Help With 1861 Census Please, Cannot Read Name!

[JoanneB]

Hello,
I have been unable to identify my Gt Grand Uncle's wife, and I have been unable to find them on any other census so far.

I would be grateful if anyone could read her second name which may help me. Also there is something written further on which starts with 'no' it may mean no occupation.

2nd family from the top Samuel Whittaker and Wife
RG9/2975/29 pg18

Thank you
Joanne

[Trish]

Hello,
I have been unable to identify my Gt Grand Uncle's wife, and I have been unable to find them on any other census so far.

I would be grateful if anyone could read her second name which may help me. Also there is something written further on which starts with 'no' it may mean no occupation.

2nd family from the top Samuel Whittaker and Wife
RG9/2975/29 pg18

Thank you
Joanne

Joanne,

It looks like "Fearon" to me -- maybe a family name?

My guess about the "no..." is that it was written in after the fact by someone other than the enumerator and doesn't mean anything much. Scrawls such as this are quite common on the census forms. This was probably made by someone checking the enumerator's data.

HTH,
Trish

[Mythology]

"This was probably made by someone checking the enumerator's data."

Yes, and, initially, one wonders why the checker should scrawl "no occ" (for "no occupation") against a married woman, but...

The age for this "Wife" is shown in the male column, and the checker has also crossed out the first name, Ann, and the word Wife. As far as he's concerned, the person is a male named Fearon Whittaker. Difficult to tell what he thinks about marital status, as there are umpteen cross marks all down the page, but these two entries appear to have an extra vertical mark in the middle as well as a cross on the right, so I think the checker is trying to indicate that he doesn't agree with that either.

We do not, of course, have access to whatever the checker was working from, he may have made a complete hash of it, but if you can't find the marriage, that *could possibly* be why.

[JoanneB]

Thank you Trish, looking again it does look like Fearon, I have searched again and was unable to match it with anyone.

Mythology, I am beginning to think he did make a mess of it. I found an Ann Kay married Samuel Whittaker at St Johns Church STJ/20/473 and looking on the 1871 census tonight there is an Ann Whittaker nee Kay) widow. Age right and born Middleton. 1861 census said Samuel's wife was born in Rhodes, I have yet to find out if this is in the Middleton area.
Many thanks
Joanne

[Mythology]

Yes, if you have the marriage and an 1871 entry that make sense, then unless you can find an Ann Kay who has the middle name of Fearon, I think I would regard the 1861 entry as an inconclusive mess.
It is, for example, quite possible that what we really have here is three people - Samuel, his wife Ann, and a lodger whose forename or surname is Fearon - but the householder's return was so badly written that neither the enumerator nor the checker deduced that there was a third person, and each of them interpreted the scrawl differently.

Rhodes - not somewhere I'd come across before, but my gazetteer says it's one mile south-west of Middleton, so that makes sense.

[JoanneB]

Hello Mythology,
Yes your right, it isn't enough to be able to say it is conclusive. Samuel was a bookkeeper/clerk so if they completed their own returns in those days, I would have thought it would have been clear and legible. Possibly the only way to be sure is the marriage certificate, identifying father or known witnesses. If the 'Whittaker/Kay' certificate is not conclusive, then I have a real problem as there are too many Samuel Whittaker marriages in Manchester around that time. Many thanks Joanne

[uksearch]

St John's Byrom St Oct 26th 1860
Samuel WHITTAKER, Full, Bachelor,Cashier, Moston. Father, William WHITTAKER, Bricklayer & Ann Kay, Full, Spinster, Barnes Green. Father, Thomas Kay, Innkeeper. Married...by Licence...Both signed. Witnesses Thomas KAY & Fanny KAY.

UK

[JoanneB]

Thank you so much UK. I am so very pleased to have that information, you have solved another problem and I am very grateful. Sadly, I have no family now in Manchester, but your kindness makes me homesick.
Joanne

[uksearch]

Thank you so much UK. I am so very pleased to have that information, you have solved another problem and I am very grateful. Sadly, I have no family now in Manchester, but your kindness makes me homesick.
Joanne

Ah...so kind, however remember that the you can take the lass (or lad) out of Manchester , but you can't take the Manchester out of her (him).

UK