Newbie looking for MERRY, INGHAM, HEPPER in Yorkshire

Geoffers · 04-01-2008, 6:36 AM

At the time, however, Joseph was a joiner. In my thinking, it seems more plausible that a cobbler's son would be a joiner than that a gentleman's son would take such a position

What is the source for the earlier assertion that Joseph was the son of John? Has someone seen an abbreviation 'Joh' and assumed that it was a mis-spelt John rather than a contracted Jo(sep)h?

Has acceptance of the inherited famly notes led you astray?? If I could not duplicate the earlier research by following sources provided, then this would lead me to doubt if it was accurate.

Re the 1841 census - don't that this was the first census and ages were rounded down, in so doing so mistakes were made. Also as the census is a copy - mistakes could have been made in transcription. However - if not the father of Joseph, he may have been related and following him back may lead you to the ancestors of your chap.

Re the entry book for the Excise - Curses

Do the Land tax returns show the spread of the surname around this part of Yorkshire?

I did order the marriage cert for Joseph's second marriage to Mary GIBSON, but, alas, both of the father's names are shown only with their first name initial "J". One thing I have not done is to try to take a look at the PR.

The PR should be the same - but until you look and confirm for yourself, thre will always be a nagging doubt. Are the names of witnesses any help?

en2gen · 04-01-2008, 7:22 AM

I appreciate your comments about confirming sources. That's why I've been stuck for over a decade on this. When I started my personal research, I was guided by previous research done by my grandfather's brother in the early 1900s. Of course, at that time, his research must have been by personal observation of PRs, memorials, etc. He was an architect by profession, and created some very nice family trees. He took one line back to 1605, and confirming research has found few, if any, errors in his research. On the MERRY line, he had only gone back to John MERRY (1774-1846) "Gentleman of Scarboro"...specific dates, but no citation of sources. Uncle George was killed in France in 1914 before he could finish his research. I inherited his journals and work. I guess it is the accuracy of his other work that keeps me searching after what may well be a red herring.

That source you supplied for TNA Customs records may prove things out. More later on that.

SBSFamilyhistory · 04-01-2008, 9:28 AM

Originally Posted by Geoffers

and thence to:

1841 census
HO107/1266/4 f39 p19
King Street, Sarborough
William MERRY, 28, schoolmaster
John MERRY, 50, Ind
Faith MERRY, 50,
Mary MERRY, 25
William MERRY, 53, farmer
(All born in Yorkshire)
There are then various pupils, servants

I love the name Mary Merry - say that after a couple of pints

I have also noticed that on the same page there are another group of Merrys.

Charles aged 14
Joseph aged 12
Elizabeth aged 11
Sarah aged 8
Source Citation: Class: HO107; Folio: 40; Page: 4

At the top of the page the first person is listed a pauper, could they have been in a workhouse? unfortunately the previous page does not help.

Would these have been the children from Joseph's first marriage?

en2gen I hope I have not added to any confussion

Sue

PS

Geoff was there a Census done for those away from home in 1841?

Geoffers · 04-01-2008, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by SBSFamilyhistory

Geoff was there a Census done for those away from home in 1841?

Not as such, those away from home should appear where they were staying overnight - though obviously many must be missing who were in transit. Occasionally I have come across entries where those who appear to be parents have proudly noted on the census that their son is a student at a college; in a couple of instances I have seen entries where someone is recorded as being a officer in the RN and away at sea.

I can't remember if it's been mentioned before in the thread, but in case it ties in, I note that in 1841 at Pickering there is

HO107/1260/25 f8 p10
Lockton (north of Pickering), Yorkshire
Joseph MERRY, 80, ind, bn Yorks
Esther MERRY, 40, bn Yorks

Had Joseph returned to the parish of his birth? Or is this a completely different family?

Originally Posted by En2gen

On the MERRY line, he had only gone back to John MERRY (1774-1846) "Gentleman of Scarboro"...specific dates, but no citation of sources.

Most, if not all of us have made mistakes in research, it would be surprising if your Uncle had not perhaps made an error; and it by no means detracts from his other work. But in your shoes, I'd follow what I could show to be accurate.

Searching the GRO index of deaths records these John MERR(E)Ys who died 1845-7
Jun 1845 - John MERREY - Headington
Dec 1845 - John MERRY - Stoke on Trent
Jun 1846 - John MERRY - Richmond S
Mar 1847 - John Fordham MERRY - Camberwell
Sep 1847 - John MERRY - Lichfield
Dec 1847 - John MERRY - Cockermouth

So, the only two deaths which might possibly have occurred in 1846 are John MERRY in Richmond, Surrey and John Fordham MERRY in Camberwell.
Is there anything in the notes which suggests that John MERRY had a second name? If you really wanted to, you might try a speculative purchase of a certificate for the Richmond death in case John MERRY travelled there.

Copper · 04-01-2008, 1:27 PM

There is this death -

1844 Sep Learbro' 24 275 - John Merry

I have checked this ref and it is one of those typed sheets. Free BMD have made a note that this is not a recognised district. They have decided it might be Loughborough but then that vol number does not tally. The vol number 24 does cover Scarborough!

