Our burials database really does pay dividends and I’ve made some excellent discoveries recently. However, as I was adding each individual entry there were a number of individuals recorded in the registers that I couldn’t identify at the time for various reasons. I made a point to cross reference the entries with the civil registration index to ensure that the names I entered were correct whenever possible but the following one had me stumped at the time – there wasn’t a corresponding registration of death – and so not being able to make out the surname I had to enter the record under just the name ‘William’.

The entry above, shown at full size, is quite obvious to me now that I know exactly who it refers to but what I haven’t shown is that the particular entry also clearly indicates that the person was interred in grave nunmber 3038. Sometimes the grave numbers are not easy to make out but this one was absolutely clear – grave number 3038.

Now when I checked our burials database, laid to rest in grave number 3038 were Isabella Coward aged 66, Joseph Coward aged 70, an infant child with the surname ‘Wray’ and the individual ‘William’ listed above. At first it appeared that it was the family grave of a Joseph Coward and his wife Isabella but I had no record of any such marriage. I eventually identified Isabella as the wife of Charles Coward and immeditely thought I’d got things badly mixed up. Isabella died in 1908 but her husband Charles was recorded on the 1911 census so had I got Charles and Joseph Coward confused and mistakenly entered the wrong husband or placed one or other in the wrong graves?

I decided to look at Charles Coward again and discovered that on our family tree Charles had been married previosuly to an Elizabeth Webster. Elizabeth had died in 1876 aged 36 years and after her death Charles, a widower, married Isabella Webster, a younger sister of Elizabeth. In fact upon closer inspection of the marriage entry for Charles and Elizabeth I noticed that Charles was a widower at that time also, and ultimately discovered his first marriage to Elizabeth Earnshaw.

So, if Charles wan’t interred in the same grave as his third wife Isabella, where had he been laid to rest after his death in 1915? I discovered that Charles Coward, along with his second wife Elizabeth, were interred in grave 3036. It was all now much clearer.

Grave numbers 3036-3038 contain several members of the Webster and Coward families and therein lies the answer to our ‘William’ above. William George Webster was the brother of Elizabeth and Isabella Webster and his death registration records him only as George Webster which is why I had such difficuly locating him in the first place.

George Metcalfe married Mary Rhodes at Christ Church, Knottingley, on 5 June 1855. George is recorded as a Waterman/Mariner and over the next 8 years, he and his wife Mary had at least 4 children. Census records confirm that Sarah Ann, Amelia, Lucy and Faith were all born into this marriage while there is a possibility of a 5th daughter, Elizabeth, but as yet I have not located any evidence to confirm this.

We know from census records that Mary was a Widow by the time of the 1871 census and according to my Knottingley cemetery burials, a George Metcalfe aged 38 years was buried at Knottingley cemetery on 23 January 1863. George and Mary’s daughter Faith was born in the September qtr of 1863 so her father would have died some months before she was born.

The 1871 census records Mary with a son Fred(erick), born 1869/70, but there doesn’t appear to be a birth registration on the GRO index. If it is correct that Mary’s husband George had died in 1863 it’s clear that he could not have been the father of Frederick.
As a means of confirmation, on the 5th Apr 1874 there is a record of baptism at Christ Church, Knottingley for Faith Metcalf, daughter of George & Mary – Mariner, and also on the very same date there is a record of baptism for Fred Metcalf, the son of Mary, with no details of the father recorded.
The 1891 census records Fred Metcalf, aged 21, at Shepherds Bridge, Knottingley, with his wife Jane, aged 22, of Wakefield. The 1901 census records a ‘married’ Jane Metcalfe at the home of Ross Haller, Union Row, Knottingley, where she is recorded as a Boarder and is working as a Bottle Packer at a Glassworks. With peculiar similarity, a ‘married’ Fred Metcalfe is recorded working as a Chemical Works Labourer and living as a Boarder at the home of William Miller, Ocean Terrace, Knottingley.

It’s a bit complicated but not too difficult to follow until you begin searching for the marriage record for Fred and Jane. The only record I can find is for Curtis Metcalfe and Jane Williamson who were married at Christ Church, Knottingley, on the 8th March 1891, however, I cannot find any census record of a Curtis Metcalfe.

I have a feeling that Fred and Curtis are one and the same but I have yet to find that one piece of information that offers confirmation. To fuel my belief, there is a birth registration in 1869 for Curtis Metcalfe which, if it turns out that they are the same person, would explain why I have not been able to locate one for Frederick Metcalfe.

