackson and Martha Sidney were alive at the time of their offspring’s marriage in 1813, we can also playfully assume that they were in favor of the marriage, but we can also conclude that their favor did not, in this case, supersede or legally trump the favor of what we can also assume to be, the legally contracted employer(s) of William and possibly Martha, since we know with certainty that William was a Servant under contract, i.e., a “Servant in Husbandry,” and that it was this employment status that may explain the appearance of the bearers of “Consent,” they being the “Guardians”: Messr.’s George Ellis and Thomas Rodwell, who, besides providing pay, did also provide food and shelter, under a formal and binding, around-the-clock employment contract.
Common Surnames, Common Forenames, and Common Names as
Wedded Pairs Statistics in
The population of
Top 20 Surname’s in
|
SURNAME |
Number of Individuals |
|
SURNAME |
Number of Individuals |
|
Smith |
1,884 |
|
Thompson |
704 |
|
|
1,220 |
|
Johnson |
676 |
|
|
1,104 |
|
Green |
665 |
|
Shaw |
858 |
|
Hobson |
648 |
|
|
814 |
|
Brown |
632 |
|
Turner |
814 |
|
Parkin |
586 |
|
Hall |
757 |
|
Barker |
569 |
|
Ward |
745 |
|
Rodgers |
566 |
|
|
716 |
|
Lee |
542 |
|
Wright |
711 |
|
Robinson |
531 |
Fig. 3a
Top 12 Male & Top 12 Female Forenames in
|
Top 12 MALE Forenames |
Number of Individuals |
|
Top 12 FEMALE Forenames |
Number of Individuals |
|
John
(Jn and J included) |
11,171 |
|
Mary |
12,051 |
|
William
(Wm, Wllm & W included) |
10,210 |
|
Elizabeth (Eliz & Eliza included) |
10,141 |
|
George
(Geo & G included) |
6,984 |
|
Ann (Anne included) |
9,294 |
|
Thomas
(Thos, Tho & Th included) |
6,178 |
|
Sarah |
7,898 |
|
Joseph
(Jos included) |
5,005 |
|
Hannah |
3,470 |
|
James |
4,090 |
|
Harriet (Harriott, Harriot, Harriett,
Hariett & Harriette included) |
2,441 |
|
Henry
(Hen & H included) |
3,609 |
|
Martha |
2,009 |
|
Charles
(Chas & C included) |
2,943 |
|
Jane |
1,986 |
|
Samuel
(Sam included) |
2,356 |
|
Emma |
1,765 |
|
Robert
(Robt, Rob & Rbt included) |
1,371 |
|
Ellen |
1,239 |
|
Edward
(Ed, Edw, Edwd & E included) |
1,249 |
|
Mary Ann (Maryann included) |
963 |
|
Benjamin
(Ben & Benj included) |
1,110 |
|
|
875 |
Fig.
3b
Total
Enumerated Population: 138,824
Statistics in Fig.’s 3a and 3b are
search results collected by the Author at:
http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
Short,
Comparative Analysis of Common “Forename-Forename-Surname”
Wedded-Pair
Frequencies in the 1841
|
SMITH |
Wedded Pairs |
|
Wedded Pairs |
|
William & Mary |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (10) |
William & Mary |
|
|
John & Mary |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (11) |
John & Mary |
1,1,1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Elizabeth |
1,1,1,1 |
William & Elizabeth |
1 |
|
John & Elizabeth |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (13) |
John & Elizabeth |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Ann |
1,1,1,1 |
William & Ann |
1,1 |
|
John & Ann |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (7) |
John & Ann |
1,1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Sarah |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (8) |
William & Sarah |
1,1,1 |
|
John & Sarah |
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (11) |
John & Sarah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Hannah |
1,1 |
William & Hannah |
|
|
John & Hannah |
1,1,1 |
John & Hannah |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Harriet |
1,1,1 |
William & Harriet |
1 |
|
John & Harriet |
1,1 |
John & Harriet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Martha |
|
William & Martha |
1 |
|
John & Martha |
1,1,1 |
John & Martha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH |
|
|
|
|
William & Jane |
|
William & Jane |
1,1 |
|
John & Jane |
|
John & Jane |
1 |
Total Number
of Searchable Census Entries = 138,824
“1” = One
Wedded Pair (apparent or inferred)
·
SMITH (surname pop: 1,884): William and John Smith’s paired with the
Top 8 female forenames: Mary, Elizabeth,
Ann, Sarah, Hannah, Harriet, Martha, Jane.
