Canny lass

Hi @loopylou Your turn to make a cuppa! Have you ever heard the saying ‘Cherchez l femme’ (literally, ‘look for the woman,) commonly used in detective fiction when solving mysteries? I have my own version ‘cherchez la pub’ (literally, ‘look for the public house’) which I use in detective reality to solve the mysteries of family-whereabouts. While streets and roads often change their names public houses very rarely do and when it does happen, it’s often to a spin-off from the old name. If your relative is John Storey (wife A, children: S A, E and J I) then it’s possible not only to find the street but possibly even the house. Just follow the enumerator on his route until you find both your relative and the nearest pub. Often the pub is still in existence today. Using my ‘cherchez la pub’ method, I followed the route of the enumerator, Mr George Thornton, in the 1871 census: Parliamentary Borough of Morpeth – Parish of Bedlington – Ecclesiastical district of Choppington, Enumeration district 10. George Thornton, describes his enumeration district as “Guide Post East, West, North & South. Choppington, Choppington New Colliery, Bothal Haugh, Sheepwash Bank, Sheepwash & Cleesewell Hill, Stakeford Gate & Cottage in the wood”. Following the census on the 3rd of April 1871 he starts his rounds at the Angler’s Arms (schedule nr 1) at the bottom of Sheepwash Bank and continues up the bank along what is today the A1068 to schedule numbers 2 – 5. These 4 dwellings, simply have the address “Sheepwash Bank” which is located in the “Hamlet of Sheepwash Bank”. From there he proceeds straight ahead to the “Village of Guide Post” where the 7 families resident at schedule numbers 6 - 12 simply have the address “Guide Post”. Still in the “Village of Guide Post” he continues along “Sheepwash West Street” and visits the 16 families living there (schedule nrs. 16 – 28). Moving on, he enters “Sheepwash - East Row” (schedule nrs. 29 – 57) and its 29 families. At schedule nr. 36 I find Thomas Marsden – hopefully the same person you mentioned in your previous post. At schedule nr 45 I find, what I believe to be your relatives, John Storey and family, and low and behold at schedule nr. 54 I find the first public house on George’s round. It’s called The Shakespeare– and here it is on a map from 1866! You’ll see that The Shakespeare is marked BH. This is because it was originally (1850s) a Beer House (marked BH on OS maps rather than PH, Public House). At that time, according to the North East Heritage Library, it was the most northern building in the Village of Guide Post. Being a beer house meant that it was only allowed to sell ale whereas a public house could sell anything. Because of this restriction it was much cheaper to obtain a licence for a beer house. Here is the ‘Shakespeare’ today. If you live in the area you’ll probably recognize it as being on Front Street in Guide Post though this is not the original building. So, where did John Storey live? Between John Storeys residence and The Shakespeare there were only 8 dwellings so my guess is that “Sheepwash West Street’ and “Sheepwash East Row,” both in the village of Guide Post” are the following - in which case John lived towards the northern end of “Sheepwash East Row” (possible West Street arrowed green, possible East Row arrowed blue) just a stone’s throw from the beer house. However, there is another option. East Row probably changed its name and if the above blue-arrowed row is East Row, then it was built out between 1866 and the 1890s filling the gap between the northern end of “Sheepwash East Row” and The Shakespeare. You can see this development in this compilation of 2 maps from the 1890s on the left and the 1920s on the right (The Shakespeare marked in red on the 1890s side and now a PH). If this development occurred between 1866 and 1871 when the census was completed, he would have lived in the new development. What about Thomas Marsden? A possible explanation for Guide Post vs. Scotland Gate may be a district boundary change. Just a thought! I hope this was of use to you and that you yourself might find a use for my ‘cherchez la pub’ method. If you want any of the documentation I've researched give me a shout.

@Colin Nichol Make yourself a cuppa. This may be long! I think, Colin, that you probably made ‘a couple’ of mistakes. Haven’t we all! When we research our family history, we usually start with those nearest in line and work backwards in time: parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc. At that stage, it’s fair to assume that we are beginners in the field of genealogy. Some of the most common mistakes I’ve come across in my 15 years of researching almost every week are the following: 1 Taking for granted that other people’s trees are correct. We look at other people’s family trees and take for granted that they are correct. OFTEN THEY ARE NOT!! Believe me, I’ve been their myself. Always check the information before adding it to your own family tree. By doing this check you will save yourself hours of work later in your research AND you will save other beginners from making mistakes when they look at your tree. 2 Confusing ‘date of birth’ with ‘date of registration of a birth’. A correct date of birth is only found on a birth certificate. The birth index gives the date on which the birth was registered. This can occur several months after a birth for several reasons. This is especially confusing when a birth occurs at the end of one year and is registered at the beginning of the following year. If you want to be certain, obtain a birth certificate copy. 3 Confusing the place of birth with the place of registration. An accurate place of birth is only found on a birth certificate. The birth index gives only the place of registration. Since 1834 England and Wales share a joint birth, marriage, death (and census register). England has 60 County Registration Districts, Wales has 21. (The same registration districts are used to compile the census since 1851) Each County Registration District covers several civil registration districts so called ‘sub-districts’. Some small changes have occurred over the years as parish and county boundaries have changed. Particularly interesting for us Bedlingtonians is the Northumberland County Registration District – and here’s something that may be of interest to you Colin – the ancient county of Northumberland 1834 – 1889 included the town of Berwick on Tweed. Registration districts could even cross boundaries. The Northumberland district has 18 sub-registration districts. One of these which might interest you, Colin, is the sub-district of ‘Bellingham’. You mentioned this a place of birth for Mary Alice but it is (unless you’ve seen a birth certificate) the name of the registration district in which her birth was registered. Each sub-registration district was made up of a number of parishes (which is why the parish name appears at the top of census records). Again, maybe of interest to you, the registration district of Bellingham had 38 parishes one of which was ‘Plashetts and Tynehead’. The registration district of Bellingham was abolished in 1936 and most sub-districts were then incorporated into the Northumberland West Registration District. 4 Getting hung up on names. Names can vary for one and the same person, from census to census. Parents filling in the census forms, more often than not, write the name they use for the child at home (often a diminutive or just one of their two registered forenames). The only accurate name of a child (or wife) is the name that appears in the birth register or birth certificate. So, Winifred Ellen Smith may be written as: Winifred Ellen, Winifred, Ellen, Winnie Ellen, just plain old Winnie or even Nelly. (Those examples all relate to a member of my family). And finally, you’ll be pleased to hear, we should always remember that the enumerator who conducted the local census inquiry was, like the rest of us, only human. He could – and did – make mistakes when transcribing the content of your relatives (often almost illegible) form to his book, the one that is available to us. Do you recognise yourself in any of those beginner’s errors, Colin? Have another look at all the documents I messaged to you. Pay particular attention to children’s names, order of birth, ages and place of birth (not always exactly the same but most within the same registration district (Falstone – 1881 census - is just 4 miles south east of Plashetts). The one exception is ‘Scotland’. That could be explained by an enumerator’s error/ignorance or the fact that the exact location of the England/Scotland border was long a subject of dispute. Just a thought! I personally don’t think that Mary Alice Snowdon was born in Canonbie Scotland. That person is named only Mary in the birth index. She, according to the Scottish Births and Baptisms records, was born 01 Aug 1869. You have confirmed to me that I have located the correct Mary Alice Snowdon (married name Nichol) in the 1911 census where she gives her age as 42 years. In the 1921 census people were required to give their age in years and months which makes it easier to calculate a birthday. The 1921 census took place 19/20th June. Looking at Mary Alice’s entry, her age is given as 52 years and 6 months. From that, I calculate that she was born in December 1868. Her birth wasn’t registered until a couple of weeks later when 1869 had already been ushered in. Sorry, it's a lot to take in, I know. Let me know how you get on.

Back to the drawing board then!!

