Genealogy Chat

1841 census just gives Y or N to question whether born in County - all the household had Y in that column. Send me a message via my name link with your email address if you would like a copy of the image.

Hi Merry I'm just puzzled as to why John aged 3 weeks would have been shown as 'Mills' on the census. Also can't find a marriage for Thomas/Elizabeth 1851 - 1861 - this gets more confusing by the minute. Hi Judith, if you're still about is there any chance of letting me have the image for 1841, or does it give places of birth? This might help to unravel it a bit. Thanks. Looby

I haven't looked today, but seem to remember there was a gap between the last two children in 1851. John was a tiny baby, but the next one up was a few years older?????? I wonder whether John Mills died between these two and baby John was the son of Thomas Dearman?? (mind you, seems odd to name him John........but maybe Thomas D and John M had been friends?) Merry

Stiil trying to unravel this one, the only John Mills deaths I can find that would fit the time frame are: Deaths Mar 1851 MILLS John Holborn 2 67 MILLS John St Martins 1 423 MILLS John S Lukes 2 233 I think the St.Lukes one is the most likely. Is it possible that Mr Dearman may have been a friend/neightbour/employer of John Mills and taken Elizabeth and the children in after John's death, but the enumerator made a mistake with her surname and she should still, in fact, have been Mills on the 1851 - am going to search for a marriage between 1851 & 61. Looby

Hi All Now can't find a marriage for Thomas and Elizabeth - have one for Thomas Dearman, June Qtr 1842, but no Elizabeth on the page. I am really struggling with this one, because the time scales seem a bit too tight - I have a three week old on the 1851 with the 'wrong' surname if he is living with his parents, or does this mean that Thomas Dearman took a pregnant Elizabeth and her other children in after the death of her first husband during the previous year - seems highly unlikely - think this may take several large glasses of wine and some more detective work!!!! Going to have another look for marriages and births!! Looby

Sorry to all - had to go off line, but now need to read all your replies carefully - oh what a can of worms LOLOLOL Thank you all, will comment in a bit when I can get my head around it!! Looby

So, Looby, in response to your original question! The Mills couple you found would appear to be the red-herrings! (though they may be related to the other Mills somehow!) Mrs Thomas Dearman was previously Mrs John Mills, but had remarried between 1841 and 1851. Eureka!! Merry

Henry John Bailey (Dearman's son-in-law in 1861) has a dau named Sarah aged 3 months and is a widower in 1861. His bride was Sarah MILLS!! (she is on the 1841 census found by Judith) Marriages Jun 1860 >>>>Bailey Henry John Lambeth 1d 407 Bradley Eliza Lambeth 1d 407 FLETCHER Frederick Lambeth 1d 407 >>>>Mills Sarah Mary Ann Lambeth 1d 407 Wilkinson Joseph William Lambeth 1d 407 and Sarah's death reg: Bailey - Sarah Mary Ann 1861 Q1 Bethnal Green 1c 203 Poor girl :O(( Merry

Looby said (re 1851): ''Elizabeth Dearman is shown as 44, John Mills is 38 and Elizabeth Mills is 29, so don't think it can be a grandparent.'' and Judith just found this couple in 1841: John Mills 45 wood choper (or could be 'shaper') Elizabeth Mills 25 So is Elizabeth Mills aged 25 (ie 25-29) in 1841 now Elizabeth Dearman aged 44 in 1851 ???? Then the children were called Dearman whilst they were ''at home'' but reverted to their birth surnames when they left/got married etc?? Merry

But if Daniel was anything like my lot he may well have reverted to his 'proper' name later. Here are your family in 1841: Bethnal Green Duke Street John Mills 45 wood choper (or could be 'shaper') Elizabeth Mills 25 Sarah Mills 7 Elizabeth Mills 5 Susan Mills 3 Daniel Mills 1

Ive been away, does it look like a nay verdict then?

Souds good Judith, I'm not sure that Looby will want to see this??!!! I'm assuming her Daniel was Daniel Mills in later life? Merry

I would say, from the order of the entries in 1861 that Elizabeth Mills aged 4 was the daughter in law (ie step daughter) of Henry Bailey. It could be the Mills children from 1851 were Elizabeth's children from a previous marriage but by 1861 had adopted their stepfather's surname. However an older girl married Henry having previously had an illegitimate daughter Elizabeth registered in real maiden name of Mills.

Hang on, hang on.......... Flippin' nightmare - In 1861 they have changed surnames (see explanation underneath): Henry John Bailey abt 1834 St Lukes, Middlesex, England Son-in-law Bethnal Green Middlesex Sarah E Bailey abt 1861 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Granddaughter Bethnal Green Middlesex Charles Bland abt 1801 Shoreditch, Middlesex, England Lodger Bethnal Green Middlesex Daniel Dearman abt 1841 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Son Bethnal Green Middlesex Elizabeth Dearman abt 1812 Shoreditch, Middlesex, England Wife Bethnal Green Middlesex George Dearman abt 1845 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Son Bethnal Green Middlesex Louisa Dearman abt 1843 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Daughter Bethnal Green Middlesex Mary Ann Dearman abt 1857 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Daughter Bethnal Green Middlesex Susan Dearman abt 1838 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Daughter Bethnal Green Middlesex Thomas Dearman abt 1807 Herefordshire, England Head Bethnal Green Middlesex William Dearman abt 1854 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Son Bethnal Green Middlesex Elizabeth Mills abt 1855 Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Daughter-in-law Bethnal Green Middlesex If you can't make head nor tail of the above, see below....!! It's Thomas and Elizabeth Dearman with their (??) children. All of the names from the 1851 reappear (Susan, Daniel, Louisa and George) except John. Then there's a couple more younger children - William and Mary Ann. Then the Dearman's son-in-law and his daughter. Then......just before the lodger, Mr Bland, is Elizabeth MILLS aged 6. Not sure whose daughter-in-law (step-daughter??) she is supposed to be?? Don't see how this relationship can be to the head of household, but all the other relationships have been quoted to Thomas Dearman. Flummoxed?? You bet!! Merry

if you feel you need to check Elizabeth Mills maiden name again (Mops or whatever!), then would it be worth going for the birth cert of the three week old child and kill two birds with one stone. I wonder which address he was born at?? I think the Mills parents are at 9 Turk St not Duke St?? (unless I'm looking at the wrong couple??) Merry

Probably a dozey transcriber back at the office - its amazing how we expect them not to make any mistakes, but you imagining sitting there with your quill copying hundreds of names out. I mean they didnt know us lot would be scrutinising their work did they. I imagine it was just a case of putting the stroke for the household in the wrong place. Well done you for looking either side. I always try to do that but dont always remember and you often find an odd kiddie on the next page that ancestry has missed.

Hi Twinkle Elizabeth Dearman is shown as 44, John Mills is 38 and Elizabeth Mills is 29, so don't think it can be a grandparent. if anyone has any other ideas i would be grateful. Thanks Looby

Thanks Twinkle

I wondered if perhaps Elizabeth Dearman was the mother of either John or Elizabeth, but that Thomas was her second husband (and John or Elizabeth's step-father). Daniel and his siblings would therefore be grandchildren, and it's possible that the enumerator misheard and wrote 'son' and 'daughter'. It depends on the ages of all parties, and you might already know who Daniel's grandparents were.

Thanks Twinkle and Lynne - don't thinks its an enumerator error, there are several households between. Not sure the Dearmans are grandparents - whose parents would they be its the wrong name for his mother and not her maiden name? Thanks anyway Looby