·
·
John
Smith’s = 158, William Smith’s = 151; John Jackson’s = 32, William Jackson’s =
45.
Fig.
3c
Statistics and Search results
collected by Author at: “
When “Common” Is Not
Necessarily So:
If nothing else, Fig.
3c shows that a “common name” combination like: “William & Martha
Jackson” appearing as a wedded pair is nothing if not rare, with only 1 pair
occurring, in what was the large and demographically homogenous population of
greater Sheffield circa 1841. By 1851
the population of greater
Even in the most numerously appearing wedded-pair scenario in Fig. 3c: “John & Elizabeth Smith,” (with Smith being the most common surname in Sheffield at the time), there were only 13 instances of “John and Elizabeth Smith” wedded pairs, (apparent or inferred), out of a total population of 1,884 Smiths; meaning there were 13 John Smiths wedded to 13 Elizabeth’s; with the forename “John” being 1st among the Top 12 male forenames numbering over 11,170, and “Elizabeth” being 2nd among the Top 12 female forenames, at over 10,100 in all, living in and around Sheffield in 1841.
“Common names,” (as in common forenames), are indeed common when considered singly, but the math changes and the names become less “common” when those same common forenames are paired in a wedded relationship with another common forename, and then rarer still when they both are paired in a wedded relationship with any given or common surname.
My Opinion, or, Where
there is No Indisputable Proof, there is at least Faith:
If one factors these results down to the village and hamlet level, like Bolton Upon Dearne, (population 623), and Greasbrough, (population 1253), with a combined population numbering less than 2,000; and where these locales are separated physically by a mere 7 miles, and the marriage and birth events are separated in time by 1 year, 5 months and 6 days, (the time between the date of marriage in Bolton Upon Dearne and the birth of John Jackson in Greasbrough), the expected probability of two pairs of roughly equally aged and wedded “William & Martha Jackson’s,” becomes zero to negligible by the sheer improbability of it all…. Possible, yes, but highly improbable, and this, in my opinion, gives great weight to the probability that the William Jackson & Martha Sidney wedded pair in Bolton Upon Dearne in July of 1813 is the same William & Martha Jackson wedded pair in Greasbrough, 1 year, 5 months, 6 days and 7 miles later.
It is also my opinion that William and Martha were both “in Service,“ and that Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell were their respective and legally contracted landowner/farmer employers; who by contract, custom and tradition not only paid them a wage, but also provided them with food and shelter in a rural employment environment where farm servants were: 1.) almost, if not in fact, universally young and unmarried, 2.) regarded as members of the employers’ households and, 3.) whose around-the-clock-time, within the bounds of the normal and customary employment contract, was regarded as being the property of the employer.
In that kind of familial/contracted/employment environment, Messr.’s Ellis and Rodwell, would by default and by definition, have been the rightful and legal “Guardians” whose “Consent” was legally (and not unexpectedly) required by the Curate for this marriage to occur.
The name
“Sidney” historically appears in populations both as a forename as well as a
surname, although instances of this name can be regarded, for the most part, as
being equally and typically uncommon, (i.e., there were only 20 Sidney’s
appearing as forenames in the 1841 UK Census, Sheffield, and only 3 Sidney’s
appearing as surnames, with no relation to Martha known or implied).
As it happens,
the 2nd child born to my
To Raymond
Sidney Jackson, (aka “Uncle Sid”), Martha (Sidney presumed) Jackson was his
gg-grandmother and I can only guess at the possibility that her maiden surname
was, for a time, a known, remembered and verbally communicated name among the
Jackson’s and that maybe it was thus revived and perpetuated in the form of it
being this son’s assigned middle name.
Names were, in fact, passed-down among the
Raymond Sidney
Jackson, had two children, and attempts thus far to find/contact these, my
long-lost, (40+ yrs lost), 2nd cousins, have so far been
unsuccessful, though not yet hopeless.
