Find Ancestors

Hi Pauline..the soubriquet "widow" was often used on Census entries to cover up something..like the husband leaving her..being in prison, and particularly being transported.so I think you might be right.........don't forget, the census officials simply wrote down what they were told,,,and in earlier censuses paricularly, ages were approximate and entries made without the officials actually seeing who might or might not be living at the address.

Derek.



Der

Hey Gooner.....holding your breath for tonight???

Here's what i have got:

GEORGE MEASHAM born Repton 1836.son of William and Elizabeth nee Wooton........which you already know.

1841 spelt MEACHEN..at Repton mother and father and five children including George.

1851 George Measham single lodger Repton (Servant)

1861 at Long Street Repton George measham and wife Elizabeth and STEPSON John WOOD b 1842..which sort of confirms that Elizabeth was a WOOD..but not her maiden name..which i suspect was BROMLEY married at St Alkmund Derby 1841..this is only a guess.

1871 George and Elizabeth..Geroge appears to have been her ToyBoy becasue she was born at Sutton on the Hill 1809 and died Repton 1873

1881 Pinfold Street Repton..GEORGE has got himself a younger woman born Ticknall 1846 called ELIZA..I'm guessing HILL is not her maiden name........which adds to the difficulty of finding her....

1891 back at long street Repton with Eliza..only jarring note here is that he has always been an Agricultural Labourer..but now he is a LIcenced Hawker.....up to now Geroge has had no children..but.......

1901 he has got himself a bit of young stuff MIRIAM..He is now 65 and Miriam is 25..and they have a child Gladys born 1896

If you're right about her being Miriam FOSTER..I suggest he never married her........She was born 24.06.1874..baptise 02.08.1874 at Newbold and Dunston Chesterfield...1901 Census says she was born Chesterfield.

So idid a bit of digging on the 1911 Census..none of them show up
Presuming George to be dead..I looked at Foster..to which she might have reverted in both Repton AND Chesterfield....MIRIAM FOSTER appears..right age as a Maternity Nurse in Saltergate.

Gladys Foster also appears of the right age living with the Foster family..maybe her grand parents....Maybe this is stretching things too far.but its there for your perusal.

It may be that we don't have a 1911 Census return for Repton........

but we're still a long way from finding the marriages.

All this is taken of Census returns..not off Parish records or IGI.

Phew..enjoy the match!!

your Petal(!)

Derek

Ahh bless you Derek, thanks. A lot of these Meashams seem to like being toyboys LOL. That will keep me busy whilst I am watching the match.

hi lagooner,

George measham married Miriam Foster in 1897.

they had two children Gladys Evelyn 1896 (1911 census)
George Abosolom 1902 (birth registration)

George Measham died 1908.

Miriam Measham married Roger Collier in 1910.

1911 census.
roger collier (1866),miriam Collier(1875),gladys evelyn measham(1896),george abraham measham(1903), albert carter (adopted son 1904)

meercat.

Meercat.. would be interested in your source for the 1897 wedding..we KNOW he married her in 1897..but can find no record of date or place......
Thanks for your input.
Derek

Thanks Meercat.

marriage-george measham-burton upon trent-6b-page488-quarter1-1897.

miriam foster is on the same page.

sorry i thought you thought he never married her.



meercat.

by the way gladys seems to be before the marriage.

gladys evelyn foster-shardlow-7b-page 473-quarter 1-1896.



meercat.

Yes meercat...Gladys was 1896..imagine a 65 year old man seducing a 20 year old.......and then having to marry her when she got pregnant...lolo

It was merely a suggestion that he never married her becasue i couldn't find a Miriam Measham on 1911.....and you have explained that..thanks.

Nevertheless the marriage should be on Parish records....with an actual date and place......

Derek.

sometimes a mans got to do what a mans got to do.

poor george marrying a young woman times were hard in those days.


meercat.

hi derek
hope you are well i think i have asked this before been looking round but still cannot find who her mother was
mary ann aldread c1837 ilkeston derbyshire on her marriage certificate father henry cannot find her with father henry in the census. i sent off for a birth cert i thought might be her in tamworth no luck. we thought we had her living with mother siblings including as issac and samuel in 1841 but this appears to be wrong as someone is doing samuel(1831) and his father is joseph not sure where to go next
if we cannot find her with henry her father cannot find a birth or baptism do not know who her mother was or if she had siblings were to go next?
can you suggest anything thanks derek best wishes sharon

Thought I’d take you up on your kind offer, if we haven’t frightened you off.

Hannah Forster c1807 m William Taylor c1807 in St Mary’s Bleasby, Notts on 11 Sep 1825.

Both are said to be from Epperstone, but in 1861, Hannah is stated to have been born in Ilkeston.

While it is possible that the Hannah in 1861 is a new version (also b c1807), could you see if you have any Derbyshire records for Hannah Forster please?

There is no rush as there is plenty more to keep me occupied - lol

Thank you

DET good morning.

This is rather complicated by the fact that Hannah appears everywhere as FOSTER reather than Forster. Not easy to check becasue there are so many posssibilities..and of course by the 1841 census she is Hannah Taylor.
Firstly, you can ignore the Ilkeston idea, becasue i have the full ilkeston Parish records..and she is not there.
You may not be aware of this, but there are a cluster of small villages around Southwell in Notts..Bleasby,Hoveringham,Epperstone, Thurgarton are but a few.
It seems that Hannah was in fact born in Hoveringham 1807, and married William taylor of Epperstone at Bleasby.1825.

