Genealogy Chat

See below

In 1871, Amy Elcock, aged 77, born Much Wenlock, is living in Chelmarsh, Shropshire with Thomas Hayes, his wife Mary Ann Hayes and their baby son George. Also visiting is Elizabeth Gamson and Sarah Gamson. Thomas Hayes is the head of the household and Amy is described as his mother-in-law. I don’t believe that Amy is his mother-in-law. Mary Ann Hayes is 24, as is Thomas. Amy would have been 53 when Mary Ann was born. Besides which, I have Amy on every census from 1841 onwards. Her husband, Joseph Elcock, died in 1851 (just before the census) and she is with one or other of her children on every subsequent census. There is no sign of a daughter called Mary on any census. Elizabeth Gamson, however, is Amy’s daughter and Sarah Gamson is Elizabeth’s daughter. According to FreeBMD there is a marriage of a Thomas Hayes in 1869 in Bridgnorth (the right area) and a possible wife is Mary Ann Tyler. There is a Mary Ann Tyler born in Bridgnorth on the 1861 census (age is 2 years out from the Mary Ann in 1871, but that’s not enough to signify). This Mary Ann Tyler has parents called Benjamin and Harriet. Now, working on the basis that possibly Amy is Mary Ann’s grandmother, Amy did have a daughter called Harriet. Unfortunately, Harriet married William Jones in 1852 and in 1861 Amy is living with William and Harriet. So Mary Ann Tyler’s mother Harriet cannot be Amy’s daughter Harriet. I cannot find any link between the name Tyler and Amy Elcock. Admittedly, as yet I do not know Amy’s maiden name, but according to the IGI there is an Amy Kilson born at the right time in Much Wenlock, with a father called Francis. One of Amy’s sons is called Francis, so I lean towards this theory, but it is as yet unproven. Does anyone have any bright ideas where I go next to establish the relationship between Amy Elcock and Thomas and Mary Ann Hayes? I have followed the tracks through the censuses of all the children of Amy and Joseph which I know of, and can find no connection. Tina

Mother-in-law was sometimes used as a term for stepmother, but I don't think this gets you any further forward! Perhaps Thomas gave the wrong info or was misunderstood by the enumerator, when Thomas was trying to say that Amy was Elizabeth's mother? nell

Oh, thank you Chris, I will get in touch with the lady you mention. I spent a day in Shropshire Archives last week and now I have Elcocks coming out of my ears! All mine are from Shropshire, and I am pretty sure that it was originally a Shropshire name. Have you managed to track yours back there yet? As you say, there may well be a connection if we can take it back far enough. Nell, thanks. Yes I know about the step-mother thing, but I am sure that Amy only married the once. I suppose Joseph might have been married before, but he would have to have been pretty nippy about it because their earliest child that I know of was born in 1818. It is a real puzzle. With both Amy and her daughter (who I have yet to find at home on census night, seems to have made a royal progress around all her relations!), staying with Thomas and Mary Ann, it does suggest that there is a family relationship somewhere. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Tina

I don't have access to the image. Is Amy entered after the baby, or is she the last person in the household? The relationship is supposed to be to the head of household, but you do find that occasionally it is to someone else in the household. Might that be the case here?

Just a thourght why would Elizabeth and daughter Sarah also be visiting in 1871, could it be that Elizabeth is the mother of Mary Ann and it should have had in her column Mother In Law and not Amys. I noticed Elizabeth only married in Sept 1847 plus she married in the Bridgnorth area. Its only theory, but still cannot find a Mary Ann Elcock on the 1851 or 61, it could be possible that whoever Elizabeth fell pregnant to Mary Ann had his surname and as she was gping to marry maybe his grandparents took Mary Ann in. Long winded i know but you never know.. Colette

Sorry I have not replied before, ladies. I gave up in disgust and retired to bed! Yvonne, no I am not sure of Amy's maiden name, although I think it might possibly prove to be Kilson. Abbess (from one ex-Abbess (of Grottingham) to another), the order of names on the census is Thomas, Mary Ann, George (the baby), Amy, Elizabeth Gamson, Sarah Gamson. Amy is Elizabeth's mother and Sarah's grandmother. Colette, a theory I had not considered and worth looking into. I think I may have found Mary Ann on the 1861 census as Mary Ann Tyler, but the way to confirm whether I am right is obviously going to be to buy the marriage cert of Thomas Hayes. Once I have confirmed Mary Ann's father's name, I can try to find her birth certificate. Oh heck, yet more expense!

I have seen one census entry where some of my partner's ancestors are described as the head of household's 'father-in-law', 'mother-in-law' and 'brother' when actually, the 'brother' was the widower of the head's sister (i.e. he was his brother-in-law) and the father-in-law and mother-in-law were the brother-in-law's parents! It must just have been too difficult to explain their exact relationship, but they didn't think of describing them as 'relative' or 'lodger' as most people did in that kind of situation. Could it be some similar muddle in your case? Kate.

Anyway, if you don't already have George's birth certificate, this has to be the index entry (from FreeBMD): Births Jun 1870 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hayes George Arthur Bridgnorth 6a 592 and that will give you Mary Ann's maiden name, so at least you can be sure you find the right marriage. Kate.

Oh, and another thing ... could Harriet be Mary Ann's stepmother rather than her mother? Kate.

Hi everyone, many thanks for all these ideas. Kate, yes, certainly the relationship has been incorrectly described. My problem is working out what it should really be! I am fairly sure that none of the daughter's of Amy (of which I am aware) is step-mother to Mary Ann. On the assumption that Mary Ann's maiden name was Tyler, none of Amy's daughter's married anyone called Tyler. Hmm, I suppose if we are wondering if Mary Ann is in fact Amy's step-granddaughter, then if one of Amy's sons had married a widow (or someone with an illegitimate daughter), that could be the answer. There are 2 of Amy's sons where I do not know the pre-marriage surname of their wives - Benjamin and Richard. However, if that were the case, you would surely expect Mary Ann as a child to be in their household with her mother and she isn't. Come to that, I suppose the same might be true of Thomas. Bother, yet more certificates to save up for! I know for certain that Harriet is not Mary Ann's step mother because neither Harriet nor William Jones, her husband, had been married before and they remained married to each other all their lives. Yvonne, in 1851 Harriet is a servant in a household in Bridgnorth. Her year of birth is given as 1835 and place of birth as Hampton Load, but I am confident that that's my Harriet. Hampton Loade is a tiny village right next door to Alveley, where she normally says she was born, likewise all her brother's and sisters. Her father is buried in Alveley and at least one of her sons was born in Hampton Loade. Tina

I didn't mean was Amy's daughter Harriet Mary Ann's stepmother; I meant the Harriet with Benjamin and Mary Ann Tyler. Could SHE be the stepmother of Mary Ann Tyler? And if so, who was Mary Ann Tyler's real mother? Possibly some relation of Amy's! Sorry for confusion. Kate.

Oh, sorry Kate, I see what you mean now. My goodness, it's like wading through treacle! I will start with Thomas and Mary Ann's marriage cert, and after that I will try to trace Mary Ann's birth cert. Another trip to Shropshire Archives would be the ideal solution (says she, longingly) but I can't see that happening this side of Christmas! So certificates it will just have to be. Still, at least I have some new ideas to mull over. Many thanks for everyone's input. Tina