If contact is made, it is hoped that one or the other of them may be
able to shed some light on this matter.
There Is, however, the Slimmest
Possibility of Certifiable and Indisputable Proof…
William &
Martha Jackson produced at least 5 more children between the years 1819 and
1830, and there is the slimmest of chances that, whereas Martha Jackson’s
maiden surname was not recorded on the birth and baptism record of her first
child, John Jackson, in Greasbrough in 1814-15, (see “Addendum 11”), her maiden
surname may have been recorded on any
one of her next 5 children’s birth and baptism records, (see “Addendum 10,
Diagram 1”).
Upon the start
of Civil Registration (
Prior to the
start of Civil Registration, birth, marriage and death registrations were
executed by the great multitude of Parish Churches and there was no fixed
record-keeping format or event-recording standard by which all events were
recorded. Most of what was recorded for
any given life event was at the whim of the recording church official. It did happen, however rarely, that at times
the birth- mother’s maiden surname was recorded on Parish birth registrations,
and the slim chance of that possibility recorded on any one of the later
Jackson births, (1819-1830), would be the only indisputable and “genealogically
correct” proof that John Jackson’s mother was, in fact, “Martha Jackson,
formerly Sidney.”
Some News -
On this date my
contact in
THOMAS JACKSON - International
Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening: 07 NOV 1819 Ecclesfield, Yorkshire, England
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
CHARLES JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening: 28 JUL 1822 Ecclesfield, Yorkshire, England
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
Gender: Female Christening: 07
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
WILLIAM JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Christening: 22 OCT 1827 Ecclesfield, Yorkshire, England
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
HENRY JACKSON - International Genealogical Index / BI
Gender: Male Birth: 10
Christening: 04 JUL 1833 Brunswick And Park Chapels Norfolk Street-Wesleyan,
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England
Parents: William Jackson and Martha
Source: http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp
Remembering
that the ages of persons 15 yrs and older were rounded down to the next lowest
multiple of 5 if their exact age was not an exact multiple of 5, these same
children, along with parents William and Martha Jackson, appear in the 1841 UK
Census, (conducted 06 Jun 1841), in Sheffield as follows:
|
Name |
Age |
Address |
Piece_No |
ED |
Folio |
Reg_Dist |
|
William
JACKSON |
45 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Martha
JACKSON |
50 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Thomas
JACKSON |
20 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Charles
JACKSON |
20 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Mary
JACKSON |
15 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
William
JACKSON |
12 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
|
Henry
JACKSON |
10 |
Castle
Yard Manor |
1336/7 |
18 |
51a |
|
Source: http://www.sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk/
According to
the contact in Britain who conducted this search, no record for Henry Jackson,
the last born child of William & Martha Jackson, was found this day at the
Sheffield Archives, and that may have something to do with where he was
baptized, i.e., “Brunswick And Park Chapels, Norfolk Street-Wesleyan,” which
the contact describes as being an “Evangelical Protestant” church. This may imply what one might interpret as
being a familial break of some sort with the more traditional and far more
universally attended Church of England, since the first 4 children were, in fact,
christened at St. Mary’s, the Parish Church at Ecclesfield; a member church of
the Church of England.
We will never
know the answer to the question of their presumed religiosity, but for the
record I can vouch with certainty that the
Each of the
children born prior to Henry were christened at St. Mary’s church. The dates of birth for the 4 children born
prior to Henry were not included in their respective christening records. We can assume though that their births
closely preceded their respective christening dates; the exception being once
again, Henry, who, per FamilySearch.org, was christened 3 yrs after his birth.
