+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Lesley,

    On having a proper look, the Mary Ann Kellet listed above the family is aged 14 whereas the one I'm looking for would probably be 12. But yes, the wives of the two families are around 30 years old, but the Mary Ann in question is the only child for the first couple whereas the couple with the "missing" Mary Ann has 4 children at home. I'll have a look into Arthur's suggestion about her being a servant living outside the family home, given the age discrepancy.

    Nikki

  2. #12
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Arthur! I'll have a look at what you have on the family.

    Fanny Kellet married Joseph Farrar. They had 5 children in Yorkshire, then immigrated to South Africa in the early 1900s. Their daughter Fanny Farrar married Edward Dunn(e). Edward and Fanny are my husban's paternal grandparents.

    Thanks for clarification on the Manchester "Ann Kellett" registration you found. I realise I missed a piece of information on my original post: as well as the Catherine 1858 and Florence 1862 registrations I also found an Ann 1853 with father Kellett and mother Dawson. This one was also found in the West Yorkshire baptisms.

    For the three children who don't appear in the census, I see an Ann Kellet who died aged 0 registered in the same quarter as she was born (no others until the 1861 census date), Catherine died in the same quarter she was born in 1868 (does not seem to appear in church records) and Florence died in 1867 aged 6 years.

    As for whether her parents skipped registering Fanny, the issue remains that they registered 10 other children between 1849 and 1871, including several who didn't live very long, so it does seem odd that Fanny wasn't registered in 1860. I did take her birth date from her baptism record, but it fits with her age at death (given in years and months) which worked backwards to late January 1860. Ages on South African death notices aren't always completely reliable, but this does seem to support the date given in the baptism register. I've searched the GRO with just parent's surnames, and with the loosest spelling registrations, but still no luck!

    Thanks for all the help.

    Nikki

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to nd_SAOZ For This Useful Post:

    arthurk (01-12-2018)

  4. #13
    Super Moderator Lesley Robertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,591
    Thanks
    707
    Thanked 1,554 Times in 1,210 Posts

    Default

    I’m glad that you have a couple of leads now, but don’t assume that an error of 2 years always means something in the census - back then, exact ages didin’t mean as much now. Obviously the problem gets worse as the subject ages (I have seen discrepancies +/- 10 years or more), but a year or two could mean less than it would today.

    Arthur’s servant girl is a good option.

  5. #14
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,560
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 288 Times in 236 Posts

    Default

    I've just had another look at the 1861 census page showing John and Elizabeth Kellet, the parents of this family, (RG9/3305 fo19 p31) and it's quite possible that I'm related in some way to all 25 people on that page. It's easiest to explain if I start at the bottom:

    Schedule No. 180 (continues overleaf) is John and Elizabeth, with 4 of their children - Harriett, Sharlot (sic), Lavinia and Fanny
    179: Matthew & Emma Kellet with daughter Mary Ann (aged14)
    178: James & Harriet Kellet with 6 children
    177: John & Betty Bartle
    176: Dan & Betty Kellet with one son
    175 (starts on previous page): Soloman & Betty Bartle with 5 children

    When I only had easy access to census returns I decided it was too difficult to untangle all the Kellets around there, but now that more is available online it might be worth a try some time. For now, it seems possible that 178 & 179 are related to John and Elizabeth. Going back to the original suggestion, without strong evidence to the contrary I wouldn't identify the Mary Ann in 179 with John and Elizabeth's daughter, as she's said to be daughter of Matthew and Emma, and her age is a bit out too.

    John and Betty Bartle are my 3x great grandparents: their son Solomon married Eden Kellet, sister of John at 180. (In 1861 Solomon and Eden were living in Leeds.)

    Dan Kellet is father of John and Eden; their mother was Sarah Wilkinson, so the Betty shown here is presumably a second wife.

    Finally, Solomon Bartle at 175 is brother of my John at 177.

    In one sense it makes life easier when they're all there right in front of you, but it can take ages to sort them all out.

    Just to finish, am I right in thinking, Nikki, that John and Elizabeth are your husband's 2x great grandparents, so Dan and Sarah Kellet are his 3x greats? They are also my 3x greats, so if I've got it right, that makes us 4th cousins.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Select a file: