Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Assumptions and Theories

Often in our own genealogy and family history research we often don't have much to go on once we get back to the time when only church records are typically available for hint and clues as to our family connections. Such is the case for the parents of my 4th great-grandmother Sarah Howell.

Sarah Fraser and Eight of Her Children
Sarah Fraser and Eight of Her Children

As always you need to start with what you know. In terms of documentation for Sarah I've been able to locate her and her family in a number of records in Canada, United States of America, and England but only starting from the time she was married to Alexander Fraser:
  • Transcription of baptism records for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Perth, Lanark County, Ontario where her surname is transcribed as "Nowell"
  • 1852 census of Canada West in Drummond Township, Lanark County
  • 1861 census of Canada West in Drummond Township, Lanark County
  • 1871 census of Canada in Drummond Township, Lanark County, Ontario
  • Death notice in the Perth Courier (Perth, Lanark County, Ontario)
  • Grave marker in the Old Burying Ground, Perth, Lanark County, Ontario
  • Ontario registration of death for her daughter Mary McIntosh where her mother is recorded as "Sarah Howell" born in London, England
  • Minnesota certificate of death for her daughter Elizabeth McVeety where her mother is recorded as "Sarah Howell" born in England.

What I could piece together or confirm is from those records is:
  • Her name is Sarah Howell
  • She was born about 1795 in England, possibly in or near London
  • She was married to Alexander Fraser, late corporal in the 49th Regiment of Foot, on August 17, 1815 in the parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex, England.
I also had another resource I used as a source of clues and that is the book "Fraser · A Short History of The Fraser Clan and our own Branch of Frasers in Canada and The United States" compiled by L. A. Milne (brown cover). As with any family history compilation there are omissions and errors but they make for a good starting place. In that book it is said that Alexander met his future wife while recruiting for the 49th regiment of Foot in Barnet. In the records of the 49th Regiment of Foot I have found a Corporal Alexander Fraser recruiting in Barnet in 1815 so that tale just might be true. Can you imagine the tall young Alexander in his best red scarlet coat and white breeches, speaking with a Highland accent as he went about Barnet recruiting young, unsuspecting men to serve in the British Army?

Overall, not a bad collection of records but what about her parents?

This is where the assumptions, and theories come into play.

Assuming that Sarah was indeed born in Barnet, also known as Chipping Barnet, then a search of the baptism records might point me in the right direction. Of course, I am assuming that the baptism of my Sarah Howell has been transcribed or even recorded.

On Ancestry in the "England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" collection a search for Sarah Howell, born or baptized in 1795 ± 2 years, in Barnet, Hertfordshire, England (or nearby counties) returns 102 people. However the first name in the list is a Sarah Howell baptized on December 11, 1796 in Barnet with parents listed as William and Lydia.

Ancestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
Ancestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.

The known children of Alexander and Sarah are: Ann, Lydia, Alexander, Sarah, Mary, Simon, Ellen, Esther, John, Elizabeth, Rebecca, Thomas, and Jane. Since Alexander was Scottish it might be assumed that the traditional Scottish naming pattern was used in his family:

The traditional patterns used when naming boys were as follows:
  • The first son would be named after the father's father (variation is after the mother's father)
  • The second after the mother's father (variation is the father's father)
  • The third son would be named after the father
  • The fourth son would be named after the father's oldest brother (variation is after the father's paternal grandfather)
  • The fifth son would be named after the mother's oldest brother (variation is after the mother's paternal grandfather)
and for girls:
  • First daughter named after the mother's mother (variation is after the father's mother)
  • Second daughter named after the father's mother
  • Third daughter named after the mother
  • Fourth daughter named after the mother's oldest sister (variation is after the mother's maternal grandmother)
  • Fifth daughter named after the father's oldest sister (variation is after the father's maternal grandmother)
I don't see any William listed in the children but I do see a Lydia. Might this be the right person? Maybe viewing the digitized microfilm for the Parish Registers for Barnet available from the local Family History Centre can tell us more.

Parish Church of Barnet (Barnet, Hertfordshire, England), "Baptisms and burials, 1724-1812," baptism of Sarah Howell, 11 Dec 1796; FHL microfilm 991,409.
Parish Church of Barnet (Barnet, Hertfordshire, England), "Baptisms and burials, 1724-1812," baptism of Sarah Howell, 11 Dec 1796; FHL microfilm 991,409.
Unfortunately there isn't any more information in the record book than what was transcribed for the index. But a search for other possible children of William and Lydia baptized in Barnet result in finding Mary (19 Jul 1801), George (1 Apr 1805), and James (29 Mar 1807). I also come across a Lydia Howel baptized 11 Jan 1795 in Shenley, Hertfordshire which is fairly near Barnet. Unfortunately their baptism records don't shed any additional light on the issue either.

For now, I'm going with the theory that this is my Sarah Howell. What about the maiden surname of her mother? For many of us working on our Canadian, American, Irish, and United Kingdom family lines the mother's maiden surname is one of our challenges.

Yet another assumption has to be made and that is William Howell and Lydia were married in or near the county of Hertfordshire. Of course they don't have to be married in that region but it does set a reasonable scope to search at this time. I initially looked through the digitized microfilm of the parish of Barnet for about 10 years before Sarah's baptism and also checked the parish of Shenley for any Lydia getting married but with no positive results. Since I found the baptism of Sarah on Ancestry I decided to start my search for her parents' marriage there. I asked Ancestry to find any marriages for a William Howell to a Lydia in 1793 ± 5 years in Hertfordshire and adjacent counties in England. Why 1793 ± 5 years? This covers the years of their possible daughter Lydia and also Sarah's baptism. I'm assuming that the record I'm looking for has been indexed, and yes this is a big assumption.

What appeared surprised me. An entry for William Howell and Liddy Blackgrove married on 23 Jun 1793 in the Parish of St. Pancras. The same church that my Sarah Howell married her husband Alexander Fraser! I also checked on Findmypast and it looks like it points to the same entry on FamilySearch.

Ancestry.com. England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
Ancestry.com. England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
And here is the entry for the parish register of St. Pancras, London from the "Parish registers of St. Pancras Old Church, 1660-1916" collection on FamilySearch.org.

St. Pancras Old Church (London, England), "The Register of Marriages 1787-1793," marriage of William Howell and Liddy Blackgrove, 23 Jun 1793; FHL microfilm 598,178.
St. Pancras Old Church (London, England), "The Register of Marriages 1787-1793," marriage of William Howell and Liddy Blackgrove, 23 Jun 1793; FHL microfilm 598,178. 

Have I proven that William Howell and Lydia "Liddy" Blackgrove are my 5th great-grandparents? No, not really but until I come across additional records to point me in a different direction I'm going to stay with this working theory.

No comments:

Post a Comment