Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: Richard Ball (c1835) - another conundrum
This little conundrum concerns Richard Ball (c1835), son of John Ball & Mary Barton (and grandson of Thomas Barton & Mary Whalley).
Not many Richard Balls of that vintage, plus he was a plasterer, which makes it fairly easy to follow him through the censuses. He married Elizabeth (surname unknown), and amongst his 7 children was one John William Ball (1861)
Now normally I would not have paid too much attention as Richard Ball is "only" a 5th cousin. However John William married one Mary Jackson, who I reckon is a 2nd cousin, her parents being Richard Jackson (c1836) and Sarah (surname unknown). His children are therefore immediately "promoted" from 6th to 3rd cousins. So I am now much more interested! (All this is from probable matches in censuses and bmd - there are very few, if any, other options that I can see)
The problem is this:
Park database has a transcription of a MI in Duke St cemetery of the Ball family, which seems to show Elizabeth's death as 1 Jan 1885, age 50 (which would be correct for age). There's nothing in the bmd index for this death however. Indeed in 1891 Richard the plasterer is still happily married to an Elizabeth!. Presumably it's the same one as I cannot see any marriages between a Richard Ball & Elizabeth between 1881 and 1891 (incidentally I cannot find Richard's original marriage either, which must have been sometime late 1850s). Richard IS widowed by 1901, although the only candidate for a death in the 1890s in the bmds is a few years adrift for age
There are other oddities - Richard Jackson's wife Sarah has her place of birth given variously as Elland, Yorkshire (1871), Lancashire (1881), and Wexford, Ireland (1891) I'm wondering if the 1871 enumerator misheard "Ireland" and wrote "Elland", and the 1881 census enumerator was just lazy!
So does anyone have access to this Duke St MI to confirm (or otherwise) the transcription on Park? Or can anyone spot the missing deaths & marriages in any records, civil or parish? As Mary is a 2nd cousin it might just about fall into my budget to get her marriage certificate (1890) which would prove I have the right families
Incidentally I wonder how aware they were at the time of the complex interrelationships - John William Ball's great-grandmother was Hannah Jackson, who was a 2nd cousin to Mary Jackson's great-grandfather Thomas Jackson. At least I hope they are - that Duke St MI givs me a small doubt that I have put everything together correctly.
Would the ennumerator in 1871 know Elland was in Yorkshire without being told specifically, I know I wouldn't unless I looked it up.
and re 1891 Wexford, pretty specific, my relly's from Ireland still have just Ireland in 1891 and every other census hence I cannot get any further with them
I notice the niece is from Ireland too.
I have the same problem with my great-grandfather - never put anything other than "Ireland" on the census. It's very frustrating
Strangely there is another Irish person lurking around the family, a "cousin" whose place of birth is given as Armagh, Ireland
I think there were quite a few Yorkies around at the time. It would not surprise me if the enumerator DID know. I was thinking maybe he just heard "Elland" and wrote that in his notes, then looked up the county when he filled in the final schedule later. He should probably have written "Ireland". It would help if I could find the marriage (I can't imagine Richard went to Ireland to get married) As you say, the later census is just too specific to be a mistake
Wondered whether the MI date for Elizabeth's death should have read 1895 as there is a death for a Elizabeth Ball, March qtr. Age given is 57 but looking at censuses her birth date is never the same, ranging from 1834-1839, and she was down as 55 on 1891 census
Wondered whether the MI date for Elizabeth's death should have read 1895 as there is a death for a Elizabeth Ball, March qtr. Age given is 57 but looking at censuses her birth date is never the same, ranging from 1834-1839, and she was down as 55 on 1891 census
Perhaps the writing on the grave stone is worn
I think maybe you are right about the stone
The censuses are fairly consistent with an 1835 birth, apart from 1871:
26 (1861), 32 (1871), 46 (1881), 55 (1891). That 1895 death is tempting, but just a bit to far adrift for my liking. Odd thing is the gravestone transcription goes for 1885, age 50 - which would be correct! But there isn't even a close candidate in the bmd.
I can offer no help at all on this mystery, just raise another question. Were the early censuses conducted entirely face to face or did they send out forms for completion and return as today?
Yvonne was very astute to pick up on the "where the hell is Elland" point although any football fan knows it is somewhere near Leeds.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
hence I cannot get any further with them 
