Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.

1871 census, in Eccleshall Bierlow (part of Sheffield):
Phineas Russell 58 Awl Blade Maker Staffords Bloxwich
Elizabeth do 52 do do
John H do 16 File Grinder Yorks Sheffield
Mary E Russell 8 Scholar Yorks Sheffield

so far, so good; Phineas and Elizabeth, with children John and Mary.
(Mary's the thread I'm following.)

1863Q1: birth of Mary Elizabeth Russell, in Eccleshall Bierlow, MMN
HANCOCK.

1861 census, in Eccleshall Bierlow:
Phineas Russell 47 Awl Blade Maker Stafforshire Bloxwith
Elizabeth Do 44 Do Do
Arthur Do 11 Scholar Yorks. Sheffield
John H Do 6 Do Do Do
(and an 8mo)

I'm pretty sure that's the same family - same names (including the
unusual Phineas and John having middle initial H), same occupation, ages
of Phineas, Elizabeth, and John close enough (OK Elizabeth not perfect),
same place, same PsOB. Presumably Arthur had left (and 8mo Mary R. died)
by 1871.

1851 census, in Sheffield:
Phineas RuSsell 38 Awl Blade M. Bloxwich York
Eliz - 34 Bloxwich Staff'd
Arthur 1 Sheff. Yor
(and a couple of lodgers).

Again, I'm pretty sure it's the same family: the anomaly of where
Phineas was born is just I think sloppy - it doesn't actually say York,
it's ditto from the lines above. (_Is_ there even a Bloxwich in Yorks?)
[If anyone looks for this, the handwriting makes RuSsell look like
Rupert, so it might be transcribed and thus indexed as that.]

Though they're in their 30s, the presence of only one child - and aged 1
- _suggests_ a recent marriage.

1850Q2: birth of Arthur Thomas Russell, in Sheffield, MMN HANCOCKS.

BUT:
Searching for marriages Rus* to Hanc* finds no Ph* (other than a Phoebe)
1837-1851.
Searching for Ph* Rus* marriages, the only ones that look anything like
Phineas are (1837Q3 Wolverhampton - no Eliz* and) 1850Q3 Walsall,
Phineas or Phinias Russell - no Eliz*, but Ann Smith (see below).

Staffordshire marriages: there's one, *in Bloxwich*:
1850-7-7 father
Phineas Russell 30 Widower Awl Blade Maker Bloxwich Edward Russell
Ann Smith 24 SpinsterAt Home Bloxwich John Smith

The age of Phineas is out (the 30 _could_ be a 39 but I don't think so),
but both being from Bloxwich, his unusual forename, and his occupation
suggests it _is_ them. Her being "Ann Smith" with father "John Smith" it
is tempting to suspect, but not necessarily.

Him being "Widower" _could_ mean he had married Elizabeth Hancock(s) and
she'd died, but that wouldn't explain MMN of Arthur in 1850 - and
especially Mary Elizabeth in 1863 - being recorded with MMN Hancock(s).
(And I didn't find that marriage anyway.)

Thoughts?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What has happened since 1979, I suspect, is that the spotting of mistakes has
become entirely associated with mean-spiritedness, snobbishness and
judgementalism. But...can be...funny and interesting.
Lynn Truss, RT 2015/2/21-27

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:42:24 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
TL;DR;

JJ :)

You didn't mention the 1841 census. You'll find "Phaneas" married to
"Elizabeth" with ages listed as 25 and 20 and a 3 year old son,
William. It lists Phaneas as an awl blade manker so pretty sure it's
the right person. Also "no" to whether both he and Elizabeth were born
in that county. William was so maybe their marriage was in Sheffield
and not Staffs.

Record reference HO107/1335/15 Folio 9 page 13.

So this would contradict your theory that

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC%2F1841%2F0010201521

An extra confusing point is that two Phineas Russells died in Ecclesall
Bierlow,one in 1857 and one in 1859.

But I'm with you. I've spent a good hour on this and cannot find any
evidence that they even crossed paths. Maybe they pretended they were
married since she was obviously pregnant at a young age. Dates of birth
in relation to when the census was taken can skew the birth year some
and can make distances between two events anything from 0 to 3 years.
Maybe 4 I can't remember but it can work out that way.

