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!
I had mentioned in ‘Desperately Seeking John’ that there was one BUCHAN who didn’t emigrate to New Zealand on the Rimutaka with the rest of the family. In Roy Buchan’s book ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’ he mentions that “there is thought to be at least one other who stayed behind.”.
Feeling inspired, I wanted to find out more about Charles BUCHAN (junior) – ‘the one that stayed behind’. He had appeared on all the census records between 1871 and 1891 – odd that he didn’t go with them. I wondered why he had stayed and considered whether his descendants were still living in the Peterhead area?
I downloaded Charles’ birth certificate:
Birth Certificate of Charles BUCHAN born 27 November 1865
After a search of marriages on the IGI, I was unable to find a likely match so I checked deaths. I hoped this would give me the name of his wife if he had at all married. Unfortunately, he hadn’t.
Poor Charles died at 26 years of age in 1892 – about a year and a half before the family moved to New Zealand. He died from consumption of the lungs (phthisis pulmonaris). His father, Charles (b.1830), was present at his death and registered the event three days later.Now we know Charles had no option BUT to stay behind.
Death Certificate of Charles BUCHAN – Died 30 July 1892
In case brother John DID refer to brother-in-law John, I decided to check for deaths before embarking on a costly census trawl. There were a few likely entries but since John hadn’t appeared on any of the censuses, I chose one of the infant deaths first and sure enough there he was:Poor little tyke only lived 12 days – cause unknown.
I think it’s safe to say that the John present at Alexander BUCHAN’s death is his sister Jessie’s (born 1860) husband. They had married back in Peterhead and emigrated with Jessie’s parents and siblings.
I noticed this morning that the Scotlands People website has changed a bit (at least cosmetically) which in turn led me to notice the free wills and testaments search in the left bar. So I started plugging away at some of my Scottish ancestors and came across a possible record for William MURRAY, dated 1839:
William MURRAY was the father of Margaret MURRAY (who married William GLAISTER in 1843). It seems I had been unable to locate Margaret or her family in the 1841 census NOR find a record of the marriage of her parents when last researching the line and so left the family there for the time being. Today, after consulting the new Family Search BETA and 1841 census transcriptions on a site called Graham Maxwell Ancestry, I was able to discover the marriage of William MURRAY to Janet BELL in the Kelso parish registers, 1817:
William Murray, Stocking-maker here & Janet Bell, Daughter of Alexr. Bell, Stocking-maker in Melrose, after the publication of the banns of marriage in the Church of Kelso, were married, at Melrose, on the eighth day of Decr. 1817 by the Revd. Mr. Thomson, Minister of Melrose, in presence of these witnesses Lieut. Lachlan Burn of the R.N. – Kelso & George Hart – Melrose
As the marriage obviously took place in Melrose, I decided to see if the Melrose records held any more information. It’s quite amusing how little they actually held compared to the Kelso registers:
[1817, Nov 30] William Murray residing in the parish of Kelso and Janet Bell residing in this parish.
I’m pretty sure this is the family on the 1841 census:
The names and ages of the children are all correct (as found on the IGI) – only Margaret is missing (possibly working elsewhere). The only other concern is that William, who was recorded as a stocking maker at marriage is now a barber. Not impossible by any means but a concern nonetheless.
So, back to the testaments – is this my guy? Is the testament dated in 1839 because that William MURRAY had died OR was it drawn up before death? If the 1839 date indicates the date of death, it is not my guy because he appears to be alive on the 1841 census. I’m a tad confused.
UPDATE: The will bequeaths all to this man’s niece, Anne P. Murray or Montgomerie as the sole beneficiary so apparently NOT my William MURRAY. However, he was residing in Kelso at time of death so I feel he must be related somehow, even if distantly.
Next Steps:
Determine how this William Murray & Anne Murray/Montgomerie fit in my tree (if at all)
Ancestry have now released the National Probate Calendar (1861-1941) which is almost like an index to wills. A distant relative who has worked with me on my STILING line gave me the heads up and I checked it out:
STILING John 9 October.
The Will of John Stiling late of Tiverton in the County of Devon Yeoman deceased who died 3 February 1862 at Tiverton aforesaid was proved at Exeter by the oath of Edward Stiling of the Parish of Tiverton aforesaid Yeoman the Son one of the Executors.
Effects under £600.
[handwritten underneath] Resworn at the Stamp Office Feb 1865 under £450.
I believe this to be my John STILING for the following reasons:
he dropped off the census after 1861
wife declared a widow on the 1871 census
recorded living at Tiverton since 1811 (son Edward’s birth)
has son Edward STILING
farmer (yeoman) since 1841 census
This is the first time I had even come close to a death date for John STILING so I was very pleased indeed to see this entry.
I used ancestry to look further into the son mentioned, Edward STILING and found what appears to be his will too. The entry contained: formerly of Barton but late of Tiverton Farmer died 16 Feb 1873 at Tiverton – Elizabeth Daw, widow, his sister executrix.
Not only do I have a death date but also a daughter of John that I was unaware of until now.
