Find Ancestors

Yes, probably. 1901 census gives age 57, and 1891 says 1858.

But as we don't know where in Ireland he was born, we don't know if that's him or not.

Thanks for that . Yes , guess no certainty at all when you haven't got a marriage certificate or even a marriage ...maybe one day something will turn up. Won't give up just yet. Think maybe the second William Tracey is more likely as the first one a little bit early maybe ? :-S

A couple of possibilities for his baptism.

BUT PLEASE NOTE - I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA IF EITHER OF THEM IS HIM OR NOT. It may be that his birth/baptism isn't online :

Gulielmus Tracey
in the Ireland, Catholic Parish Registers, 1655-1915
Name: Gulielmus Tracey
[William Tracey]
Baptism Age: 0
Event Type: Baptism
Birth Date: 8 Aug 1856
Baptism Date: 22 Aug 1856
Baptism Place: St Nicholas' (Without), Dublin city, Dublin, Ireland
Residence Place: 1 Clarkes C ? Ship St
Parish Variants: Francis St., St. Nicholas (without), Francis Street
Diocese: Dublin
Father: Gulielmus Tracey
Mother: Henrietta Cussen


William Tracey
in the Ireland, Catholic Parish Registers, 1655-1915
Name: William Tracey
Baptism Age: 0
Event Type: Baptism
Birth Date: 24 Jan 1858
Baptism Date: 28 Feb 1858
Baptism Place: Palmerstown, Dublin, Ireland
Residence Place: Chapelizod
Diocese: Dublin
Father: John Tracey
Mother: Eliza Todd

Yes seen lots of bigamous ones. Just didn't realize that it was common to just live together as,well. Thanks for that. Was also trying to see if i could find out which part of Ireland William Tracey senior may have come from. Can anyone spot him in England in 1881 ? Difficult with no wedding certificate to even discover his fathers name. I'm thinking it may have been William as he called his "oldest" son William , but have no idea. :-S :-S :-)

Shirley ..........

common law relationships were far more common back then than most people realise.

Divorce was almost impossible for a poor person to get right up until the 1920s or even 1930s.

There really was only one way ............ proof of adultery, which required a private eye to snoop, find the spouse in a compromising situation, obtain photographs etc, and then have the money to pay a lawyer. Only wealthy people could afford that.

It was also a great disgrace, so a husband might allow himself to be the adulterous partner in order to save his wife the shame.

Yet marriages broke up as often as now, and for many of the same reasons .......... many people just stayed together and (probably) made life h*** for each other. The worst result would be that the husband put the wife in to the local asylum dredging up some excuse such as mental illness causing her to refuse him his marital rights..

Or the spouses separated, wife might move to a different area, and might call herself a widow or even a spinster if she had no children (or none with her). He might call himself widow or widower. New relationships were often formed as common law

Bigamy was often also an option.

Thanks :-)

If the father was present, then yes, it was OK.

Ah yes that's the one. Born before they married in 1912 with the seem of things ? Was it okay to give jenny name of burton if they weren't yet married ? Guess if father was present and they lived as man and wife it was allowed ?
:-S

BURTON, JENNY mms TRACEY
GRO Reference: 1910 D Quarter in BURNLEY Volume 08E Page 182

Maybe ann melia and Thomas Tracey daughter that one . But can't seem to find birth registered fir jenny burton/tracey either . Unless she isn't the child of Ellen and Thomas burton but a,child of Thomas,burton and a previous partner with surname Myers ? Maybe Ellen Tracey took on that child as her own ? Maybe ? :-S

This one ?

Births Dec 1911 (>99%)
Tracey Catherine (mms Tracey) Derby 7b 1176

Noticed that in 1911 also Ellen was saying she was Ellen burton when they didn't actually get married until 1912. I found a,death of a Catherine Tracey aged a dew months in 1912 and wondered if she could be Thomas burton and Ellen Tracey daughter maybe ? :-S

I suspect they were back in Ireland, as there's no sign of Catherine then either.

Yes,we,thought that. But i didn't realize it was common. As William is a little older I did think he might have been previously married. At least he didn't just try marrying again which i guess a lot did. Wonder if anyone can see john and Mary young on the 1871 or 1881 census,? Too common a,name perhaps,? :-S

They also might not have married ............ common-law realtionships were just as common back then as now. Often it was because ne of the partners was already married.

It's possible that the married one could be William, with a marriage in Ireland.

I don't know about "often", but there's no reason why John & Mary shouldn't.

They were only lodgers in 1861 - maybe they were hoping to find work and settle, but then decided to go back to Ireland.

Who knows?!

John was listed as an agricultural labourer in 1861 - he may have been hoping for something better paid in Lancashire, but then maybe it didn't work out.

Guess that's a possible. Did they often do that ? :-S

Her parents were both from Ireland.
I can't see Catherine in 1871 or 1881, so maybe they returned to Ireland, and then she married there.

I don't see the marriage, though.

Can anyone spot a marriage,for William and Catherine if she was born ormskirk then can't see it being Ireland where they married. Am estimating marriage from 1881 to possibly 1889 when first child born. More likely a,later marriage of around 1887 ish ? :-S

Thanks guys. Brilliant. Well done. Much appreciated . Guess it's probably impossible to find out where in Ireland William was born. They usually dobt put the county do they ? :-) :-S