Let us know if you find any more information.

--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

In message <20230901153914.29107bb7@wibble.sysadmininc.com> at Fri, 1
Sep 2023 15:39:14, Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> writes
>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:42:24 +0100
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
>TL;DR;

I know what that one means - yes, sorry, I probably gave too much
information; I just wanted to "show my working" as it were.
>
>JJ :)

I don't know what that one means though!
>
>You didn't mention the 1841 census. You'll find "Phaneas" married to
>"Elizabeth" with ages listed as 25 and 20 and a 3 year old son,
>William. It lists Phaneas as an awl blade manker so pretty sure it's

Yes; I had that one, so indeed can't understand why I didn't mention it!

>the right person. Also "no" to whether both he and Elizabeth were born
>in that county. William was so maybe their marriage was in Sheffield
>and not Staffs.

Ah, good reasoning. Would have probably been 1838 or before. Not in
FreeBMD (I looked for Ph* Russ* to Eliza*) - probably before 1837Q2
then.
>
>Record reference HO107/1335/15 Folio 9 page 13.
>
>So this would contradict your theory that
>
>https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBC%2F1841%2F0010201521
>
Which theory? The 1850 marriage, I guess; yes, that definitely puts the
kibosh on that.
>
>An extra confusing point is that two Phineas Russells died in Ecclesall
>Bierlow,one in 1857 and one in 1859.
>
I must admit I tend not to look at deaths much. But now you mention it,
that (at the GRO) will give an age at death ... ah, both zero; I guess
infants. 1857Q4 and 1859Q1. (Just for curiosity, I'll check births: yes,
1857Q2 and 1857Q1, both MMN HANCOCK'S - poor Elizabeth.
>
>But I'm with you. I've spent a good hour on this and cannot find any

Oh, sorry! I didn't mean anyone to spend that long - really just
wondering if anyone had an insight, something I hadn't thought of.

I've just had another look (though not an hour's worth), and I can't
either.

>evidence that they even crossed paths. Maybe they pretended they were
>married since she was obviously pregnant at a young age. Dates of birth

Well, 38 and 34 in '51 would make 28 and 24 in '41, which would work
with 25 and 20 if rounded down as per the '41 instructions, so 24 with a
3 year old isn't _that_ young. And they maintained the fiction, if such
it was, for some decades.

>in relation to when the census was taken can skew the birth year some
>and can make distances between two events anything from 0 to 3 years.
>Maybe 4 I can't remember but it can work out that way.

Indeed. The 1841 was particularly late (June 6) compared to subsequent
ones (usually around end March/early April).
>
>Let us know if you find any more information.
>
I think I'll give up on this one! (It's only a tree I'm doing for a
friend as a novelty, though he remains very interested, which is nice.)
>
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What has happened since 1979, I suspect, is that the spotting of mistakes has
become entirely associated with mean-spiritedness, snobbishness and
judgementalism. But...can be...funny and interesting.
Lynn Truss, RT 2015/2/21-27

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:37:22 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <20230901153914.29107bb7@wibble.sysadmininc.com> at Fri, 1
> Sep 2023 15:39:14, Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> writes
> >On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:42:24 +0100
> >"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
> >TL;DR;
>
> I know what that one means - yes, sorry, I probably gave too much
> information; I just wanted to "show my working" as it were.
> >
> >JJ :)

> >But I'm with you. I've spent a good hour on this and cannot find any
> >
>
> Oh, sorry! I didn't mean anyone to spend that long - really just
> wondering if anyone had an insight, something I hadn't thought of.

No worries. I tried to think outside the box a little but no joy. The
only theory I could have is that Ann's middle name was Elizabeth and
that's what she went by day to day but I don't know if the dates would
match up. Something like that isn't unknonw.

> I think I'll give up on this one! (It's only a tree I'm doing for a
> friend as a novelty, though he remains very interested, which is
> nice.)

Ah ok. Well, never give up, just put it on the back burner, you never
know when some piece of evidence will pop up.

