View Full Version : I think I've just found an ancestor
I couldn't find Sarah Moore widow b 1785 in the 1841 census.
I expected her to be here:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=view&r=5538&dbid=8978&iid=DORHO107_286_288-0583&fn=William&ln=Bryant&st=d&ssrc=pt_t49447998_p12988360532_kpidz0q3d1298836053 2z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid_m1&pid=4808938
because she was with her daughter in Poole in 1851:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=view&r=5538&dbid=8860&iid=DORHO107_1855_1855-0693&fn=Sarah&ln=Moore&st=d&ssrc=pt_t49447998_p12985708340_kpidz0q3d1298570834 0z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid_m1&pid=5562523
I have been looking for her since (at least) 1969.
Today I found this:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=2241&iid=32435_240339-00316&fn=Sarah&ln=Moore&st=d&ssrc=pt_t49447998_p12985708340_kpidz0q3d1298570834 0z0q26pgz0q3d32772z0q26pgplz0q3dpid_m1&pid=8096382
Would you now like to go back to the 1841 census, and tell me what you think?:d:d:d
lol!! Similar happened to me the other day when I spent forever (almost) looking for a census record which turned out to be very badly transcribed. When I eventually found the right page it looked very familiar because I already had the image attached to my tree, but hadn't noticed there were two families from my tree living nextdoor to each other!!
It didnt take me over 40 years to sort out though!!!
*runs away hastily* :cool:
kiterunner
07-12-12, 21:46
Yes, looks very likely indeed.
lol!! Similar happened to me the other day when I spent forever (almost) looking for a census record which turned out to be very badly transcribed. When I eventually found the right page it looked very familiar because I already had the image attached to my tree, but hadn't noticed there were two families from my tree living nextdoor to each other!!
It didnt take me over 40 years to sort out though!!!
*runs away hastily* :cool:
*failing to resist self justification*
It's 1841, when relationships aren't given and Sarah is living in sin with her dead sister's husband:p Oh, and Sarah is just about the most popular girls's name in my family.
In the 1960s we turned up at the vicarage, banged on the door and demanded to see the registers :o. They were the first parish registers I had ever seen and owing to a little disagreement between Royalists & Roundheads, there was no church there until the 1820s.
I thought Susan was Sarah's only daughter, as she was the only one baptised in Hamworthy, but there were at least five siblings. Looking again at the 1841 census, just about everyone one that page is related.
I searched for a marriage our Elizabeth-Mary for ages, and finally found it in London, far away from home, but when I then checked for her under her married name in the next census - they were living next door to her father in the small Berkshire village !!!
My son wants to go to Fiji to get married - that is going to make it very hard for his descendents to find, when he is fifth generation Australian and everybody is very well-documented.
Di
If my lady hadn't at least made the attempt to get married, I would never, ever have found her. At least she left her little marker in the sand. some people go out of their way not to be found.
Nice of the curate to make a note, I have seen some banns with no follow-up marriage and you do wonder what happened that the wedding did not go ahead.
Di
My last post from yesterday isn't showing :o
I couldn't see Sarah's death reg. Do you know what surname she died with? (or is she still alive like a lot of my ancient relations!)
Sarah Moore/Moor/Moors is a bit of a bummer, but I do have her death certificate. I thought it was wrong when I got it, because it shows her as widow of William Moore, shipwright:d
She died in Portsmouth workhouse, having moved to Portsea with her daughter's family.
Forty years ago, I thought a move from inland Dorset (home to the Tolpuddle Martyrs) to the coast was A GOOD THING. But the housing and/or sanitation must have left a lot to be desired because a huge percentage of them popped their clogs before they were sixty.
Unlikely as it seems, I think this is her:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=view&r=5538&dbid=7619&iid=HAMRG10_1130_1132-0123&fn=Sarah&ln=Moore&st=d&ssrc=&pid=10954054
However, if someone can find her (or Sarah Bryant) after 1861 I would be grateful.
if someone can find her (or Sarah Bryant) after 1861 I would be grateful.
So she was Bryant in 1841 and Moore in 1851. Where is she (and which surname) in 1861?
Ah - I see Moore again in 1861 aged 77.
Possible?
Deaths Dec 1861
Moore Sarah Portsea 2b 234
I wonder why they didn't acknowledge the marriage to Mr Bryant?
William's wife Ann, nee Joyner died in 1827. Three months later Sarah (nee Joyner) Moore's husband James died. They were both forty. Although it must have seemed logical to William and Sarah to combine their households, it wasn't legal.
William died in the mid 1840s. Sarah reverted to her previously married name when she moved to Poole and subsequently when she lived in Portsmouth.
Ominously, I have just noticed the death of a Sarah Bryant of the right age in Portsmouth.
Possible?
Deaths Dec 1861
Moore Sarah Portsea 2b 234
I thought so too. I have the certificate and no, she is not mine, but a very much younger woman.:(
Although it must have seemed logical to William and Sarah to combine their households, it wasn't legal.
Were Ann and Sarah sisters or some other relationship?
I have lots of dodgy marriages in my tree, but I've not got anyone reverting to a previous name after the death of their new OH.
Ominously, I have just noticed the death of a Sarah Bryant of the right age in Portsmouth
If you mean the one in 1868 (I think, I closed FreeBMD before I'd read it properly!) I can't see another Sarah Bryant to fit with it on the 1861 census.
The banns register prevents the marriage from proceeding, on the grounds of consanguinity. Sarah and Ann were sisters, daughters of Robert & Sarah Joyner. Baptisms of the children are splattered all over southern Dorset, but helpfully one is called Charlotte Octavia, which means that I'm missing one or the parents couldn't count. Irritatingly, Sarah is younger and either dies (no burial) and is replaced by an identically named sibling, or she is baptised twice.
Most of the extended Joyner family gravitate to the Hamworthy/Corfe Mullen/Lytchett Minster area.
Sarah was never legally married to William, though clearly when the law didn't give them what they wanted they found a way round things by simply living together. Plus ca change.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.