In a real bind here

[Finnis]

I'm having a lot of bother with a couple of entries in the 1881 and 1891 census.
I'm looking for my great grandmother and her family. Her maiden name was Annie Greenwood (wonderful in West Yorks). She's buried in Slack Chapel, Heptonstall and her burial date is August 1947.
All well and good. Now the problems begin. Her mother Ann Shackleton is also in the grave - she died in childbirth with Annie ( May 1873). It is believed that Annie's father Thomas (he's in there too - 1886 aged 39) married after Annie's birth and Ann's death.
I've found a census return of an Annie Greenwood living with, Hannah aged 30, Herbert aged 12, then Annie, then Rachel aged 3. Also with them are John and Jane aged 67 and 66 respectively.
It list Annie as grandaughter and Herbert and Rachel as son and daughter of Hannah, who isn't married.
By the 1891, John and Jane have disappeared, presumed dead. Hannah is now head of house, still unmarried. Then Herbert, and Annie who is now listed as cousin. Rachel is there too.
The trouble is I've got no way of knowing who Hannah could be. I know that Thomas and Ann married in 1868. We were always led to believe that Annie was brought up by an aunt. Could Herbert be a child of a former marriage of Thomas? If so is Rachel the product of a third marriage. To complicate matters still further there is a Harry Greenwood, aged 8 months in the grave with Ann and Thomas, he was born in 1876 - three years after Ann's death.
I've also found a death entry - the same reference of Ann's for a Willie aged 0 - could he be a twin that didn't survive?
The only other occupants of the grave are my grandmother (Annie's child) and Annie's husband Joe. I wonder what happened to thomas' first or/and second wives, presuming he had them? I do know that a Mr and Mrs Greenwood purchased the grave in 1873, presumably to house Ann.
This is a real nightmare anyone who could shed any light on this at all would be a tremendous help.

[Peter Goodey]

Sight of the census sheets would have been helpful - at least some reference numbers.

However I think I see the 1881 household. You say "It list Annie as grandaughter and Herbert and Rachel as son and daughter of Hannah, who isn't married"

But it doesn't. It shows Annie, Herbert and Rachel as grandchildren of John Greenwood. It says nothing about who the children's parents were. You're assuming it was Hannah but there's nothing in that particular census return to suggest it.
I don't have access to the 1891 census and can't really comment except to say that it's dangerous to read too much into the word 'cousin'. People in those days were notoriously vague abour precise relationships. Cousin might mean anyone who was related in some way but outside one's immediate family. ('Son-in-law' is another well known oddball which might well refer to a step-son.)

From those two census returns I would guess that there's a strong possibility that Annie was the daughter of one of Hannah's brothers and that he or his wife or both were dead or otherwise done a runner.

[hpjrt]

Hi Finnis,

Have you checked the 1871 census? Yes it was prior to your Annie's birth ... but if John and Jane are indeed Hannah's parents, then Hannah should be found on the 1871 census along with them, presumably.

Is it that you don't know who Hannah was ... or you don't know who John and Jane were? Could it have been that while Hannah was Annie's cousin ... because of the age difference, Annie referred to Hannah as "Aunt"?

I have a cousin whom my son has always thought of as "Aunt Linda" ... and I've always been "Aunt Mary" to her children as well. It's not that Linda and I are trying to indicate that we're sisters ... but rather that it was easier when the children were little to consider us "aunts" rather than 2nd cousins. Rather than have the children refer to us only by our first names ... it seemed easier [and quite natural] for them to refer to us with the prefix "aunt". Or it could be that whoever was telling you about who raised Annie didn't really know the relationship between Hannah and Annie and simply presumed that Hannah was Annie's aunt.

Also, bear in mind that "family stories" are notoriously unreliable. I think I've discovered that a whopping 99% of my own family "legends" or "traditions" are at least partially bunk.

I must say, however ... that's one crowded grave! I don't think I've come across a grave with more than 3 people interred within it. I presume that the churchyard/cemetery records were of no help in identifying who the individual people were?

Mary

[Peter Goodey]

Finnis -

Are these anything to do with you :) ?

