Find Ancestors

sorry was posting from ipad at the time, so hard to post full census details.

I just typed the basics making it easier for it to be found ;)

however on Findmypast it was transcribed as Tom Hassby lol, so even more confusion.

I wonder if the surname should be sowersby and not hassby in the 1861 transcription which is the maiden name of Isaac Hutchens wife, which would then rule this person out for sure.

Nothing much to add..... (er-David you really should remove your e-mail address from your first post)-but:
London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921 about Jane Hasby
Name: Jane Hasby
Spouse: John Bailey
Record Type: Marriage
Event Date: 27 Dec 1852
Parish: St Paul, Deptford
Borough: Lewisham
Father Name: Thomas Hasby
Spouse Father: Morris Bailey
Register Type: Parish Register

I think the occ: for Thomas is mariner?
Just wondering if she (Jane) had a brother named Thomas.

One of those surnames that could vary very much. ;-) ;-)

Maureen

it helps if the full census is posted!!


But I do have to laugh sometimes at ancestry ............ this is the ancestry version of what CelticShiv found ..............


1861 Census

Name: Isaac Hutchins
Age: 23
Estimated Birth Year: 1838
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Elizabeth A Hutchins
Gender: Male
Where born: Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
Civil Parish: Portsea
Ecclesiastical parish: St Paul
County/Island: Hampshire
Country: England

Registration district: Portsea Island
Sub-registration district: Landport
ED, institution, or vessel: 18

Household schedule number: 120
Piece: 641
Folio: 187
Page Number: 21

Isaac Hutchins 23 Seaman
Elizabeth A Hutchins 23 b.ca 1838, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Ann Sassby 63 b.ca 1798, Isle of Wight, Hampshire, Visitor, Widow
Wm Sassby 26 b.ca 1835, Portsmouth, Visitor, Unmarried (I think), Seaman

Address:- 6 Stevens Court (??Court)



However, after carefully examining the image, I do not believe that Sassby = Hassby ............... the initial letter is the same as other "S" on the page, but not the same as other "H" on the page.

I do not believe Wm = Tom ................. the initial letter is different from other "T" on the page, it is similar to other "W" on the page.



the problem is finding Ann and Wm on other censuses

I think I may of found the Tom Hassby on a vessel in 1871 and he is listed as single, which possibly may rule this one out as Jane's father.

they are living at 6, Stevens Court, Portsea, Portsea Island, Hampshire, England

head of household is a Isaac Hutchens age 23 also a seaman
his wife is Elizabeth A Hutchens (at a guess I wonder if she is Tom's sister)

edit: Elizabeth's maiden name appears to be Sowersby

so maybe Isaac is just a work colleague of Tom. Although the name ending in "by" for Elizabeth has me suspicious.

I think I have found her father Thomas in 1861, most likely with his mother, he and his mother Ann are visitors.

Thomas is transcribed as Tom Hassby a seaman born 1835 in Portsmouth
Ann his mother born 1798 on the Isle of Wight, she is of course a widow.

I am using that info to try and find Tom in a later census, but not having much luck yet.

Looks Like Jane may of got her second name from his mother maybe??

indeed, a very bad day :-)

SilviaInCanada

Must have been a very very bad day.........
I will enter the correction
David

David ............


re why the transcription as Janee Ann Hasberry


all transcribers of censuses, or bmds or whatever, are under strict instructions to transcribe what they see, not what they think or know it should be


and that transcriber obviously thought that was what s/he could see


I honestly don't understand how it could have been transcribed that way from looking at the image, but everyone can have a bad day :-)

Perhaps she was seeing double :-)



Do you have a sub to ancestry??

If you do .............. you should submit the correct information by clicking on Add Alternate Information


They will not replace the wrong spelling, but they do add the correct spelling, so you will ease searches for others



If you do not have a sub, I will do it for you.

SylviaInCanada

Thank you for your thoughtful comments - taken to heart........HOWEVER Jane Ann Hasbey was Single aged 19 born Greenwich in the 1891 census, Laundress in a hospital. This entry has been transcribed as 'Janee Ann Hasberry' in the 'ancestry' site (no idea why!); the original image looks like 'Jane Ann Hasbey'. Her future husband Arthur Robert Hann was working at the same hospital.
David

David ..................


she was "Spinster" on her marriage, so the widow theory doesn't work


only if she told the truth!



we have, I think, all seen cases where lies were told


It's always wise to keep a very open mind when researching our dearly beloved ancestors!


they could and did lie on marriage certificates (as well as on birth and death ones) ....... re age, marital status, name and occupation of father, whether father was deceased or not.


sometimes the lie was deliberate ................. eg someone who had left a previous spouse saying they were Spinster or Bachelor ..........

....... remember divorce was all but impossible except for the very rich.

Or saying they were much younger (occasionally older) than they really were.


sometimes out of ignorance .............. eg, father had left home many years before, and they really thought he was dead.


No proof of any of the details on a marriage certificate had to be produced.

I certainly didn't have to produce anything when I married in the 1960s

I have not yet mentioned in this saga that I suspect 'Hasbey' was not the correct spelling of Jane's surname. There are zero entries for this surname in deaths 1837-1915......... However the name Jane Anne Hasbey appears as her signature on marriage. However I have searched every birth for Jane or Jane Ann(e) in Kent or Greenwich over a fairly wide period and there is no promising surname variant! She was 'Spinster' on marriage - so the 'widow' theory is not relevant. Thanks to you all for your efforts. I am hoping to find her baptism at Greenwich.
David

In the 1871 entry above:
Thomas is surname Henning 'Carman'
It's eliza who was 8mo
It's not 68 crossed out - that is a clerk's mark
David

????

1891 England, Wales & Scotland Census Transcription
Teddington, Kingston, Surrey, England
Census details
First name(s) Jane Ann
Last name Hasbury
Relationship Servant
Marital status Single
Gender Female
Age 19
Birth year 1872
Occupation Laundress
Birth town Greenwich
Birth town as transcribed GREENWICH
Birth county Kent
Birth county as transcribed KENT
Birth place England
Street -
Town Teddington
Parish Teddington
City -
County Surrey
Registration district Kingston
Archive reference RG12
Piece number 618
Folio 117
Page 13
Record set 1891 England, Wales & Scotland Census
Category Census, land & surveys
Record collection Census
Collections from Great Britain

(c) brightsolid online publishing ltd

Report an error in this transcription

But thanks for trying ..........

The 1871 entry mentioned above:
Ancestry shows Surname as Henning
Thomas is 'Carman'
It's Eliza who is 8 mo
Jane A (?) is 68 'Formerley Laundress'
68 is not crossed out - it is a clerk's mark
Doesn't fit............................
David

First name(s) Jane
Last name H???
Relationship Daughter
Marital status -
Gender Female
Age 68
Birth year 1803
Occupation -
Birth town -
Birth county Kent
Birth county as transcribed KENT
Birth place England
House name -
Street Webster Road
Parish St Mary Magdalen Bermondsey
Town -
City Southwark
County London, Surrey
Country England
Registration district St Olave Southwark
Archive reference RG10
Piece number 635
Folio 99
Page 11
Record set 1871 England, Wales & Scotland Census
Category Census, land & surveys
Record collection Census

Piece: 635
Folio: 99
Page Number: 11

(adding above from FMP 1871 on Ancestry, they have as Thomas Henning)

Chris :)

hi flip

sorry its 635

Witnesses were Henry L Hann (Arthur's brother) and his wife Rebecca.
The address for Arthur Hann was 63 Amity Grove (home of Henry L Hann and Rebecca). So no extra info there.
David