Hi @Colin Nichol. In reply to your message: when searching for a child death without knowing the name it's always worth looking up the child's grandparents. The Victorians were usually quite consistent in naming their offspring: 1st son named after his maternal grandfather 1st daughter named after her paternal grandmother 2nd son named after his paternal grandfather 2nd daughter named after her maternal grandmother Thereafter came parents names and important relatives. Towards the end of the Victorian era the order of naming wasn't any longer so strictly followed but the practice of using the names of just those relatives lived on into the early 20th century. Ann Margaret seems to have been a name worth preserving among the Snowdons. James and Mary Alice's first child, Annie Margaret was given her maternal grandmother's name. That maternal grandmother had also given her first daughter that name. (that child also died before the age of 15). The name was then 'vacant' for future children therefore I searched for it in the birth index during the years between the births of George and James where the time-span allowed for a pregnancy. Of course, you would need to obtain a birth certificate to verify that James and Mary Alice are the parents but I think the chances are good. Hope this explains the need for the census documents.

Hi @loopylou, could you check the year of that obituary for me (my BNA is down for maintainence at the minute). The death record that I found was 1892. If it was 1893 then it throws my research of balance a bit. Thanks in advance.

Pleased to have been of help. I think I may have found the other child who died between 1901 and 1911. I believe that James and Mary Alice had another daughter born in the first quarter of 1897. That would fit in nicely with the gap between the births of George and James. There are no other gaps which would allow for a pregnancy between 1901 and 1911. The firstborn daughter, Annie Margaret Nichol born 1891, was given her maternal grandmother’s name and her birth was registered as Annie Margaret. What I believe to be the second daughter, born 1897, was also given her maternal grandmother’s name but without the diminutive form. Her birth was registered as Ann Margaret Nichol. She died the following year and her death was registered in March 1898 but then using the name Annie Margaret Nichol. She was also buried in Cambois. That parents ‘recycled’ names isn’t uncommon, especially if it was the name of a grandparent or parent. I myself am a perfect example. My mother gave birth to a daughter in 1931 and gave that daughter her maternal grandmother’s name – Annie. The child, Annie, lived only a few months. I was born in 1947 and was also given my maternal grandmother’s name though without the diminutive form – Ann. Like you, I never knew anything about Annie (or another brother dead before my birth) until I was in my 70s. They were never mentioned. The discovery of a sister named Annie explained something that had puzzled me for years. My mother always called me Ann. Everybody else called me Annie. My mother had one Annie and one Ann and for a mother the one could never replace the other. If you would like the birth, death and burial indexes for Ann Margaret born 1897 let me know and I’ll post them to your in-box (the envelope in the top tight-hand corner of the screen).

Hi again @Colin Nichol. The 1911 census form filled in by James himself gives the information related to the length of the marriage and the number of children living and dead. I also would assume that St Peters is the burial place of Annie Margaret. However, money was tight in those days so she may be buried in another person's grave as she was so young. It was common practice for an infant to be placed inside the coffin of the next adult to be buried.

Hi @Colin Nichol Welcome to the forum. The parish of Cambois was originally part of St Cuthbert's, Bedlington, it was a small parish served by the vicar of Sleekburn and a non-stipendiary priest. The Cambois church, St Andrews, is a small church built in 1860. It was formerly the mission church of St Peter's Church, West Sleekburn until it closed in the 1990s. As a mission church it did not have a graveyard so burials took place at St Peter's, West Sleekburn. Cambois, St Peter: Records of baptisms 1865-1936, marriages 1866-1998 and burials 1874-1966 are available at Northumberland Archives Service. P.S.Did you know that James and Mary Alice lost a second child within the first 10 years of their marriage?

Hi @BMog Sorry, I don't know what happened above. It just wouldn't let me write or delete anything! Mary's marriage was registered in Durham registration district which includes the city of Durham. This doesn't necessarily mean that she lived - or was married - in the parish of Durham. The Durham registration district had, in 1904 when she married, at least 37 different parishes. Couples usually married in the bride's parish so what you need is a copy of the marriage certificate which you can obtain from the GRO. Many certificates are now digitalized and can be bought as a pdf file - much cheaper than the paper copies. The certificate will give you the address of both Mary and Henry as well the parish in which they married. That will give yo more information to work while trying to find his employer - or place of business if he was self employed. If the latter is correct then you can try the directories and gazettes. Hope this helps. Good luck with your research.

