missing samuel

[jeeb]

Hi Jeremy,

Perhaps Elizabeth can clarify this but ...

Might Brid 30, Margaret 3, and Inf 1 have been a different (though perhaps related) family?



JAP

This crossed my mind too, possibly the wife of one of the older sons who are on the 1871 census but I still couldn't find them in 1901.

Jeremy

[sueannbowen]

I still think Samuel died in 1888 and that he and Thomas are not the same people.

But that is just me and the 'stificates should clear up a few assumptions!

Sue

[elizabeth.a]

Hi folks what wonderful people you are to help me like this jap1 you got everything spot on ann williams re ann green is a big find for me i always
thought that she remarried i would not take to much notice of the ages
i have both the passenger list going out and returning and none of them match exactly but i know for a fact hanah who's real name is honora mary
was born in 1880 as for james snr and james jnr i don't know may be they went a head of the rest of the family im still working on that one the only one missing on the return list was annie getting back to samuel i thought
may be his name was samuel thomas but thomas's birth cert only says
thomas born july 1871 reg aug 1871 wolverhampton 6b498 and james was born
dec 1869 and reg jan 1870 wellington 6a808 i also found a samuel green born 1870
in wolverhampton may be a coincidence may send for the cert and find out
as for (brid margaret and the inf ) i to picked them up on the passenger list
but didn't think they were with my family but i will dig a bit deeper in to it
if you think samuel and thomas are confusing william the eldest son married
catherine cain she is on the 1881 census they went to the u.s in 1890
the passenger list going out as them as kate and william dowd coming back
they change to sarah and william dowd well have to leave you kind people
for now but many many thanks for all your help kind regards elizabeth

[jeeb]

I still think Samuel died in 1888 and that he and Thomas are not the same people.

But that is just me and the 'stificates should clear up a few assumptions!

Sue

Hi Sue,
Two things tend to make me disagree with you I'm afraid.

1) There are 2 Samuel Dodd born in 1870/1 in Wolverhampton and appear on 1881 census as sons of Samuel/ Hannah & Edwin/Elizabeth. Only one of them is on the 1891 census.

2) Sarah Dowd the youngest child of James & Sarah was born 1887 in Newport, Shropshire. After 'Samuel' all the children were stated as born in Shropshire so why would Samuel still be in Wolverhampton?


Jeremy

[JAP1]

Hello again Elizabeth,

This is presumably Ann GREEN's re-marriage:
Ann GREEN & John WILLIAMS, Newport, June quarter 1871, Volume 6a, Page 1513

1881 census
Middle Row, Newport
John WILLIAMS, Head, Mar, 59, Greengrocer, b Worcester Worcester
Ann WILLIAMS, Wife, Mar, 58, b Lancashire Manchester
Margaret GREEN, Daur in law, 18, Dressmaker, b Salop Wellington (This is presumably Margaret GREEN who was 8 in the 1871 census. The census does not indicate whether Margaret was married or single. Presumably she was single and so Daughter-in-law is being used here in the sense the she was John's Stepdaughter)
Margaret DOWDE, Grand Daur, 8, b Salop Newport

Regards,

JAP

[JAP1]

... i thought
may be his name was samuel thomas but thomas's birth cert only says
thomas born july 1871 reg aug 1871 wolverhampton 6b498 and james was born
dec 1869 and reg jan 1870 wellington 6a808 ...

Elizabeth, I take it that you have both these birth certificates, and that they do give the parents as James DOWD & Sarah nee GREEN?

If so, this only adds to the puzzle.

Thomas, who wasn't born until July 1871, cannot possibly be the same as Samuel who was in the 1871 census (taken 2/3 April 1871 i.e. 3 months before Thomas was born!).

Perhaps the error is in the 1881 census? Perhaps James, filling in the household schedule, got confused and listed Thomas as Samuel by mistake?

But, if so, where is the birth (and possible death before 1881?) of Samuel who was in the 1871 census as aged 1 and b Wellington?

Or is there also an error in the 1871 census i.e. is Samuel aged 1 really James who would then have been aged 1?



JAP

[elizabeth.a]

morning everyone yes the certificates i have for thomas and james both say
mothers maiden name sarah green fathers name james dowd the birth of
thomas was registered in wolverhampton samuel and james are both on the 1881 census so that rules that idea out sent for the cert for both samuel dodd and samuel green james being older than both thomas and samuel
is not on the 1871 census may be if i can find him and your right jap1
looks like thomas was born after the 1871 census elizabeth

[JAP1]

Well, Elizabeth,

James
You have his birth cert - b Wellington Dec 1869.

But we haven't found wee James DOWD (b Dec 1869 Wellington) on the 1871 census - so it's very tempting to think that James may well be the little chap recorded in 1871 as Samuel DOWD, aged 1, b Wellington. Right age and right birthplace, wrong forename!

One would certainly expect that little 1yo (ca 15/16 months given that he was born Dec 1869) James would have been with his mother Sarah on Apr 2/3 1871. So this could be an explanation - especially as we haven't found wee James anywhere else in 1871.

And we do have James - right age (11) and right birthplace (Wellington) in 1881.

Thomas
You have his birth cert - Wolverhampton Jul 1871.

We have Thomas (b Wolverhampton Jul 1871) on all records except the 1881. So it's very tempting to think that Thomas may well be the child recorded in 1881 as Samuel DOOD, aged 10, b Wolverhampton. Right age and right birthplace, wrong forename!
We also have Thomas in 1901.

But how to prove that James may have been wrongly recorded as Samuel in 1871, and that Thomas may have been wrongly recorded as Samuel in 1881!

All the best,

JAP

[elizabeth.a]

thanks jap i do appreciate the help youself and everyone has given me so to sum up it looks like james was called samuel on the 1871 census and thomas was called samuel on the 1881 census looks like someone in the family likes the name samuel strange there is not a samuel before 1871 or after . are family is made up of all the other names right up to the present day. i wont give up until i find out and when i do i will let you know best regards elizabeth

[JAP1]

Hi All ,

I wonder if any of the other contributors to this thread have (or if anyone else has) any comments on my hypothesis?

Which is, basically, that there never was a Samuel.

That, in the 1871 census, Samuel (1, born Wellington) is actually James (born Dec 1869 Wellington).
And that, in the 1881 census, Samuel (10, born Wolverhampton) is actually Thomas (born July 1871 Wolverhampton).

I know it sounds rather far-fetched.
But it only very slowly dawned on me as a possibility.
And I fear that I can't even begin to guess at how or why it would have happened.

However, it would explain four problems:
a) why we can't find an appropriate birth for a Samuel in either Wellington or Wolverhampton
b) why we can't find little James in the 1871
c) why we can't find Thomas in the 1881
d) the birthplace of Wellington given for 'Samuel' (1) in 1871, and of Wolverhampton given for 'Samuel' (10) in 1881

Regards,

JAP
PS: Also, if James and Samuel are two different people, the time between their births would pose a big problem. We know that James was born Dec 1869. But if 'Samuel' was aged 1 in 1871, he would have to have been born before Apr 2/3 1870 ...