Curtis Metcalfe, a 37 year old Labourer, died in 1906 and he was buried at Knottingley cemetery on the 22 October in grave no. 2339. His burial record offers no additional clues as to his correct identity at this time.

So, are Frederick Metcalfe and Curtis Metcalfe the same person? Let me know.

Yesterday, whilst trying to unravel a mystery regarding a separate member of the France family, I encountered a record for Elizabeth Radley, who married Thomas France at Christ Church, Knottingley, on 6th February 1871. The marriage entry transcription I have available to me records that Elizabeth was

‘a Spinster of Full years and the daughter of John Radley, a Bricklayer’.

Looking at our family tree database I discovered that there were 3 possible individual records for an Elizabeth Radley and to my surprise one of those was already recorded as the wife of Thomas France. So, were these actually 3 separate Elizabeth Radley’s or could two or more be merged into a single record? Firstly, let’s see what we have to start with.

The 3 individual records were:

I3261 Elizabeth Radley, daughter of William & Sarah, baptised at Christ Church, Knottingley, 15 July 1850
I9760 Elizabeth Radley, mother of Alfred Radley who was baptised at Knottingley on the 1st August 1869
I4240 Elizabeth Radley, wife of Thomas France

The fact that our marriage transcription records Elizabeth’s father as ‘John, a Brickmaker’ appears to dismiss any theory that she was the daughter of William & Sarah. However, transcriptions can often be erroneous and there is some evidence to suggest that this may be the case here. There are ‘unions’ and relationships in later census records that suggest a link between Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas France, and a George Radley, son of William & Sarah (her possible parents). What I have certainly not yet discovered is an Elizabeth Radley baptised to John, or a census entry showing Elizabeth with a father, John.

We know from baptism records that William and Sarah Radley had a daughter Elizabeth born in 1849, she being recorded at home with her parents on the 1851 and 1861 census. We also know that an Elizabeth Radley had an illegitimate son Alfred who was baptised in 1869. The fact that a 2-year-old Alfred Radley is recorded at the home of his ‘grandparents’ William and Sarah Radley on the 1871 census, and as a 12 year-old at the home of his widowed ‘grandmother’ Sarah Radley in 1881, means that Alfred’s mother must be Elizabeth, the daughter of William & Sarah Radley. It is clear that records I3261 and I9760 as listed above can be merged into a single record. That leaves us to consider any possible links with Elizabeth, wife of Thomas France.

It may be important to recall that as already discovered, Alfred was the grandson of William and Sarah Radley and that the 1871 & 1881 census records also reveal a George Radley, son of William and Sarah and the uncle of Alfred Radley. In fact the 1891 census records George Radley, a Coal Merchant, living at Low Green, Knottingley with his nephew Alfred, a Coal Labourer.

One fact that might be of interest is that on the ‘Thomas France’ marriage record of 6th February 1871, Elizabeth Radley’s father is recorded employed as a ‘Bricklayer’ but to date I haven’t yet encountered that occupation within the family. However, the 1911 census records George Radley, previously a coal merchant, as a ‘Retired Brick Maker’ so there is clearly some family connection with that occupation.

Returning to George Radley we find that in the 1891 census he is recorded living with his nephew Alfred next door to Topsy Johnson, a married lady whose husband William appears to have not been present at the time of the census, or indeed those of 1901 and 1911. William and Topsy’s only child Ann Louisa died at the age of 7 years in 1887.  Perhaps William and Topsy no longer resided together as husband and wife although William was later interred in the same grave as his wife Topsy and daughter Ann Louisa at Knottingley Cemetery, his wife being interred in 1912 and he in 1927.

On the 1901 and 1911 census we find George Radley recorded as a Boarder at the home of Topsy Johnson. In addition, the 1901 census also reveals that William and Frederick France, sons of Thomas & Elizabeth (nee Radley), are recorded as visitors. Furthermore, the 1911 census reveals that 4 sons of Thomas & Elizabeth France; Frederick, John, Dawson and Walter, are all recorded as Lodgers with Topsy Johnson and George Radley. Does that suggest a family connection through Topsy Johnson or with George Radley?

Although the evidence suggested by the marriage transcription indicates Elizabeth, wife of Thomas France, not to be the sister of George Radley (her father being John and his William), there are some clear assumptions that they were in fact brother and sister and that there is a possibility that the marriage transcription is incorrect. Had ‘John’, as recorded on the marriage transcription, been recorded as ‘William’ then everything would fall neatly into place. If you are able to offer any confirmation or other suggestions then please let me know.

