Genealogy Chat

Sorry, a bit long-winded, see below. Kat

It means you have little to go on, a marriage cert would be a great help!! My question is, do you think that the two Mary Ann Sharmans on the two 1841 censuses are the same person? The facts as I have them. a Mary Ann Sharman Born 30 Nov 1808 Bap. 13th Dec 1808 to parents Samuel and Sarah Sharman, Yarmouth…IGI Extracted Checked on Yarmouth parish records. No other Mary Ann Sharmans of right age or district. MY Mary Ann is Unmarried Children: Mary Ann Costerton Sharman base born Norwich 1828, Charles Frederick Sharman, base born Norwich 1836, Both from Norwich parish records (Charles Sharman is my2xgreat Grandfather, his father being another story!!). 1841 Census for Norwich: HO/107/0790/38/13 MY.... Mary Ann, age 25, was found living living Bethel St, Hubbard Yard , Parish of St Peter Mancroft, Norwich. She was with Mary age 12 and Charles age 5, living by independent means. All born in County. 1841 census for Yarmouth: HO 107/793/5/9/11 Another? Mary Ann Sharman 25 was recorded with parents Samuel and Sarah Sharman living at Gt Yarmouth. One other listed with her of relevance is: Priscilla, sister 20, (Correction, relationship unknown, see 3rd post) assumed. 1851 census for Norwich HO/107/1812/321/5 Mary Ann Sharman 40 listed with Charles Sharman 15 There are no other Mary Anns born Yarmouth listed on 1851 census unmarried. Death for Mary Ann : Yarmouth Mar 1852 4b 16 Mary died age 43,a spinster, with Priscilla Settle in attendance. Priscilla’s maiden name was Sharman Later Priscilla a widow remarried and I have her on Yarmouth 1871 census : Priscilla Turner (remarried) with her husband, Robert , Samuel and Sarah SHARMAN (Step parents??) AND on the same census is a Reuban Sharman age 14 born Norwich, a nephew to Priscilla. Reuban Sharman was the son of Mary Ann Costerton Sharman, unmarried, born 1828 Norwich who in turn was the daughter of Mary Ann Sharman born 1808 Gt Yarmouth. Reuban would actually therefore be the great nephew not nephew of Priscilla. RG10/1829/42/29 I have checked out all other Mary Ann Sharman’s deaths and censuses but cannot find any of right age or district after this death in 1852. Do you think my Mary Ann living Norwich is the sister of Priscilla and the daughter therefore of Samuel and Sarah? Maybe she was visiting and was put down inadvertently on both. I already have this occurring in two other families on my tree which I could prove, but this one…..? Any opinions on this gratefully received Kat

My daughter is desperate to go on the computer, so I will have to be quick, but does the 1841 entry really say that Samuel and Sarah are Mary Ann's parents and Priscilla is her sister???? Unlikely that it would. Anyway, I will see if I get the chance to look at it later... Kate.

Sorry, no it doesn't, of course, Kate. That was my thoughts as I've been worrying around all this. Not being methodical there!! slap wrist. Frederick Sharman abt 1826 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Mary Ann Sharman abt 1816 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Priscilla Sharman abt 1821 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Saml Sharman abt 1821 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Samuel Sharman abt 1781 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Samuel Sharman abt 1806 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Sarah Sharman abt 1786 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk View Record Thos Sharman abt 1840 Norfolk, England Great Yarmouth Norfolk Kat ps Saml is actually James on census sheet.

bumping in hopes

Hi Ozibird ,how you doing? I just want to confirm Mary Ann's parentage but cannot see a way to do it. The gut feeling is there, but so is the doubt.I cannot put her on my tree until I know for sure.If Samuel and Sarah are correct I have more generations behind them to add, but it's no good if they're not mine. kat I wish I could somehow scrub Mary Ann's name off that 1841 Yarmouth census!!!

If you are sure it is the right Mary Ann on the death certificate then I would say that the rest fits together because of Priscilla being the informant and wouldn't worry too much about that Mary Ann on the 1841 Yarmouth. So, are you certain that the Mary Ann on the death certificate is your one? Oh, and does it say Priscilla was her sister on the death certificate? Another thought, after looking at the (Yarmouth) 1841 census entry - I don't suppose Samuel junior was married to a Mary Ann, was he? Kate.

thats a thought Kate, I'm clutching at straws!! Will check on further censuses and marriages to see if I can find them. If only the relationship was given on the death cert, would solve all problems! Thanks for your help Kat

Any chance Mary Ann was a witness at Pricilla's first marriage? Peter

Hi Peter, I don't have her marriage cert but I have the GRO ref. ready.If Mary Ann is on there tho' it won't say if she's a sister or whether I have the right one, Hey Ho... it's sooooo frustrating. thanks for you imput tho'...any more ideas? Kat If only she'd done the decent thing and got herself wed I'd have had the father's name at least. Little trollop, but I was getting quite fond of her til today!!

Although I am not one myself I too find this expression very offensive. Sylvia.

Being thick... What's a 'by-blow' when it's at home? Sarah :-)

It is a delightful term coined by men to describe an illigitemate child. Sylvia.

How lovely Sylvia! I had never heard of that one.... not sure if it's better than the B word or not?! Sarah :-) Any ideas of the origins? it sounds like 'conceived by blows' (rape?) Horrible!

By-blow is an archaic word that meant chance or accident. Hence it was used to describe a chance or accidental conception. and the resultant off-spring. Sylvia.

oh that's much better, Sylvia! A chance event... Sarah :-)

This thread title was not meant to give offence to anyone, . the definition of By-blow is simply Illigitimate child or bastard. I thought it was a softer approach. I cannot believe your comments. Sylvia. where did you get your definition from<<coined by men to describe an illigitemate child>>? I have changed the title so you wont be offended. the bastards ARE a real challenge as you know if you have them in your tree. respectfully Kat :)

Kate I have checked further censuses and marriages but cannot find Samuel junior anywhere , will have to check deaths when time allows to see if he died before 1851. No I am not sure about the death cert being MY Mary Ann, If she had died in Norwich I would have been more convinced. I thought she might have gone back to Yarmouth after the 1851 census and died there a year later. As her children had flown the nest by then she might have gone back home? Kat

Alternatively the Mary Ann in Yarmouth in 1841 could be James's wife? FreeBMD has a possibility for a marriage, June 1839. Do you know who Thomas's parents are?

Kat - you think you've got problems with un--named fathers. I have 3 generations of a family where every female has at least 3 (and in one case 7) children and in EVERY case there is no father's name on the BC. Now that really is a bastard :)) It's quite interesting to see the names the illegitimate offspring dreamed up for their father when they got round to marrying. Jools