John and Isabella Mawdsley nee Kirby had the following children:-
William born 1820
Henry born 1822
Richard born 1824
Thomas born 1827
Jacob born 1829
Robert born 1832
Mary born 1838
Alice born 1840
Edward born 1835 to whom I am related. he maried Margaret Abram and had the following Children:-
Thomas born 1857
Isabella born 1858
Catherine born 1860
John born 1861
Michael born 1863
Edward born 1865
Mary born 1866
Margaret born 1868
Joseph born 1871 who is my Great Grandfather.
People seem to confusing the tread that I started requesting Information on Richard and William "Mawdsley". it appears that they were the Children of the second marriage to Edward to Margaret Jones. Incidently he married for a third time to to an Agnes and had two more Children
bagpuss
Hello Jim
I don't believe anyone's confused as regards your MAWDSLEY line?
The only doubt in my own mind is whether or not there were further children born to John & Isabella (nee KIRBY) between their marriage on 19 Jun 1815 and the first child in your tree ie William b1820?
Two distinct possibilities, seemingly crying out for consideration, are a George b1816, who married Mary AINDOW on 11 September 1839 in Formby St Peter, and a John b1817, who married Jane LAMB on 23 September 1839 in Liverpool St Luke.
Both of these named their first son John and their second daughter Isabella - ostensibly after their parents?
jim feely
Children of Isabella Kirby
In the record of Our Lady of Compassion there is a record of two children being born Elizabeth ( born 1806) and George ( born 1815). The first can not be plausible the second possible.
Yvonne
There is a tree on Ancestry who has George 1816 married to Mary Aindow and lists his parents as John c 1775 & Ellen c1783
bagpuss
Hello again Jim
As both events are after 1 July 1837 the marriage entries in 1839 should give name & occupation of the groom's father.
If this is shown as John MAWDSLEY, agricultural labourer, in each case then my"hunch" as to two children being born to John & Isabella earlier than William in 1820 will almost have been proved correct?
Since it's not my direct line I don't propose to purchase copies of the marriage certificates, but I have made a note to check the Liverpool St Luke marriage register next time I'm in the vicinity of the Liverpool RO.
Will post the result on this thread.
bagpuss
Yvonne wrote:
There is a tree on Ancestry who has George 1816 married to Mary Aindow and lists his parents as John c 1775 & Ellen c1783
With respect, I can see nothing on Ancestry (or anywhere else) to substantiate a claim that the parents of George MAWDSLEY who married Mary AINDOW in 1839 were a John born c1775 and an Ellen born c1783?
My own very carefully considered opinion is that this George's parents were John MAWDSLEY b1794 and Isabella nee KIRKBY, who married (according to the IGI) on 19 June 1815 in Walton St Mary.
The IGI also has these 'patron inputs' (which of course always require verification against primary sources) :-
Baptism
Formby, Lancashire
17 August 1794
John, son of George MAWDSLEY and Mary
Marriage
Formby, Lancashire
3 October 1791
George MAWDSLEY and Mary BRADSHAW
If I'm right in this, then in accordance with the age-old tradition John & Isabella's first-born male child would have been named George, after John's father?
The IGI also has this 'patron input' :-
Baptism
28 June 1801
Formby, Lancashire
Richard, son of George MAWDSLEY and Mary
Which child would have been a sibling of the John MAWDSLEY (b1794) who married Isabella KIRKBY?
Another 'patron input' :-
Marriage
1 January 1821
Walton St Mary
Richard MAWDSLEY and Jane HOUGHTON
Children of this marriage including (as can be deduced from subsequent Census information) :-
1822 George (bachelor)
1823 Henry (m Ellen MERCER 1848 in Liverpool St Nicholas)
1823 Mary (spinster)
1826 John (m Mary RIMMER 1855)
Richard (b1801) ostensibly died between 1826 and 11 June 1832, when his widow Jane married widower Charles KERSHAW in Walton St Mary and went on to bear at least five KERSHAW children.
All this could well turn out to be codswallop, of course, but at least I haven't posted it as 'fact' on the world-wide web, for millions to swallow?
