The first step was to do a ‘blanket search’ for Mary born c1828. There was another Mary Wilcox of a similar age recorded in the 1841 census, however this one was recorded with her parents, so I was able to rule out any record for this daughter of William and Jane Wilcox.
I found a baptism record for Mary of the correct age – born 22 October 1828 (baptised 1832), daughter of snaffle maker John Wilcox and his wife, Mary. This means she was 12 at the time of the 1841 census which matched up neatly with the Mary Wilcox recorded with the Thomasons. But another clue lay in where she was baptised – the ‘Independent’ Bridge Street Chapel, Walsall. This was the same place Hannah Craddock and her brother Samuel had been baptised about two decades before. Samuel Craddock was also a snaffle maker, indicating a possible family trade.
1832 Baptism of Mary Wilcox – Bridge Street Chapel, Walsall
But where was the Craddock link?
I searched for the marriage of John and Mary and… BINGO! There was a marriage on 1 November 1824 at West Bromwich of John Wilcox and Mary Craddock. (Unfortunately there was no image.)
I was unable to find a baptism record for Harriet Wilcox, but did find her with parents John and Mary in the 1841 census. This supports my theory that the Harriet Wilcox, also with the Wheeley family on the 1851 census, was the sister of Mary Wilcox.
Wilcox family on 1841 census – Blue Lane, Walsall
So, there we are – minor mystery solved:
Mary Wilcox was the niece of Hannah Wheeley (nee Craddock); daughter of Hannah’s sister Mary Wilcox (nee Craddock).
We will probably never know if Lydia Thomason (nee Walton) was introduced to Samuel Craddock by Mary or vice versa – but we at least know that connection was there.
However, another minor mystery has emerged…
Mary’s sister, Harriet Wilcox, went on to marry miner James Pearson in 1855 – was he related to Mary’s fellow servant, Sarah Pearson, in the 1841 census? I think I’ll leave that one for ‘another day’.
I first came across Mary Wilcox quite a few years ago. She was recorded on the 1881 census, in the home of Thomas Henry Wheeley, as his cousin. At 53, Mary was considerably older than 30-year-old Thomas, but since the term ‘cousin’ could be used rather loosely, this did not necessarily mean they were first cousins. The exact relationship between them was unclear.
1881 census – 36 Garden St, Walsall: Mary as cousin
As I worked backwards through the censuses, Mary kept cropping up. In 1851, 1861, and 1871, she was recorded with Thomas Henry’s parents, Thomas and Hannah Wheeley. In 1851, she was recorded as a 22-year-old japanner and servant to Thomas Wheeley (as was a 17-year-old Harriet Wilcox).
1851 Census – Garden Walk, Walsall: Mary Wilcox as servant
However, in 1861 and 1871, her relationship was recorded as ‘niece’.
1861 census – Garden Street, Walsall: Mary Wilcox as niece
In my experience, relationships to the head of the family, can refer to either the head or his wife, so this Mary Wilcox was the niece of either Thomas Wheeley or his wife, Hannah Craddock – great, good to know – and basically she was put in the ‘for another day’ pile.
Well, that day has arrived!
While extending the Wheeley branches, Mary Wilcox popped up AGAIN in an unexpected place.
Hannah’s brother, Samuel Craddock, married Lydia Thomason (nee Walton) in 1853. Lydia was the widow of Charles Thomason. In the 1841 census Charles and Lydia Thomason were living with their two young children at Potters Lodge (near Full Brook), Walsall. Also there, was 20-year-old japanner Sarah Pearson and 12-year-old servant, MARY WILCOX.
1841 census – Potters Lodge, Walsall: Mary Wilcox in home of Charles and Lydia Thomason
Does this mean Mary was actually related to Lydia? Or had Lydia met her next husband Samuel via Mary’s relationship to him? Or was this a completely different Mary Wilcox altogether?
While researching some extended family members, I came across an unusual marriage.
Ernest Wheeley and Emily Marian Phipps were married in 1923 and their daughter, Cissie was born the following year. Sadly, Ernest died only a few years later in 1929 and Emily married the next year. Although a widow remarrying is very common and can be expected, what makes this case unusual is that Emily had married the nephew of her deceased husband.
Ernest’s nephew, Charles Meller – who was was roughly 12 years younger than Emily – was the son of his sister Blanche Wheeley and Joseph Meller.
