Genealogy Chat

I have a family in 51 with a daughter Sarah Milbourn aged 8 born in Northborough nr. Peterborough as were all the family. In 61 she has completely disappeared. I can't find a death for her or a birth for her and her 2 elder siblings, Robert 1839 and Mary 1841. I looked on IGI and found baptisms for all the 10 children including Robert and Mary, but absolutely nothing for Sarah, it's like she never existed! I thought maybe she could be a niece mistakenly transcribed as a daughter, but she doesn't seem to be anywhere in 61 although she would have been 18 and maybe away from home. Carole xx

So this was the family in 1851: Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 1747; Folio: 757; Page: 25; GSU roll: 87702-87703.

And again in 1861: Source Citation: Class: RG9; Piece: 969; Folio: 98; Page: 22; GSU roll: 542729.

... and these are the extracted IGI records for the parish, father Robert - (removed: have just seen the terms and conditions of the family search site, oops!)

I think I'd assume for now (taking the line of least resistance) that Mary's baptism in December 1841 is that of Sarah included in the 1851 census. Although there is just 18m between Robert and Mary's baptisms, (and 19m between Henry and Uriah's), on the whole there are at least 22m between each child's baptism, and there are just 25m between Mary and William's baptisms. Do you have any other evidence for Sarah and Mary?

Ivy Yes that's the family. The Ann b1838 in IGI has different parents although most likely related. Carole xx

Yes I have Mary, she is the one who married into my family! In 51 she is with her Aunt in Huntingdon, so Mary isn't Sarah. It seems strange that all the other baptisms are there bar Sarah don't you think? Carole

Ive Thanks for your input. Yes it's strange! I'm looking at other family members now to see if she fits in anywhere. Carole

- definitely strange! I am dubious about the ability to fit both children in the family, unless they were twins, but they are recorded as different ages and only one (Mary) is baptised and registered. Some people have ended up on the census twice if they were way from home, but again there are different names and ages here. Would it be possible that Sarah is a daughter of Robert, but a by-blow? In that case they may have been reluctant to baptise and register her. Alternatively, as you say, she may be a relative wrongly recorded as a daughter - and even if baptised and registered, perhaps under another name - and somehow her surname was taken as that of the father? I'm not sure how you can take this forward - anyone else have any ideas? (Signing off now - will check back later for interest)

Robert Melbourne Year of Registration: 1843 Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun DISTRICT: Peterborough County: Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire Volume: 15 Page: 493 one possible wife was Elizabeth Webster from the IGI Sally Webster Female Event(s): Birth: Christening: 08 JAN 1842 Northborough, Northampton, England Parents: Mother: Betsy Webster marriage 1839 Robert Melbourne Year of Registration: 1839 Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar DISTRICT: Peterborough County: Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire Volume: 15 Page: 395 possible wife Elizabeth Browne (it is according to the IGI) So Robert married two Elizabeths just to confuse everybody

Ahh! That's really neat, thanks Andrea. I see that it also explains how the first wife is born 1811-1816 outside Northants per 1841 census; and the second wife is born approx 1819 in Northboro' per the 1851 census. So presumably Sarah might be traceable to 1861 via a marriage with the maiden name of Webster (or possibly still single but reverted to the surname Webster).

Sarah in 1861: Have a look at this one - Class: RG9; Piece: 2314; Folio: 75; Page: 12 I would read this as Mellbon or Millbon. This one came up when comparing the results for females (no name) born 1842 +/- 1 year in Northb* for 1851 and for 1861. There is only one Sarah in each year.

Ivy, Just for your information, we all quite happily c&p census information and IGI records, whetehr from ancestry, Mormon site, or anywhere else. It all counts as 'research'. If you do c&p the information it also means that others don't have to go again to the source to check what you found, but can move on with hunting down the missing people.

This is what was bothering me: '....the census images themselves are Crown Copyright and belong to the National Archives, but the websites own their individual transcriptions (which forms their Database). So, where do we stand? We can use parts of census images on the website - we are allowed to do this as we fall under the category of 'private study or research of a non-commercial nature'. Somebody else’s transcription is the own copyrighted work so you are NOT allowed to copy and paste information from any other source, unless you have written permission to do so. You can however give your OWN transcription of the image Those on subscription based services should check the Terms and Conditions of their agreements with regards to this as well. You are responsible for your own contractual obligations. Those using a pay-per-view service and willing to use their own credits to help other members are unlikely to breach their contracts.....' Am I being too cautious, or are we in breach of copyright by doing a cut and paste of other sites' transcriptions? What do you reckon?

Back tomorrow.

Thankyou Ivy and Andrea for your help. I've been looking at both marriages for Robert Milbourn to the 2 Elizabeths. In 41 it must be Elizabeth Browne. I can't find a death for her, but in 43 Robert married Elizabeth Webster. I think Sarah in 51 census is Sarah Webster prob illigitimate. I found a birth for her in 42 Peterbro District which fits. The really exciting find is a marriage for a Sarah Webster to a William Adcock in 1863. In 71 census they are living nextdoor to my 3xGGrandparents and lodging with them is the future husband of Susan Milbourn, Sarahs sister. It all seems to come together now and make sense! Thankyou so much. Carole xx