I would order this death certificate but mention that the district is incorrect in the GRO index and you think it should be Scarborough.

en2gen · 04-01-2008, 6:14 PM

Ok, I hope I am using this reply process correctly, but I will admit to being confused. Here goes though, because maybe I need some help with my assumptions from the 1841 census. Those MERRY children that you cite, are mine. Charles MERRY is my gg grandfather who later went on to be a Wesleyan minister, then a vicar in the COE (side note: He had 7 sons, 5 of whom also became vicars in the COE). Anyway, I had always interpreted the 1841 census entry as the children living with Richard and Mary Smith on Newbro Street with the possibility that Mary Smith was their aunt (an older sister of their father, Joseph which would make sense if Joseph was the youngest son of Joseph the cobbler, since the cobbler also had a daughter Mary who would have been age 60 in 1841). I interpreted Richard Smith's occupation as "sawyer" not "pauper". Would anyone else like to give it a read and comment?

I do think that the other group of MERRYs shown on King Street are related. Maybe part of the extended family, but I have not done any research on them. There did seem to be an enclave of MERRYs in the Scarborough, Pickering, Lockton triangle.

Louise

Originally Posted by SBSFamilyhistory

I have also noticed that on the same page there are another group of Merrys.

Charles aged 14
Joseph aged 12
Elizabeth aged 11
Sarah aged 8
Source Citation: Class: HO107; Folio: 40; Page: 4

At the top of the page the first person is listed a pauper, could they have been in a workhouse? unfortunately the previous page does not help.

Would these have been the children from Joseph's first marriage?

en2gen I hope I have not added to any confussion

Sue

PS

Geoff was there a Census done for those away from home in 1841?

en2gen · 04-01-2008, 6:48 PM

As noted in an earlier thread, there was an enclave of MERRYs in the Pickering, Lockton, Scarboro area. I really feel there is a connection somewhere, but I have not found it yet. This Joseph MERRY seems to be the one I found a marriage for in 1838 (Middleton PC) to Esther Hunter. That Joseph is a widower, age 60, Yeoman of Lockton. She is shown as age 50 (maybe one of those rounding anomalies on the census that she is shown as age 40...or maybe a mis-transcription).
Louise

Originally Posted by Geoffers

Not as such, those away from home should appear where they were staying overnight - though obviously many must be missing who were in transit. Occasionally I have come across entries where those who appear to be parents have proudly noted on the census that their son is a student at a college; in a couple of instances I have seen entries where someone is recorded as being a officer in the RN away at sea.

I can't remember if it's been mentioned before in the thread, but in case it ties in, I note that in 1841 at Pickering there is

HO107/1260/25 f8 p10
Lockton (north of Pickering), Yorkshire
Joseph MERRY, 80, ind, bn Yorks
Esther MERRY, 40, bn Yorks

Had Joseph returned to the parish of his birth? Or is this a completely different family?

Most, if not all of us have made mistakes in research, it would be surprising if your Uncle had not perhaps made an error; and it by no means detracts from his other work. But in your shoes, I'd follow what I could show to be accurate.

Searching the GRO index of deaths records these John MERR(E)Ys who died 1845-7
Jun 1845 - John MERREY - Headington
Dec 1845 - John MERRY - Stoke on Trent
Jun 1846 - John MERRY - Richmond S
Mar 1847 - John Fordham MERRY - Camberwell
Sep 1847 - John MERRY - Lichfield
Dec 1847 - John MERRY - Cockermouth

So, the only two deaths which might possibly have occurred in 1846 are John MERRY in Richmond, Surrey and John Fordham MERRY in Camberwell.
Is there anything in the notes which suggests that John MERRY had a second name? If you really wanted to, you might try a speculative purchase of a certificate for the Richmond death in case John MERRY travelled there.

Geoffers · 04-01-2008, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by en2gen

maybe I need some help with my assumptions from the 1841 census. Those MERRY children that you cite, are mine. Charles MERRY is my gg grandfather.....Anyway, I had always interpreted the 1841 census entry as the children living with Richard and Mary Smith on Newbro Street

Relationships were not required on the 1841 census - occasionally they are noted, but not in this instance and so it would be wrong to make an assumption that they were related - it may turn out that there was a relationship, but nothing in this census entry tells you that.

I interpreted Richard Smith's occupation as "sawyer" not "pauper". Would anyone else like to give it a read and comment?

The occupation is 'sawyer'.

I do think that the other group of MERRYs shown on King Street are related. Maybe part of the extended family, but I have not done any research on them.

If you are not already doing so, I would suggest that it would help you to record all such entries and try to put them in some semblance of order in family groups. It may be that they come together in time.

en2gen · 05-01-2008, 3:32 AM

Thanks for the validation of the occuipation on the 1841 census. I had pretty much abandoned this MERRY search for a while, so I do need to sort out all these families now that the censuses are online and that will be my next step.