Interestingly, the
first 4 christenings were conducted at St. Mary’s in Ecclesfield, but the
address of these 4 children and their parents, William and Martha Jackson, was
recorded as “Mortomley,” a village not more than a mile north of Ecclesfield;
which puts the family not more that 9 miles north of their later
On the informationally-supportive
side, William Jackson’s occupation, “Miner,” was recorded on each of his 4 children’s
St. Mary’s christening records. This
agrees perfectly with his occupation as it was recorded per the 1841 UK Census
when the family was by then residing at their “Castle Yard Manor” address in
The Possible Fates of
the 5 Known Siblings of John Jackson
1. For Thomas Jackson, there were 6 correctly
aged and therefore possible candidates living in Sheffield per the 1851 UK
Census, so none can be certifiably determined without obtaining the
2. For Charles Jackson, no candidates were found
in the 1851 UK Census that met the expected age-range criteria. There were 3 “Charles Jackson” deaths that
occurred in
3. For Mary Jackson, we can assume that she was either
deceased or married by the time the 1851 UK Census was conducted, and if
married, her surname will have changed to something unknown by or before 1851. There were 10 “Mary Jackson” marriages that
occurred in
4. For William Jackson, there was one and only
one correctly aged and therefore possible candidate living in
5. For Henry Jackson, there was one and only one
correctly aged and therefore possible candidate living in Sheffield per the
1851 UK Census - married to a wife Anne, childless, and living with a 54 yr old
woman, Sarah Morton, whom we can presume to be Anne’s mother; and the
mother-in-law of Henry. There were 2
seemingly possible Henry Jackson marriages that occurred in
It’s impossible
from this vantage point to know or understand the family dynamic as it
pertained to the William Jackson family after what had to be Martha’s
protracted illness and ultimate death in early Jan 1842. I am philosophically moved to assume though
that William, having been a one-time product of rural life, and who, after
marrying Martha, fell prey to the
employment fate that so many did and do – that being the unrelenting pull
toward industry and urban life. It is my
intuitive belief that he longed for and dreamed of the remote chance of
somehow, someday, in some unknown way, returning to a more pastoral and natural
existence, and out of and away from the coal mines of south Yorkshire. That opportunity was a none-existent dream
for him in
It is quite
possible that Martha was privy to this notion of leaving for
There are any
number of reasons why William’s other children did not follow their father and their
brother John to a new life in America, and for one or more of them the reason
could have simply been that they didn’t share the same vision or dream…, or for
whom the myriad complications of life took charge as they so often do in the
lives of people whose relationships may also have been complicated by the
wishes of an unwilling spouse, who in turn, might also be (and often are)
encumbered with their own set of difficulties and complications.
One thing is
certain though: After Martha’s death, William found a life-long, like-minded
ally in son John, and it is unlikely that William and John ever again
communicated with those other family members who, for whatever reason, remained
behind.
One Final Thought… After
One Last Look Back…
It is of some
passing interest to note that, as it pertains to William’s and Martha’s
handwritten signatures and “X” marks on the Church Marriage Registry page, it
is certain that the Curate inserted their written names; after which we can also
be certain that it was William himself who inscribed his own mark, which
appears more like a cross than an X.
Martha appears to have followed William’s lead by inscribing her own,
nearly identical cross in the space provided below William’s:
Signature Detail of 1813 William Jackson & Martha
Sidney
Fig. 4
From this, one
can conclude that, in all likelihood, both William Jackson and Martha Sidney
were fundamentally illiterate, and that to them, where an “X” was described as being
two crossed lines, they responded in kind with the only depiction of that
character that they knew - that being the classic cross in the tradition of
what is and was universally known as the Christian cross; an image and a shape
we can be sure they were familiar with.
For me personally,
upon viewing the image of this marriage registry page for the first time, I was
and remain poignantly aware and appropriately awed that of all of William &
Martha Jackson’s many descendants spanning the past 196 years, none on this
side of the Atlantic had ever laid eyes on this document (or its image) and the
youthfully penned marks it bears - the intended “X” marks made by William
Jackson and Martha Sidney as representations of themselves upon it, which,
besides their descendants, are the only tangible and personal vestige of their very
real selves, the world they lived in, and the beginning of their one-time role
in the lattice-work of life.
End of Addendum 12
William and Martha Jackson Family Timeline: 1813-1850
Copyright © 2009 Robert E. Sweeney and individual Contributors. All Rights Reserved. Prior written permission is required from Robert E. Sweeney and individual Contributors before this material can be printed or otherwise copied, displayed or distributed in any form. This is a FREE genealogy site sponsored through PAGenWeb and can be reached directly at ~Sullivan County Genealogy Project (http://www.rootsweb.com/~pasulliv)