Welcome to The Briercliffe Society Forum

Just had another troll through wills and probate for any Samuel Lockett and none of them remotely tie in

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

Gloria
You've probably thought of this already but just in case-
On the 1891 census, Elizabeth has a Lockett child (Joseph) who's only days old. If Samuel were the child's father, his name would appear on the birth cert even if he had already died. In which case you would at least have a clue as to when Samuel died. If the father's name is blank then you haven't really got any further.

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at

Having looked a bit closer, my last posting might not be such a bright idea after all. I notice that, unusually, Elizabeth's other half seems to have taken her name on the 1901 census. Possibly this is so that all the Lockett children born after 1891 would have the same name as him? What a weird situation

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at

AND In 1911 census they are down as John and Elizabeth Whittaker--married 9yrs--and all the children are Locketts. They didn't actually get married until 1920!!!! I don't think I am ever going to sort these out.
I had thought, like you, of getting the birth cert of Joseph but if he was Samuels that would pin his death down, but taking that into consideration, I still cannot find him. All I can think is that it is a misprint somewhere, but I have tried searching for "Samuel" and the same with "Lockett" and nothing stands out.
I will try again----as my reports used to say---Gloria must try harder
Thanks Maureen.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

I think the fact that the bloke took her name on the census is easily answered. I wonder how many people were asked who lived under the roof by the enumerator and given a response something like 'oh, there's John'. The enumerator might assumer they had the surname....perhaps didn't actually ask, or if the living arrangement was a new one, maybe she was a little embarrassed and didn't want to correct him?

Looking at the wills was just a thought. My train of thought was that, if your Samuel didn't make one, the SoT Samuel might have and that could have omitted him from the list of possibilities.

It's an interesting one

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!

It's a hard one Mel, I usually have this sort of trouble with people further back. I have discounted the SoT ones and every other one I could see. I cannot think of anywhere he could be where he wouldn't have been part of the census, unless of course he was on the streets.
Or, could he have been at work down the mine at the time working nights---who would have filled the census in for people working nights? Didn't they have to put down who slept in the house overnight of the census?

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

Not sure. He could be in Scotland. Am I right in thinking that the searchable census is only England and Wales? It is only a few miles from Durham.

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!

You can search the Scotland census Mel, you just can't view original images. But Ancestry have done a more comprehensive transcription of these to compensate.

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at

Another strange thing - Samuel's son William also seems to disappear after 1881.

Edit: Scrap that - there's a death of a 9-year old in Burnley in 1884. Wonder who reported that?

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at

Thanks you two for trying to solve this.
I have looked in the censuses for Scotland and Wales and guess what??? he's not there.
The 9yo William I am pretty sure is their son but I don't have the cert. He is the right age and is in a public grave as all the others appear to have been. Also he isn't on the 1891 census.
Even if it was Samuel who reported the death, and it would prove he was alive then, I still can't find his death after that.
I am going to put a bucket over my head and hit it, perhaps that will wake the brain cells up

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

GLoria
This wont help much but:
I mentioned I'd found a possible duplicate census entry in 1881 in Durham. I decided to follow up the Cranston family who had a Samuel Lockett as a boarder in 1881.

I can't find a single one of them after 1881. There's a possible entry for the head of household on one of the passenger lists but the subscription doesn't cover the actual images.
I know this is a real sidetrack but possibly the Cranston family emigrated and Samuel went with them, leaving his family behind.
That noise you made banging on the bucket has given me a headache. I'm giving up - worse than my McHales this one.

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at

Any side track is better than none Maureen, I have looked at some of the passenger lists for him, but I shall have another look under the Cranstons.
Sorry about the noise and the headache, but why should I suffer alone

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

I have now got my head out of the bucket and I think I ought to order the odd certificate or two.
Not sure which though. I will list his children's births and deaths and see which you think. I know this will only tie the death down to a number of years, but if I can't find it anyway why should pinning years down find it easier?????
Just realised his son James married in feb 1894 his father was "collier deceased" so that narrows it down a bit to between 1881 when he was in census to feb 1894
James b1874 Durham d1906 Burnley
William b1875 Durham d1885 Burnley
Edmund b1877 Burnley
Mary Jane b1879 Burnley
Margaret b1880 Burnley
Job b1886 Burnley
John b1887 Burnley
Joseph b1891 Burnley
I think possibly the death of William but his mother could be the informant and that wouldn't help.
I think it is going to have to be Joseph, that would really narrow it down.
I will send for that.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

I have sent for Josephs birth cert BUT-----
Guess who has dropped a clog
I have misread the wedding cert James father Samuel ---collier
His wife's father deceased.
Stupid me read them both together durrrr
So Samuel was still alive in 1894 after his wife Elizabeth had "widow" in 1891 census, still I suppose the birth cert will confirm his being alive.
Perhaps she told the enumerator she was on her own and he presumed "widow".........back to the head in the bucket.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.

A lesson to us all!

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!