@BMog

1968 is a bit late for me as I left in 1962. However I do recognise the odd name. John Aynsley, Netherton lad, a bit younger than me, contributes on Bygone Bedlington I believe. Good luck with your search Malcolm that could be quite a reunion!

Sounds as though they've hired 'the Donald'!

Your great grandfather, James Scott, also worked as an agricultural labourer. In 1901 when Ralph gives his occupation as Farmer/butcher, James is working with his brothers on the farm as a labourer. In 1903 he is still in the area, presumably working at Westfield, when he marries. His children are born: Ralph at Springhill, just a stone's throw away from North Sunderland, Mary Jane is, in fact, born at Westfield and Henry at Elford - also a stone's throw away from North Sunderland. It's not clear if James was living at Westfield or elsewhere. The children may have been born at the homes of Mary Jane's relatives which was quite a common occurance. Mary Jane, your great grandmother, was from Norham, which is also on the map just south west of Berwick so she was a local lass. By 1911 James and his family have made the move from North Sunderland to Holborn about 11 miles south of Berwick on Tweed. It is here he becomes a farmer, working for himself at West Holborn. Lowick Beal. Address: Farm House, Holborn West. (See https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1156167 for map and better photo or ‘drive’ past on Google maps as I did). The farm is now a grade 2 listed building. If you’d like any of the documentation from which I’ve taken this info leave your e- post address in my mail box (move your marker over my ‘hat’ and choose ‘message’. It’s not wise to leave it here on site.

@Susan J-D Hi again! This may be long! I don’t know how well you know the area so I’ll start with a map which covers most of the places I’ll mention: Berwick, Seahouses, Bamburgh, Wooler, Lowick, Belford and Chathill. North Sunderland isn’t shown but it’s almost part of Seahouses. It’s not a huge area as you see. Your great grandfather James and his father, Ralph, didn’t jointly have a farm. They had 2 quite separate places and I can’t say if they owned or rented them. Ralph, who would be your 2x great grandfather, was an agricultural labourer at the age of 19 living with his widowed mother in New Bewick near Wooler. 10 years later, in 1871, he is married and living in the small village of North Sunderland, adjacent to Seahouses on the north east coast and is a butcher. He seems to live here for many years with the same neighbours and his children are all born here. In 1891 he gives his occupation as “Butcher & farmer” and he is now self-employed, so he has presumably taken over a farm – rented or bought. He employs his sons: George as his butcher’s assistant and Ralph jr – 13 years old - as a shepherd. Just where the farm is located isn’t clear from the documentation available other than that it is in North Sunderland, In 1911 the farm address is given as “Westfield, Chathill”, which is about 9 miles north of Alnwick and 3 miles inland from the North Sea coast between Seahouses and Bamburgh. I think it’s fair to presume that it is still the same farm. He now gives his occupation as “Farmer”only so he seems to have given up butchering – possibly to his son George. His sons, Ralph jr, & John, and daughter Annie work for him. As Annie is a dairy maid it may be a dairy farm. Ralph dies in 1913 and I can see that his son, Ralph jr. seems to take over the farm. In 1921 he is still single and running the farm together with his unmarried sister, Annie, as housekeeper. Today, Westfield is a B & B guest house.