Charles was the nephew of Emily’s first husband, Ernest
There has long been a list of ‘forbidden marriages’ based on the bible. Way back in 1503, even King Henry VIII had to request a special dispensation so he could marry his brother Arthur’s widow, Katherine of Aragon. In 1907 the law changed to allow marriage to a wife’s sister or husband’s brother but only if the first spouse was deceased. In 1921, marriage to a brother’s wife or sister’s husband also became legal (only if the first spouse was deceased). This change in law likely came about due to the dramatic reduction in population after World War I. The law was again changed in 1931 to allow marriage to an aunt/uncle-in-law or niece/nephew-in-law (again only if the relevant people were deceased). [source: Forbidden Marriage Laws of the United Kingdom] However, in this case, Charles and Emily were married in 1930 – the year before it became legal for them to do so.
By 1939, the couple had a son together, Ronald, and Cissie had taken the name of her mother’s new husband (and Cissie’s first cousin), Meller. A clue to the unusual relationship can be found on the 1939 register entry – upon Cissie’s marriage in 1943, her original name of Wheeley was added along with her new married name of Dickinson (Cissie used the name Wheeley when she married).
There could be many reasons for marrying a the spouse of a deceased family member and at times it was encouraged. It is impossible to know the nature of the couple’s relationship prior to Ernest’s death (without family anecdotes to rely on). A clue that this union may not have had the family’s blessing may lie in their address. Charles and Emily were on Hollemeadow Road, whereas the rest of the family seemed to live more closely together on or near Pleck Road (the other side of town). But, of course, this is just speculation on my part.
In 1901, Thomas Henry WHEELEY and Ann ROGERS had been married for 23 years and had had 8 children together. They were living on Dalkeith Street in Walsall – a row of terraced houses built alongside the Walsall Locks less than ten years before (in the early 1890s). Thomas was a ‘brown saddler’ living in “a poor locality” so life was probably not easy for the family.
Thomas Henry Wheeley and Ann Rogers on the 1901 census
On Saturday the 20th May, 1905 – only a few years after the census was taken – the family had ‘a quarrel’. Thomas who had been out drinking, came home and argued with Ann, calling her names. Ann, in turn, threatened to throw a saucer at him and Thomas attacked her with a knife. Their 18-year-old son, George Alfred, seeing this take place, struggled with his father and was subsequently hit on the head with some tongs [Not sure if these would be saddler tongs or coal tongs or another type). Ann had managed to escape the house during the scuffle and discovered she had been cut on the wrist.
Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7
BEER, AND A QUARREL.
A saddler named Thomas Wheeley (53), of 91, Dalkeith Street, was charged with unlawfully wounding Ann Wheeley, his wife, with a knife, and also with violently assaulting Alfred Wheeley, his son, by hitting him on the head with a pair of tongs. -The police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only. -The story for the prosecution was that on Saturday night the man Wheeley went home under the influence of drink, and a quarrel, arose. He called his wife a bad name, and she threatened to throw a saucer at him. During the quarrel she found that she had received a wound on the wrist, and went out of the house. -The son’s evidence was to the effect that he saw his father with a knife, and struggled with him. He succeeded in getting his mother out of the house, but while he was doing so he was struck on the head with the tongs. -Dr Mackenzie-in-Thurm (house surgeon at the hospital) said he attended to the woman’s injured wrist. There was only a small punctured wound. It was not serious. -The magistrates sentenced Wheeley to 14 days’ imprisonment. (Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7)
I find it interesting that “the police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only”. Who requested the charges be withdrawn/substituted? Common assault is a lesser charge than ‘unlawfully wounding’ or ‘violently assaulting’ [source] and so appears to minimise Thomas’ actions. Was the switch to a lesser charge because: a) there was a lack of evidence of more serious injuries; b) prosecution were more likely to secure a conviction this way; or c) the general view that domestic violence was less serious?
Thomas’ two-week stint in prison for the assaults seemed to have little effect. A few weeks later, the couple were living at separate addresses – Thomas on Cannon Street and Ann at 481 Pleck Road – when Ann requested a separation order to support her and their four remaining dependent children – Sidney, Ernest, Grace Hilda and Maria (whose ages ranged from 14 to 7).
Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5
PERSISTENT CRUELTY.
Thomas Henry Wheeley, Cannon Street, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife, who applied for an order against him. -Complainant stated that she had been obliged to leave her husband because of his persistent cruelty. She had been married 29 years and had eight children, four of which were depending upon her. Her husband had assaulted her several times and was always threatening her. She had had seven pair of black eyes in less than three months. -The Chairman (to defendant): How many black eyes have you given her since you were married? -Two, that’s all sir. -An order for 10s a week was eventually made. (Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5-6)
In 1895, the ‘Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act’ was introduced. It allowed married women to apply to the magistrates’ courts for separation and maintenance orders if their husbands had:
i. been convicted of an aggravated assault under S.43 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861
ii been convicted on indictment for assault and sentenced to at least two months imprisonment or fined £5
iii. deserted them
iv. been guilty of persistent cruelty so as to make their wives leave home.
v. wilfully neglected to maintain so as to cause their wives to leave home.
