Genealogy Chat

I have traced my gtx3 grandfather to Hawarden in Wales. Wife Mary Piercy. He was traced through birth of first daughter 1785, One of the few of his children to have the correct surname. The others range from Burton to Brereton and have found them through Mary Piercy being married to a William. Anyway, they are nowhere to be found at the Flintshire RO. Today , for the first time I went to what is described as a Heritage center in Chester and one of the staff put me on to a marriage index, can't remember the name, it started with B of Chester. Looking for Mary Piercy, up comes a marriage to a William Broughton 1784 in Shotwick. They dont have these parish records at the center, I will phone the RO tomorrow. Rushed home to try and find them on the LDS and familyhistory on line - Nothing. I even looked at Hugh Wallis and got up the marriages for Shotwick but no, not there. Any thoughts on where else I can look? Even if I can see the original, if he is down as Broughton then I dont know where to go next. Help!!

Jeanie Was there any other information on the reference? Victor

You wont believe how stupid I was but I was so excited with this find that whilst writing it down, I did not click on it. I did click on someone else I found and they did give the occupation and the parish. I will have to go in again next week!!

Jeanie The reason why I ask is that I have just looked on 1837 from Sep 1883 to Dec 1884 and there is no marriage listed for Mary Piercy. Are you certain of the year? Victor

I think I will go back to bed in shame. Should have read 1784 for marriage and 1785 for birth of child.

Jeanie Oh well never mind. Victor

Thank you so much for looking Vic. Sorry to be such a pain so early in the day!!

it was probably the Bertram Merrell Cheshire marriage index, computerised by Cheshire FHS, on CD but not too cheap. IGI has hardly covered Shotwick at all, though the LDS does have the registers and BTs on film Whatever William's name was, it's not surprising it would appear as Broughton, because that was a place nearby. If people weren't sure about a name, but it seemed similar to a local placename, they would tend to assume it was the same

You don't say what you consider the 'correct' surname to be but do bear in mind that in the 18th century spelling of names was seen as much less important than now, it was only really in late Victorian times, with the proliferation of written records, and the introduction of compulsory education that families settled on a 'correct' spelling - often with branches of the same family using a different version from one another. Burton, Brereton and Broughton would probably all sound very similar in the accent of the region so all could be considered correct.

Thanks Robin and Judith, food for thought. The 'correct 'name is BREWERTON. Have had a look on GENUKI and it says that the GRO does have the parish records of Shotwick so will try to get there on Tuesday. Yes it was that marriage index, pity its not on line!! Many thanks to all who replied Jeanie

Jeanie Sorry I can't help with your query, and I hope this doesn't sound rude..... but I'm just fascinated that your 3 x great grandparents were just starting to have your 2 x great grandparents generation in the 1780's. My 6 x great grandparents were generally having my 5 x great grandparents around the 1780's - and I'm not young! I'm in my VERY late 40's. I'm amazed at such disparity in the generations. In fact maybe I'm being thick, but wouldn't you have to be approx 80, (I don't expect you to confirm that by the way!), and each mother of the previous generations would have to have been almost of meopausal age when giving birth to make this work??? I don't really expect an answer - I'm just fascinated. Regards Ellen.

This is my second attempt to answer, I have just been dumped by site!! William c1765 had Benjamin 1799. Benjamin with second wife had Daniel 1840 Daniel had third son, Frank to much younger woman, in 1895 and Frank had my father in 1924. My husband who was 61 yesterday can remember his grandfather who was born in 1867!! I have other trees with x5 and 6 by that date but all it takes is an older man and a younger woman!!

How brilliant Jeanie. Thanks for replying. Regards Ellen.