--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

On 01/09/2023 01:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
>
> Though they're in their 30s, the presence of only one child - and aged 1
> - _suggests_ a recent marriage.
>
> 1850Q2: birth of Arthur Thomas Russell, in Sheffield, MMN HANCOCKS.
>

From a search of the GRO indexes for other possible children before
1851, there is also
RUSSELL, THOMAS MMN HANCOCK GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in
SHEFFIELD Volume 22 Page 662

In message <ud49f1$1cv93$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:53:38,
john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
>On 01/09/2023 01:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
>> Though they're in their 30s, the presence of only one child - and
>>aged 1 - _suggests_ a recent marriage.
>> 1850Q2: birth of Arthur Thomas Russell, in Sheffield, MMN HANCOCKS.
>>
>
>From a search of the GRO indexes for other possible children before
>1851, there is also
>RUSSELL, THOMAS MMN HANCOCK GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in
>SHEFFIELD Volume 22 Page 662
>
Yes, suggests they married 1845Q1 or before.
>
The 1841 census shows them as having a 3yo (William, born in same county
[so probably Sheffield]), so they were probably married 1837 or '7 or
before. (He doesn't survive - unless he's left the family - to 1851.)
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013

On 04/09/2023 14:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ud49f1$1cv93$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:53:38,
> john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
>> On 01/09/2023 01:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Trying to find more about the parents of Mary Elizabeth Russell.
>>>  Though they're in their 30s, the presence of only one child - and
>>> aged 1  - _suggests_ a recent marriage.
>>>  1850Q2: birth of Arthur Thomas Russell, in Sheffield, MMN HANCOCKS.
>>>
>>
>> From a search of the GRO indexes for other possible children before
>> 1851, there is also
>> RUSSELL, THOMAS  MMN HANCOCK  GRO Reference: 1845  M Quarter in
>> SHEFFIELD  Volume 22  Page 662
>>
> Yes, suggests they married 1845Q1 or before.
>>
> The 1841 census shows them as having a 3yo (William, born in same county
> [so probably Sheffield]), so they were probably married 1837 or '7 or
> before. (He doesn't survive - unless he's left the family - to 1851.)
>>
>>
>>
I do not think you know the name of the mother of William (or even the
father)?
There are several possibilities e.g. William's mother could have someone
else Phineas had been married to and had then died. The 1841 census
entry could be a different Elizabeth who later had died. Or William
could be the son of Elizabeth Hancock from another marriage with the
Russell surname being used in the census.
Isn't the 1845 birth is the earliest reference so far linking Russell
and Hancock/cocks/cox?

In message <ud512j$1i0h5$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Sep 2023 18:36:34,
john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
>On 04/09/2023 14:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <ud49f1$1cv93$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Sep 2023
>>11:53:38, john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
[]
>>> From a search of the GRO indexes for other possible children before
>>>1851, there is also
>>> RUSSELL, THOMAS  MMN HANCOCK  GRO Reference: 1845  M Quarter in
>>>SHEFFIELD  Volume 22  Page 662
>>>
>> Yes, suggests they married 1845Q1 or before.
>>>
>> The 1841 census shows them as having a 3yo (William, born in same
>>county [so probably Sheffield]), so they were probably married 1837
>>or '7 or before. (He doesn't survive - unless he's left the family -
>>to 1851.)
>>>
(Obviously I meant 183_8_ or '7.)
>>>
>>>
>
>I do not think you know the name of the mother of William (or even the
>father)?

No, but as the couple were 38 and 34 in 1851, they'd have been 28 and 24
(give or take) in 1841, and with the 1841 round-down-to-nearest-5
instruction, that'd do for the 25 and 20 shown, especially with them
being shown as not born in same county; a head of 28 and wife of 24 with
a 3-year-old I would normally assume were his parents, from a marriage
when she was about 21. You are right, I haven't found the birth or
baptism of William.
>
>There are several possibilities e.g. William's mother could have
>someone else Phineas had been married to and had then died. The 1841
>census entry could be a different Elizabeth who later had died. Or
>William could be the son of Elizabeth Hancock from another marriage
>with the Russell surname being used in the census.

All, indeed, possible. I was just shaving with Occam.
>
>Isn't the 1845 birth is the earliest reference so far linking Russell
>and Hancock/cocks/cox?

The earliest definite, yes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand