On 16 September 1827 my great-great-grandfather William Moore, Bachelor of Motcombe, Dorset, England, married Hester Dowland, Spinster, in her parish church of Holy Trinity Shaftesbury. Banns had been published in both of their churches on three Sundays in August. For the wedding day itself, the parish marriage register show signatures for the groom, bride and two witnesses, Mary Moore and John Bennett.
Having married in her parish, the couple then lived in his parish, as was typical. Two-and-a-half years later on 18 April 1830 William and Hester had their son William baptised in Motcombe, with the father's occupation recorded as blacksmith. This seems to be the only time that the couple appear in that Church of England baptism register. A researcher starting from here could easily assume that William Moore had only one child.
They could have died. They could have moved. With such a common name, the hope of finding what happened to them next seemed small. However, in 1834 there is a record showing that Charles Dowland Moore son of William Moore and his wife Ester, daughter of John and Ester Dowland, was baptised in St Edmund's Church Street Methodist Chapel, Salisbury, Wiltshire. The couple had chosen this Wesleyan church for the baptism, and helpfully this church recorded the mother's parents' names too.
Was a relocation more than 20 miles to Salisbury plausible? To my amazement I read online recently, "In 1827 Salisbury was regularly visited by preachers from the Primitive Methodists in Motcombe" (Salisbury Methodist Church History). If the names on the baptism record were not enough, this link between the locations was further evidence that I was looking at the right family.
In fact, it was double celebration in the church that day. Charles Dowland Moore and Ester Nott Dowland Moore were both baptised on 26 March 1834. Charles was the younger child and his birth is recorded on the baptism record as 25 January 1834. Ester's entry gives her date of birth as 27 October 1832, showing that they were siblings rather than twins.
The baptism records for Charles and Ester (elsewhere called Hester) both include Dowland for a middle name, which was their mother's maiden name. In addition, the record for Ester also includes the name Nott. Elsewhere I have seen their maternal grandmother's maiden name as Knott so I could say, "not Nott but Knott".
Sunday 31 March 2019
Saturday 23 March 2019
21 siblings - part 4
Although William Moore died in 1890, his widow Elizabeth formerly Hoskins, appeared in another three census reports, surviving to 1914 when she died age 92.
The 1911 census aimed to gather new information from each married woman: how many years they had been married, how many children had been born alive, the number still living and a count of the number who had already died. The intention was that this data was only collected for the woman's current marriage, without reference to any previous marriage, without counting step-children, and without any data required from widows or husbands
However, Elizabeth Moore, Widow, filled in these columns on her census form. She wrote that her marriage had produced 13 children, of which 4 were still living and 9 had died. This called for a review to see if I could ascribe 13 children to Elizabeth and work out which 4 were still alive in 1911, with confirmation about the deaths of the other 9 of her children before 1911, if possible.
To date, I have only been able to identify 11 birth registrations for William Moore and Elizabeth. They married in 1842, a unnamed baby girl was born and died a year later. After that births were registered every two to two-and-a-half years until 1864, when Elizabeth was in her mid 40s. There is no apparent gap in the sequence to suggest there is a child missing on the timeline. However, I am still open to that possibility.
Then there was the little matter of confirming who were the parents of all the others in the set of 21 children that included my great-grandmother Moore. Phoebe Moore who is age 9 on the 1851 census seems likely to be the Phoebe Hoskins whose birth was registered in 1841 with no father named.
William's oldest children were born before civil registration began, following his marriage to Hester Dowland. The next blog post will be all about them. Meanwhile, the middle of William's three wives, Amelia Lear, died only one-and-a-half years after their marriage. She did feature on the 1841 census as part of the family but apparently did not contribute any children to the flock. As with the rest of the details about this large family, I await correction or new information from descendants or other enthusiasts.
The 1911 census aimed to gather new information from each married woman: how many years they had been married, how many children had been born alive, the number still living and a count of the number who had already died. The intention was that this data was only collected for the woman's current marriage, without reference to any previous marriage, without counting step-children, and without any data required from widows or husbands
However, Elizabeth Moore, Widow, filled in these columns on her census form. She wrote that her marriage had produced 13 children, of which 4 were still living and 9 had died. This called for a review to see if I could ascribe 13 children to Elizabeth and work out which 4 were still alive in 1911, with confirmation about the deaths of the other 9 of her children before 1911, if possible.
To date, I have only been able to identify 11 birth registrations for William Moore and Elizabeth. They married in 1842, a unnamed baby girl was born and died a year later. After that births were registered every two to two-and-a-half years until 1864, when Elizabeth was in her mid 40s. There is no apparent gap in the sequence to suggest there is a child missing on the timeline. However, I am still open to that possibility.
Then there was the little matter of confirming who were the parents of all the others in the set of 21 children that included my great-grandmother Moore. Phoebe Moore who is age 9 on the 1851 census seems likely to be the Phoebe Hoskins whose birth was registered in 1841 with no father named.
William's oldest children were born before civil registration began, following his marriage to Hester Dowland. The next blog post will be all about them. Meanwhile, the middle of William's three wives, Amelia Lear, died only one-and-a-half years after their marriage. She did feature on the 1841 census as part of the family but apparently did not contribute any children to the flock. As with the rest of the details about this large family, I await correction or new information from descendants or other enthusiasts.
Friday 15 March 2019
21 siblings - part 3
Recently I reviewed the census records for the Moore family to remind myself about the various members and perhaps follow-up what happened to the younger generation when they themselves had their own families.
The records for 1841 did not include family relationships - just a list of names, ages (with each adult's rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5) and "Profession, Trade, Employment" with an indication of whether each person was born in, or out, of their present county. However, based on the ages, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the household consisted of father, mother and four children.
For 1851 onward the census records showed that there were various combinations of sons and daughters in the household of William Moore. My attention was caught by some unexpected lines on the 1871 and 1881 census pages:
Therefore, if we count Eliza who was part of William's household, and his other grandchildren who were also living right there, then the total number altogether reaches 21. No exaggeration, no poor memories, no counting miscarriages - just a close family where all those under William's roof over the years may have considered themselves as brothers and sisters.
The records for 1841 did not include family relationships - just a list of names, ages (with each adult's rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5) and "Profession, Trade, Employment" with an indication of whether each person was born in, or out, of their present county. However, based on the ages, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the household consisted of father, mother and four children.
For 1851 onward the census records showed that there were various combinations of sons and daughters in the household of William Moore. My attention was caught by some unexpected lines on the 1871 and 1881 census pages:
- In 1871 there was a granddaughter Eliza age 7, still there in 1881 age 17.
I tried to make sense of the relationships and ages: my great-grandmother age 16 was a year younger than Eliza but was actually her aunt!
- In 1871 there was also a boarder (lodger) Charles Parsons, age 22, unmarried. By 1881 he was head of the next household down the page, age 32 and married with a wife called Mary, also age 32. In fact in 1881 the household of Charles Parsons included a step-son called Ernest Moore age 12.
To summarise my surprising conclusions: the 1871 household of William Moore contained his unmarried daughter Mary age 22, a grandson age 2 and boarder Charles. By the 1881 census Charles and Mary had married and their family comprised three children including what turned out to be Mary's son.
Therefore, if we count Eliza who was part of William's household, and his other grandchildren who were also living right there, then the total number altogether reaches 21. No exaggeration, no poor memories, no counting miscarriages - just a close family where all those under William's roof over the years may have considered themselves as brothers and sisters.
Thursday 7 March 2019
21 siblings - part 2
Using census records I had found the names of 11 out of an expected 21 children in the family of my great-grandmother Moore (see 21 siblings - part 1). The next stage came years later when I discovered that, without purchasing each certificate, I could find the mother's maiden name for births registered in England from 1837 onwards using the GRO Online Index.
Once I was certain that I had the details of William Moore's marriage to Elizabeth Hoskins, which was in 1842, then I looked for births registered with the surname Moore and the mother's maiden name Hoskins. My great-grandmother, Frances Kate Moore born in 1864, seemed to be their last child. Before her was a birth registration for Emily Jane Moore in 1862, a daughter who had not appeared on any census with the rest of the family.
A search of the death registration index found an entry for Emily Jane, in the same registration district, 2 years after the birth and recorded as age 2. There were other losses as well. A birth registration for Walter in 1857 was matched by a death registration in the same quarter of the year. Harriet died age 1 and a couple of years earlier Alice had died without reaching her first birthday.
Using this approach of comparing birth registrations with the father's and mother's surnames against death registrations I found the earliest case was the most poignant. In 1843 a baby girl was born alive (only live births are included in the usual registration index) but died without having been given a name.
With a heavy heart, I added these 5 children to the family tree. Combining those who appeared in the census records, plus those who were born and died in the intervening years, there was now a set of 16 siblings. A better research result but still short of the expected 21 in the family.
Not for the first time, I wondered whether the story passed down the generations was a slight exaggeration or the result of the family just not remembering accurately how many babies were born altogether. Another possibility was that as well as experiencing the death of babies and young children, perhaps there had been stillbirths that were included in the total. I put the topic aside, not expecting to ever be able to piece together the whole family.
Once I was certain that I had the details of William Moore's marriage to Elizabeth Hoskins, which was in 1842, then I looked for births registered with the surname Moore and the mother's maiden name Hoskins. My great-grandmother, Frances Kate Moore born in 1864, seemed to be their last child. Before her was a birth registration for Emily Jane Moore in 1862, a daughter who had not appeared on any census with the rest of the family.
A search of the death registration index found an entry for Emily Jane, in the same registration district, 2 years after the birth and recorded as age 2. There were other losses as well. A birth registration for Walter in 1857 was matched by a death registration in the same quarter of the year. Harriet died age 1 and a couple of years earlier Alice had died without reaching her first birthday.
Using this approach of comparing birth registrations with the father's and mother's surnames against death registrations I found the earliest case was the most poignant. In 1843 a baby girl was born alive (only live births are included in the usual registration index) but died without having been given a name.
With a heavy heart, I added these 5 children to the family tree. Combining those who appeared in the census records, plus those who were born and died in the intervening years, there was now a set of 16 siblings. A better research result but still short of the expected 21 in the family.
Not for the first time, I wondered whether the story passed down the generations was a slight exaggeration or the result of the family just not remembering accurately how many babies were born altogether. Another possibility was that as well as experiencing the death of babies and young children, perhaps there had been stillbirths that were included in the total. I put the topic aside, not expecting to ever be able to piece together the whole family.