After a long (unintentional) break from genealogy, I returned to ancestry to find some ‘wiggling leaves’ attached to Charles RICHARDS (b1851). There was a death and probate suggestion which seemed very likely and got me a bit excited until I actually checked the detail on the probate entry:
Although the places were apt, none of the names seemed familiar – my Charles married a Sarah MILLINGTON while this person’s widow was Ellen. The names Jesse and Florence Edith were unfamiliar too. So I searched and found a 1911 census record for this couple:
So with that probate ruled out, I went back to my hints page and looked at the other family trees containing Charles RICHARDS and his family. At least 3 of these trees (which were referring to my Charles -born 1851, married to Sarah, father to 11 children) had listed that particular probate record as a source!
I rechecked the probate record and also listed was a retired shipwright of Liverpool whose widow was Sarah Ann RICHARDS:
Perhaps this is where the confusion lay? However, Charles had appeared in every census from 1851 – always in Staffordshire and always related to the coal industry (particularly as a coal miner).
Although it IS possible that Charles may have remarried, a simple search of the 1911 census found Charles and Sarah still living in Walsall with four of their children:
1911 census record – Charles and Sarah RICHARDS
I left comments on two of the trees informing the owners of the mistake and am keen to hear back from them as they appear to have information (and PHOTOS!) of Charles’ parents and siblings.
In closing, dear fellow geneageeks, PLEASE remember the first rule of genealogy and do not attach information to your tree without confirming it – however much you may want it to be true. After a long hiatus, I was rusty and nearly fell into this trap – DON’T LET IT HAPPEN TO YOU!
Success – hulk similar to where George was imprisoned. (No photographs of the Ganymede appear to exist)
After a bit of a break I ventured onto the Ancestry site and noticed that they had ‘new’ prison hulk registers and letter books. I found that my ol’ pal, George WHITE was held on the Ganymede while awaiting trial and/or transportation to Van Diemen’s Land in 1834.
UK, Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849 for Geo White – Ganymede – 1818-1836
The Ganymede was originally the French frigate, Hébé which was captured in 1809. She was converted to a prison hulk in 1819 and broken up in 1838(source: Wikipedia)(AND the Index of 19th Century Naval Vessels). Hulks were not nice places to be and it seems George was ‘lucky’ enough to stay in one for under a year. The Intolerable Hulks by Charles F. Campbell seems like a good read.
UPDATE: In response to a couple of comments below (always welcome) about the fate of the prison hulk Ganymede, I feel I should mention the possibility there are OTHER ships/hulks also named the Ganymede. The ship I refer to was formerly:
The French L’HEBE taken by Capt. SCHOMBERG in LOIRE in the Atlantic on 5 January 1809. Broken up in 1838 (source: Michael Phillips’ Ships of the Old Navy – http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/info.php?ref=0998)
I have found reference to ANOTHER Ganymede – an iron clipper-barque built in 1868 which was hulked in 1912 (source). Although I don’t claim superior naval knowledge, it is more likely that the Ganymede my commenters refer to as being used as a convict vessel in 1839, is a DIFFERENT ship to either of these as ship names were often REUSED. I feel I should also add here that wikipedia was not my only source. The Index of 19th Century Naval Vessels also contained this information and I have updated my source in the post to include this link. However, if you feel you have evidence that proves these ships are in fact the same vessel I would be really interested to hear about it.
Isn’t it funny what you can come across by accident?
You may have noticed that I don’t just research my direct line of ancestry. I like to get into the nitty gritty of their siblings as well. Partly because I’m nosy, but also to help locate other ancestors you may not come across otherwise, which can help you break down brick walls. Sometimes, an incorrectly transcribed name will finally appear on a page with correctly transcribed relatives (I have found elderly parents living with their adult child’s family) and sometimes, the relation to household column can uncover a sister’s marriage (I have uncovered married names via nieces and nephews).
This is why when I received an email from a distant relative connected to William GLAISTER’s brother, George, I dived into collecting every detail I could about George and his wife, Isabella SHORT. Although, I have so far refrained from collecting HER siblings marriages (more on that later), I have located census records for her parents.
I decided to revise my info on George GLAISTER (b. 1826) – son of Robert GLAISTER (b.1786) and saw that I was yet to find an 1841 census record for him. I had all others up to his death but despite searching with a number of surname variants had always come up empty handed. I tried again today and found a 10 year old George GLAISTER in Wooler where a lot of my GLAISTERS had resided. His age was too young, but since that can often be mistranscribed too, I took a look – definitely not the George I’m looking for…
1841 census – Stephen & George GLAISTER
…but underneath in the next ‘household’ (probably just a different room) were Stephen and George GLAISTER – they had been transcribed as Elander.
Now to find out if the John Glaister above is an uncle, brother or cousin.
Next Steps:
Determine whether this John Glaister is Robert Glaister’s brother
I mentioned in my previous post that I’d like to know more about Arthur BUCHAN’s next marriage as their children are mentioned in Roy Buchan’s book ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’. He had married his first wife, Christian BUCHAN in 1857 who had died by the 1861 census.
Marriage of Arthur BUCHAN and Christian BUCHAN 1857
I located Arthur and his sons on the 1871 census who were now living with Arthur’s new wife, Mary and their new half siblings – Andrew, Mary and Elspet.
Arthur & sons with new family on 1871 census
A search of the IGI located a marriage between Arthur and Mary BRUCE in 1864 which I then downloaded. Strangely, Mary’s parents are not listed.
Marriage of Arthur BUCHAN and Mary BRUCE 1864
I would say there’s a whole new story there.A further search of the IGI uncovered the births of their children, Isabella and Peter. This Peter is ‘Uncle Peter’ who Roy refers to as “a shadowy figure who followed the family to New Zealand, arriving in about 1910”. Auntie Isa was also mentioned in letters written by Roy’s father and uncles during World War I. “a rotter who deserted his wife and children” (Buchan, R., From Peterhead to Passchendaele, 2003, p145).
I’m still reading Roy Buchan’s fabulous ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’ which has thrown up some more avenues of research but have been wondering about Jessie’s husband who was also a BUCHAN. John’s parents, Arthur and Christian BUCHAN sounded familiar but the same names do keep cropping up in these fishing villages. How closely related were they?
The first step was to download their marriage certificate to prove the parents of John.
Marriage of John BUCHAN and Jessie BUCHAN (8 Nov 1883 – 4 Port Henry Lane, Peterhead (bride’s home))
Then I located the family on the 1861 census. Christian was deceased and 2 of her sisters were living with Arthur – most likely helping with the 2 young children.
Arthur BUCHAN and his young sons, John and Arthur on the 1861 census at 21 West Row, St Combs
I suspected she died during childbirth but she actually died shortly before the census was taken of consumption and pneumonia.
Death of Christian BUCHAN – 2 Mar 1861
I then looked to the transcribed 1851 census. Christian and her sisters were there and again appeared in 1841 with their other siblings. Which I will soon look closer at as a study of the village of St Combs.
Roy lists other children of Arthur and Christian but mentions that he believes some are half brothers and sisters and therefore children of another union after Christian died. Before I look further into the BUCHAN – BUCHAN connection, I’d like to find out more about this second union.