They had many children, one souce says 16..but I can prove only six of them..

The same source cites two different 1851 Census returns, and i think had added them together.

One of these is a William and Hannah taylor ostensibly from Eastoft in Lincs, but with the same children as the Hoveringham/Epperston family..crazy

I have checked the two 1851 Census entries and strangley they do show the same children....but I believe your William taylor was a Cordwainer/shoemaker..whereas the Lincs on is an Agricultural labourer.

I'm not sure what else i can do.
EDIT.12.45....I am now perfectly happy that the WILLIAM TAYLOR and wife HANNAH FORSTER were from Epperstone/Hoveringham..and never went anywhere near Derbyshire or Loncolnshire..Have also sourced all their children.

They mive into Nottingham by 1851 and stayed there.

all the best.

Derek.

Thank you very much for looking in to it. I hadn't realised there were 2 couples of the same name. I'll have to go back over my records and check I haven't confused them.

Mine were deffinately Cordwainers in Nottingham. Although I have 9 children, I hope none of those have also been merged in!

Thank you once again.

DET

Hi Derek are you still offering research for Derbyshire records ?
Chris

Derek did you miss this one I posted on page 21

Hi Derek

Thanks for your help so far, it is very useful piecing together my family tree.

I have another Kirk, Thomas born in 1681 in Townend, Chapel en le Frith, Derbyshire, England.

I believe he married Hester but what was her maiden name and when was she born.

Who were Thomas's parents.

I struggle to find any of this on IGI.

Hello Chris..oh yes!!.....how can I help?

Hi Simon.....sorry..no i didn't miss it........there are a very large number of Kirk's..most of which I think I've got.......but not yours at the moment...
I'll be off to matlock records office quite soon..have had a broken ankle and only just back on my feet..Bear with me.
EDIT 16.40.......IGI have Thomas KIrk's birth 1681 and Mrs Hester Kirk..but is submitted and no other details.

Derek.

DET.Have confirmed your nine children...seven of them by parish records...others by 1841 and a851 Census......all children of William and Hannah and all either at Hoveringham or in Nottingham..and William was a Cordwainer..then a shoemaker..then a cordwainer (meaning leatherworker)...

Derek

Thought you lot might like to read this. I too have cordwainers in my tree and downloaded this explanation.

What is a Cordwainer? An Ancient Calling

The term "cordwainer" is an Anglicization of the French word cordonnier, which means shoemaker, introduced into the English language after the Norman invasion in 1066. The word was derived from the city of Cordoba in the south of Spain, a stronghold of the mighty Omeyyad Kalifs until its fall in the 12th century.

Moorish Cordoba was celebrated in the early Middle Ages for silversmithing and the production of cordouan leather, called "cordwain" in England. Originally made from the skin of the Musoli goat, then found in Corsica, Sardinia, and elsewhere, this leather was tawed with alum after a method supposedly known only to the Moors.

Crusaders brought home much plunder and loot, including the finest leather the English shoemakers had seen. Gradually cordouan, or cordovan leather became the material most in demand for the finest footwear in all of Europe.

The English term cordwainer first appears in 1100. Since this date the term cordouan, or cordovan leather, has been applied to several varieties of leather. Today cordovan leather is a vegetable tanned horse "shell," and like the Medieval cordwain is used only for the highest quality shoes.

Since the Middle Ages the title of cordwainer has been selected by the shoemakers and used loosely. Generally it refered to a certain class of boot and shoemakers. The first English guild who called themselves cordwainers was founded at Oxford in 1131. "Cordwainers" was also the choice of the London shoemakers, who organized a guild before 1160, and the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers has used this title since receiving its first Ordinances in 1272.

First Cordwainers in America

The first English cordwainers, or shoemakers, landed at Jamestown, Virginia, established in 1607-- the first permanent English settlement on this continent, from which began the overseas expansion of the English-speaking peoples, the earliest outpost of the British Empire and the first beginnings of the United States of America..

Captain John Smith has been alleged to have been a cordwainer, but this is unlikely. This historic adventure of settlement was in part supported by investments made by the London cordwainers.

Shoemakers, tanners, and other tradesmen arrived in Jamestown by 1610, and the secretary of Virginia recorded flourishing shoe and leather trades there by 1616. The first English shoemaker to arrive in America whose name has been preserved, was Christopher Nelme, who sailed from Bristol, England and reached Virginia in 1619. Nearly one year later, the first Pilgrim settlers landed in Massachusetts. The first shoemakers who followed the trade there arrived in 1629.

"Cordwainer" not "Cobbler"

A distinction preserved by cordwainers since the earliest times is, that a cordwainer works only with new leather, whereas a cobbler works with old. Cobblers have always been repairers, frequently prohibited by law from making shoes.

Going so far as to collect worn-out footwear, cut it apart, and remanufacture cheap shoes entirely from salvaged leather, cobblers have contended with cordwainers since the Middle Ages. In 16th-century London, the cordwainers solved their conflicts with the cobblers of that city by placing them under the authority of the cordwainers’ guild, thus merging with them.

Whenever shoemakers have organized, they have shown a clear preference for the title cordwainer, conscious of the distinguished history and tradition it conveys. Today's cordwainer is no exception.

The current generation of boot and shoemakers includes a growing number of tradesmen and tradeswomen, who having largely adopted traditional hand-sewn techniques supplemented by simple machines, continue to practice skills established centuries ago. In the face of declining domestic footwear production, it can easily be said that the future of this trade lays in its past, and is being insured by the these modern cordwainers.