(Radford, M. T. (1988) The law and domestic violence against women. PhD Thesis. University of Bradford. Available from: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/3875 (Accessed: 13 May 2020), page 38)
Ann applied for an order of separation on the grounds of his persistent cruelty and subsequent articles definitely paint a picture of an unhappy marriage marred with ‘persistent cruelty’ and alcohol abuse.
A coal hod for sale in 1904 – Thomas was witnessed to have struck his wife Ann with one.
Ann told the court that her husband had ‘never treated her kindly’ and that she had had ‘seven pair of black eyes in less than three months’. Thomas denied this and claimed he had ‘only’ given her two and struck her ‘no more than three times’. Ann also claimed that Thomas had hit her on the head with a coal hod – a claim supported by their 25 year old daughter, Blanche who witnessed the incident. Blanche also confirmed that her father had ‘frequently’ given her mother black eyes. However she also said that her mother had also ‘been under the influence of drink’ but this had not been for some time since “she has not had the money”.
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5
SEVEN PAIRS OF BLACK EYES IN SIX MONTHS –
Thomas Wheeley, saddler, Cannon Street, was summoned by his wife, Ann Wheeley, of 481, Pleck Road, who sought to obtain a separation order on the ground of his persistent cruelty. -Complainant stated that she had been married 29 years, and of her eight children four were dependent upon her. Her husband, who was resently [sic] sent to prison for stabbing her in the wrist, had said that he had done 14 days, and he would yet do 14 years for her. He had never treated her kindly, and a few weeks ago he had struck her on the head with a coal hod. He had given her seven pairs of black eyes in less than six months. Since he came out of prison he had continually threatened what he would do to her. -She denied, in cross-examination by defendant that he had not struck her more than three times since they had been married. -In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had only given his wife two black eyes, and she denied that she had been locked up for being drunk. -Blanche Marston, daughter, also spoke to her father’s ill-treatment of her mother, and said that he had frequently given her black eyes; she did not know how many. She saw him strike her with the coal hod. She admitted that her mother had been under the influence of drink, but not for some time. “She has not had the money,” she added, amid laughter. Since her father came back from gaol his language had been unbearable. -Complainant was re-called, and asked for 10s. a week. -An order was made for that amount. (Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5)
Despite the 1895 act, it’s clear that domestic violence was still not regarded as seriously as it should. Thomas’ seemingly casual, or even blasé attitude regarding the violence he actually admits to inflicting on his wife indicates that beating your wife was largely seen as ‘fine’ depending on its regularity or severity. A woman’s options were very limited and there were many reasons a wife would remain with an abusive husband – whether financial, emotional or social.
For whatever reasons, Thomas and Ann were together again by the 1911 census.
Wheeley family on the 1911 census (130 Bridgeman Street)
I was completely unaware of the events of 1905 until recently. Thomas and Ann appeared in every census together since their marriage in 1878 (1881-1911) so I didn’t expect there to have been such a rift. We like or want to believe that the families we research lived peacefully together despite their often difficult lives. My discovery of these newspaper articles reminded me this is often not the case.
The census is only a ‘snapshot’ every ten years – it’s important to remember this. A lot can happen between these ‘snapshots’. Just as living at the same address two censuses in a row doesn’t always mean they’d actually been there all that time, a family simply living together does not always mean their lives were harmonious all that time.
Not only did she die at just 3 years of age, but she was buried under the wrong name!
To be fair, this error is likely confined to the burial register – a slip up by the rector confusing the names of two sisters – but I can’t help but feel a little indignation for the wee lass.
Eva’s older sister, Ada Rogers was born in 1859 and was only 18 years old when she died in 1877.
Baptism of Ada Rogers 1859Burial of Ada Rogers in 1877
Eva Rogers was born two years after her sister in 1861 and baptised in November at Newport, Shropshire, England.
Baptism of Eva Rogers 1861
As she was born and died between censuses, I only know of Eva’s existence due to trawling the Newport, Shropshire parish records on FindMyPast. But still, her burial did not appear in the burial records. However, there was a burial of ‘another’ Ada Rogers in 1865. I already knew Eva’s sister, Ada (who did appear on censuses) died in 1877 so who was this other Ada? At first I thought there was a transcription error but the record clearly showed ‘Ada Rogers’.
Burial of Eva Rogers (mistranscribed as Ada) 1865
Fortunately, Eva was registered under the correct name as can be seen in the GRO index.
The surname, death place and age at death match so I can surmise the rector simply had ‘a bit of a slip-up’ at the time of recording in the burial register. I feel glad that I was able to uncover the mistake and reestablish her place in the family tree.