Benjamin Bean, a Farmer of Hensall, Yorkshire,  married Elizabeth Senior of Darrington, Yorkshire, at St Botolph Church, Knottingley, on the 8th March 1849. Elizabeth was the daughter of John and Sarah Senior.

The 1861 census records Benjamin and Elizabeth Bean residing at Hensall along with their 15 year-old niece Sarah Ann Steel, and later, at St Giles Church, Pontefract, on 26 November 1874, after the death of his wife Elizabeth, Benjamin takes his second wife, Sarah Ann Steel, daughter of Samuel.

It’s clear that Benjamin and Elizabeth’s niece Sarah Ann Steel who was recorded with them in 1861 became the bride of Benjamin Bean in 1874 but the relationship chart on our family tree didn’t identify any link between either Benjamin or Elizabeth and Sarah Ann Steel to substantiate the ‘niece’ description. The only possible explanation was that Sarah Ann Steel’s mother, Christiana, was the sister of Benjamin’s first wife Elizabeth Senior, but although it seemed a pretty obvious assumption, I hadn’t yet located the necessary proof. Until, that was, I managed to find Christiana’s baptism record by searching the IGI database on just the given name. Finally, there it was – Christiana SENIOER, along with an additional brother and sister.

Now all that remains is to identify the parents of Alice Bean born abt 1866.

Alice is first recorded as a 15 year-old daughter on the 1881 census with her ‘parents’, the above Benjamin and Sarah Ann Bean, along with two other children that are most certainly from that marriage. The date of Alice’s birth suggests that she is the daughter of Benjamin’s first wife Elizabeth but the 1871 census doesn’t record her and there is no record of baptism. It is likely that Alice was the illegitimate daughter of Sarah Ann Steel but if that is so then who was the father?

Initially, the Knottingley Family History Database family tree comprised individual records for George Robert Wood and Robert Wood as sons of Richard Wood and his wife Hannah (nee Stacey) A form submitted to the IGI by a member of the LDS church (Batch No: 7617726, Sheet 20, Source Call No.: 1058652) records the baptism at Knottingley of George Robert Wood on the 7th September 1834 as son of Richard Wood and Hannah.

Early census returns record only a Robert Wood and indicate his date of birth to be abt. 1836 making it appear that there may be two individual brothers. After his marriage to first wife Charlotte, Robert Wood is recorded on the 1871 and 1881 census returns with his wife and 2 sons, Tom and Robert. However, after the death of Charlotte in 1888, Robert Wood takes his second wife Eliza Ann Bailey, whom he marries at Pontefract in the final quarter of 1890, and on this occasion he is referenced by his correct given names of George Robert Wood.

The second marriage appears to have been a turning point and the 1891 and 1901 census both record the additional given name although more confusingly the 1911 return has them in reverse order as Robert George Wood.

To end as was begun, ‘George Robert Wood’ was finally interred in plot no. 1280 at Knottingley Cemetery on the 15th April 1926 along with his second wife Eliza Ann.

With the evidence uncovered through his second marriage and from subsequent census returns our two individual records for George Robert Wood and Robert Wood have now been merged into a single record

This evening I have been entering details of the above couple and their family. On the Yorkshire Ancestry family tree there is an associated memorial inscription for Fred and Flora Fox which also includes George Sefton and Sarah Elizabeth Sefton. In addition, our marriage database records the marriage of George Sefton to Sarah Elizabeth Fox on 7th April 1928 at Christ Church, Knottingley.

Our transcript of the marriage register records that George, of Cow Lane, Knottingley, was a Bachelor of 23 years working as a Carter and the son of Tom Sefton. His bride, Sarah Elizabeth, of Sebastopol, Knottingley, was a Spinster of 22 years and the daughter of Fred Fox. It appeared therefore that Sarah Elizabeth was the daughter of Fred and Flora Fox and that all four individuals mentioned were interred in the same grave (plot no. 4249) within Knottingley Cemetery.

From the information available it was determined that Sarah Elizabeth was born about 1906 but there was no record of baptism at Knottingley. Turning to the 1911 census I could locate just one Sarah Elizabeth Fox that seemed a likely possibility but even though her year of birth was given as 1906 and the family were recorded living at Sebastopol, Knottingley, her parents were somewhat confusingly recorded as George Arthur Fox and his wife Hannah. I initially discarded that possibility but having been unable to locate any other Fred and Flora Fox or a Sarah Elizabeth Fox, I returned to it once again.

