1861 Sussex Census Mystery

[busyglen]

Could someone please help me with a problem that I am having tracing a William PUXTY and Eliza PUXTY on the 1861 Census.

I have them on the 1871 (and earlier 1841/51) and William is shown as aged 56 and Eliza 51. William born Ticehurst SSX and Eliza born Burwash SSX.

In 1881 Eliza is a widow living with a son John Puxty in Union St. Ticehurst.

There were several large families of Puxty in SSX especially around the Flimwell/Ticehurst areas, and several contained the same names, which is proving a real headache.

I'd be really grateful if someone could spot them on the 1861 please.

Glenys

[michaelpipe]

Is this them, Transcribed as Pasty by a*****y

RG9; Piece: 570; Folio: 7; Page: 8

Michael

[Hugh Thompson]

Hi Busyglen,found them on FreeCen,
Hugh

Is this them in 1861
Piece: RG9/570 Place: Ticehurst -Sussex Enumeration District: 16
Civil Parish: Ticehurst Ecclesiastical Parish: St Augustines
Folio: 7 Page: 8 Schedule: 37
Address: Union Street


PUXTY William Head M M 46 Shoemaker Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY Eliza Wife M F 42 Sussex - Burwash PUXTY William Son U M 18 Shoemaker Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY Alfred Son - M 12 Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY Water Son - M 9 Scholar Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY Albert Son - M 6 Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY William F. Son - M 3 Sussex - Ticehurst PUXTY John B. Son - M 1 Sussex - Ticehurst

[busyglen]

Thank you both Michael & Hugh. Yes this is the family.

I don't know why I didn't check out the FreeCen, I think it's because normally when I check, the piece I want hasn't been transcribed. At least they transcribed the name correctly, and not like A*

Thanks again for your help boys...much appreciated.

Glenys

[busyglen]

Michael, I see you are still on line at the moment....would you be able to look at the 1841 Census for me please?

I've searched for William Puxty aged 26 b. Ticehurst every which way, but I can't find him. The one I found was the wrong one (at least I think it is unless he is living out of county). The family I found was headed by Peter Puxty, but I don't somehow think that is his father, although I don't know as yet. William is shown as a Cordwainer Journeyman on the 1851, so he could be travelling, but a search for other counties brings up zilch. I don't have A******* and have exhausted the company I use.

I checked also for an Eliza Puxty, but they hadn't married at this point as I found her under her nee name of Burgess. Wonder where he is?

I would be grateful if you could use you expertise again....I checked FreeCen but they don't have that year transcribed yet.

Glenys

[Barbara Wilkinson]

Butting in Glenys - but I had Ancestry on-line!! Just in case Michael doesn't notice ...!!
There is a family in 1841 that looks as though it might be yours, but William and Eliza look married with a young family! Of course - it may be a different family altogether ...!!
HO107; Piece 1109; Book: 7; Civil Parish: Ticehurst; County: Sussex; Enumeration District: 8; Folio: 31; Page: 15; Line: 17
William Puxty, 25, ShoeM
Eliza Puxty, 20
Mary Puxty, 5
Frances Puxty, 3
NK, 1 mo
Deborah Puxty, 20
Thomas Joffery (?) 25, Ag Lab
Barbara

[busyglen]

Thank you very much Barbara!

I think this is the right family, but I am totally confused! The age is about right, but the names of the children aren't!

I have a strong feeling that I am a William Puxty out, as the previous information I had gleaned (several years ago) gave me a William born 1835 to Eliza Burgess, who in turn had a William b. 1857 who married Sarah Forward, who in turn had a William b. 1877. which sort of follows through on the Censuses so far, but the first one I found with William married to Eliza appears to have been born about 1851. ??

I'm really going to have to study this in more depth as looking through the previous info I had, there were two William's born to the first family. I'm sorry I started on this again!!

Thanks for the info, the William I was looking for was a Shoemaker, although on the 1851he was a Cordwainer? I do know that there was a large family of Puxtys in Ticehurst/Flimwell, so it's possible that two Williams married Elizas, and have got confused.

I'm just off for a cuppa to clear my head!

Glenys

[Barbara Wilkinson]

the William I was looking for was a Shoemaker, although on the 1851he was a Cordwainer?

Shoemaker - Cordwainer - much the same thing, isn't it, although I think cordwainer implies using leather!
Enjoy your tea!!

[Barbara Wilkinson]

You may have this already, Glenys, but if your subscription has run out and you want to check ...?
1851 HO107; Piece: 1639; Folio: 93; Page: 19
Flimwell, Ticehurst
William Puxty, head, married, 36, cordwainer/journeyman, born Ticehurst
Eliza Puxty, wife, 31, born Burwash
MaryAnn (or MayAnn?), daughter, 15, born Etchingham
William, son, 8, born Ticehurst
Alfred, son, 2, born Ticehurst

The age for MaryAnn fits with the Mary from 1841 - but what happened to the others .....??

Actually - I see you have this - now that I have re-read the whole post ....!! Sorry

[busyglen]

Thanks Barbara.....no worries!

It is the same family, and Anne is the NK in the 1841. I don't know what happened to Francis Elizabeth...perhaps she died.

Actually it's the line following down on the name William which occurred in several of the generations. I've just picked up a mistake as there were two Williams in this family, and both married a Sarah. Luckily I have now sorted out which was which, thanks to the help with the missing census pieces, and bits that I already had given to me. (Which incidentally were wrong!)

Thanks again.

Glenys