Births Mar 1842
Shackleton Greenwood Todmorden 21 738

Births Dec 1861
Shackleton Greenwood Todmorden 9a 184

Births Jun 1864
SHACKLETON Greenwood Todmorden 9a 227

[Finnis]

Please excuse me being rather new to this, I made a mistake on my first posting. it's actually the 1891 census that lists Herbert and Rachel as being son and daughter of Hannah, and Annie as being cousin.
I'm beginning to think that Hannah may have been used as a repository for her dead siblings children, or unwanted children in any case.I know that my sources (the living primary ones) are not 100% reliable although their evidence has come across as surprisingly near so far. I haven't as yet, checked the 1871 - will do so this afternoon.
As far as the Shackleton's are concerned I was looking through the 1861 yesterday and have found a possible Ann Shackleton listed with parents and siblings at Lady Royd, Heptonstall. Now I've been told that the grave next to hers is a Richard Shackleton also from Lady Royd so I think I may be onto something here. I will check out the other Shackleton's that you kindly provided me with, Peter.
Also while drifting through the 1861 yesterday I came across another relative of mine, this time my great-grandfather Albert Fielding. I thought I had him taped with certificate evidence etc, only to discover that he, his sister and a previously undiscovered brother are living with a couple by the name of Uttley that I've never come across before. He and his siblings are listed as son-in-law and daughter-in-law. So what other euphimisms would these cover? as they were only 11, 7 and 9 they couldn't have been married. IF my certificates are correct also, his father was still alive in 1861. To complicate matters even further I've found another sibling living with a "grandmother" I've never heard of, a woman by the name of Ward.
I thought I was doing so well, and now this has really turned the whole thing right on it's head.

[hpjrt]

Hi Finnis,

The terms "son-in-law" and "daughter-in-law" were, I gather, often used to mean "step-son" or "step-daughter" on census returns. I guess the "in-law" simply referred to some "legal" relationship between the head of household and the person listed underneath.

Hope that helps.

Mary

[LynA]

Also while drifting through the 1861 yesterday I came across another relative of mine, this time my great-grandfather Albert Fielding. I thought I had him taped with certificate evidence etc, only to discover that he, his sister and a previously undiscovered brother are living with a couple by the name of Uttley that I've never come across before. He and his siblings are listed as son-in-law and daughter-in-law. So what other euphimisms would these cover? as they were only 11, 7 and 9 they couldn't have been married. IF my certificates are correct also, his father was still alive in 1861. To complicate matters even further I've found another sibling living with a "grandmother" I've never heard of, a woman by the name of Ward.
I thought I was doing so well, and now this has really turned the whole thing right on it's head.Hello,
Are you sure his father was still alive in 1861. If not, is it possible that Mrs Uttley on the census could be Albert's mother who had remarried, this making him a step child of Mr Uttley?
Good luck with the hunt for your family,
Best wishes,
Lynda :)

[Finnis]

Hello,
Are you sure his father was still alive in 1861. If not, is it possible that Mrs Uttley on the census could be Albert's mother who had remarried, this making him a step child of Mr Uttley?
Good luck with the hunt for your family,
Best wishes,
Lynda :)
I've got Albert's marraige certificate which doesn't mention a father's death - Albert married in 1873, so I presume his dad was around somewhere.
the only possible thing I can think of is a divorce but I wouldn't think there'd be many divorces with a coal merchant and a plumber in those days!
Thanks for your help

[Finnis]

"I've got Albert's marraige certificate which doesn't mention a father's death"

That doesn't actually mean a lot - it's all down to whether or not the person saw fit to point out to the clerk that their father had died.
My 4x great-grandfather died in April 1837, and of the four marriages of his children after that date, only one states that he is deceased - the other three simply show him as a Surveyor.
I also have a fellow who seemed to be rather good at losing his wives, and married four times, in 1856, 1859, 1864 and 1866. His father was dead by 1846 (his mother is mentioned as a widow in a will written then) but, again, there is no mention of this - all four marriage records just show the father as a Schoolmaster.
By a stroke of good fortune I've just been able to locate a death entry for a chap who is probably these kids father. That's great news - it showed though that their mother married pretty fat afterwards, which threw me a bit.
I still can't work out why they had one sister living with a woman classed as a "grandmother" name of ward whom I can't find any relation to at all. Why send one away when they had four living with them. The mother's maiden anme is Wheelhouse so there can be no connection there?
Thanks for your help, chaps.