In the 1911 census, George Arthur Fox was recorded as being born in Dodsworth, Barnsley, while both Hannah, his wife of 13 years, and daughter Sarah Elizabeth were recorded as being born in Wortley, Leeds.

Turning to the 1901 census I located a Fred Fox and his wife Flora Fox at 242 Low Wortley Road, Wortley, the home of a widower by the name of Robert Wade. Fred Fox was recorded as ‘son-in-law’ so Robert Wade was clearly the father of Flora Fox. I discovered a marriage recorded at Leeds in the September qtr of 1898 between Fred Fox and Flora Wade, so was this the couple I had been searching for?

The 1901 census records that Fred Fox was born in Dodsworth, Barnsley, and that Flora Fox was born in Wortley, Leeds, so the birthplaces correspond with the information recorded on the 1911 census. The home address for the 1911 census was given as Sebastopol, Knottingley, which corresponds to the address recorded for Sarah Elizabeth at the time of her marriage in 1928. It would seem extremely likely that the Sarah Elizabeth recorded at Sebastopol in the 1911 census with parents George Arthur and Hannah is the same Sarah Elizabeth, daughter of Fred, who later married George Sefton but if that is indeed the case then why are the given names of her parents recorded differently on the 1911 census?

Why would Fred be changed to George Arthur at the same time that Flora is changed to Hannah? Can anyone provide any insight?

I’m sure you’ve all encountered a situation where you search through census records and locate one member of a marriage but find that their partner wasn’t present at the time. Had their partner died? Had they divorced? or had they simply gone their separate ways? It’s not always easy to find the answer and more often than not the information tendered at the time was meant to confuse and mislead. I came across one such situation yesterday when I attempted to piece together the family history behind a Knottingley cemetery memorial inscription.

The memorial inscription in question reads:

TREASURED MEMORIES OF
ALBERT EDWARD RAYNER DIED APRIL 6TH 1938 AGED 75 YEARS
ALSO OF HARRIET ALICE RAYNER DIED OCTOBER 1ST 1938 AGED 82 YEARS

I normally begin my search by locating a record of marriage from an approximate date determined by the ages of the individuals concerned however, on this occasion I was unable to locate one. Instead I turned to the census and in 1911 I found Albert Edward Rayner, a Bachelor, living at Victoria Terrace, Hill Top, Knottingley, and employed as a Miners Deputy. Recorded with him on the same census was Harriet Alice Hoyles, a Housekeeper, along with 3 other individuals with the Hoyles surname that suggested they were her children or descendants. Harriet Alice was recorded as ‘Married’ but there was no record of her husband.

I first located Harriet Alice Hoyles at Hunslet, Yorkshire, on the 1891 census where she was recorded with her husband Abraham and their family but at the time of writing I have been unable to locate a marriage for them. There is the possibility of course that they didn’t ever marry but subsequent findings leads me to believe that not to be the case and that at some point early in their relationship the couple did become husband and wife.

The 1901 census at Pontefract Road, Knottingley, records 42 year-old Harriet as a Widow and Head of the household along with 4 of her children and a newly born grandson. In addition there is a record of a Lodger by the name of Albert Rayner, aged 39 years, who was employed as a Coal Ripper. As we already know, Albert Edward Rayner was interred in the same grave as Harriet where they are recorded as husband and wife.

The recording of Harriet as a Widow in 1901 was again confusing because there was no record of a death registration for her husband between 1891, when Abraham was recorded at the family home, and 1901 at which time Harriet was recorded as a Widow. By chance I stumbled across a census record from 1901 which recorded Harriet’s husband Abraham, in Kippax, Yorkshire, as a Lodger at the home of Henry Townley Blakeley, and employed as a Coal Miner. Clearly the couple had gone their separate ways but were they ever married? I believe they most certainly were and with the information I had uncovered so far I expanded my search into later years.

The GRO records that Albert Edward Rayner married Harriet Alice Hoyles at Pontefract, Yorkshire, in the 4th quarter of 1915, but having been first recorded together back in 1901, why had they waited so long to marry? There is the possibility that love didn’t blossom initially and that it wasn’t until some time later that they made the decision to become husband and wife, but it’s more likely the fact that at Hunslet, Yorkshire, in the first quarter of 1915, there was a registered death of Abraham Hoyles, aged 59 years. That suggests to me that Harriet and Abraham were indeed married and that through the death of Abraham in early 1915, Harriet was finally free to marry Albert Edward Rayner.