Hi again @Susan J-D. It’s been a cold, wet weekend here which gave me time to have another look at your question. I still think that Coney Garth may be the home farm for Bothal Castle – which was originally the manor house before being granted the rights to call itself a castle. As a manor house under the feudal system, it would certainly have a home farm. As I said before, the home farm was usually close to the manor house and that would certainly make Coney Garth a respectable contender. However, I have to admit that I have been assuming that Coney Garth (marked red on the map) and Coneygarth Moor Farm (marked blue on the map) were the same thing. A more thorough rummage through the old maps has shown me that this was not the case. Coney Garth has been named on maps since at least 1805 and, while the small cluster of buildings to its east have appeared an equally long time, it is not until 1921 that the name Coneygarth Moor appears. Your great grandfather, James Scott, seems (according to the births of his sons James and Thomas John) to have moved the 40 or so miles from Lowick to Ashington at some point roughly between 1914 and 1921. Just where he moved to is difficult to say but certainly in 1921 he was living and working at Coneygarth Moor Farm in the Bothal Demesne and he was still there in 1939. He did not own the farm though, as you say, he was a farm owner prior to his move to Ashington – as was his father before him. James was, in 1921, a farm steward - a very respectable position - employed by the Ashington Coal Company who owned the farm – as well as the remaining seven largest farms in the area. All 8 farms were run by one farm manager; George Preston Graham, and he lived in one of the large houses on Woodbine Terrace (marked yellow on the map) just a stone’s throw from your great grandfather. At that time Ashington Coal Company was owned by the Portland family who lived at Bothal Castle (which is still owned and occupied by their descendants), so indirectly James was employed by the lord of the manor – the Duke of Portland. He, and his Ashington Coal Company, seem to have been good employers. They built many houses for workers in both the mines and on the farms and one purpose of the farms was, in fact, to supply food for the workers. They had a milk ration of 2 quarts a day and even the farm cats had a ration of 1 pint a day! If you have seen your great grandfather’s address given as “Home Farm” on any document then Home Farm would seem to be Coneygarth Moor Farm rather than Coney Garth. I find it surprising that Coneygarth Moor farm should be the home farm as it is considerably less in size than Coney Garth – which, having had a good look around the maps, seems to be by far the largest in the area as well as being located nearest to the manor house. Let us know how you get on at the Northumberland Archives!

@Susan J-D Have you considered that Home Farm and Coney Garth may be one and the same thing? The name “Home Farm” is traditionally used to refer to any farm that is part of the manor house’s demesne – often the farm lying closest to the manor house. These were often farmed by a farm manager, hired by the lord of the manor, to cater for the needs of his household while other land was rented out to tenant farmers. Looking at this map from 1859 you can see that Coney Garth (centre), located between Ashington and Pegswood, is a considerable size and just a stone’s throw from Bothal Castle (bottom left) and also part of the Bothal Demesne. Of course, your relative may not have worked for the lord of the manor. Much depends upon when your relatives lived there. The name Home Farm can live on for centuries after being used as such.

That is horrendous, Malcolm!! What is politics coming to? It sounds as if we are in America, but we are in Bedlington! It just makes no sense at all.

It's confirmed on NCC's website. Well done Malcolm! https://beta.northumberland.gov.uk/elections/2025-county-council-election-results-summary

I know very little about the content of the photo I posted above. I inherited it, and a lot of other material, many years ago from a former colleague and fellow researcher. Today I did a quick bit of research on Routledge’s Buildings. They may well have been several buildings – if the number of families living in them is anything to go by. In 1881 there were 25 families living in Routledge’s Buildings, Barrington. Nothing is known of the size of the individual family’s accommodation. One resident is Jane Routledge, a 62 year old widow, living with her two daughters of 20 and 15 years and her two sons, Robert 23 years and John 18 years, all with their roots in Cowpen and Bebside. In 1891 there are 31 families living in Routledge’s Buildings. Most accommodation seems to be of 2 rooms per family though the occasional 3 or 4 room dwelling does appear. John Routledge is still in the same house. In 1901 there are 27 families in Routledge’s Buildings. John Routledge is still there. The number of rooms per family varies from 2 to 5, though mostly 2. All in all, there are 74 rooms accounted for in the census returns for the address. Clearly, that is many more than would possible in the building on the photo. Next step – look at the building on maps! On the following map, dated 1896, I can clearly see that Routledge’s Buildings is infinitely bigger than in the photo. Furthermore, it appears to be built in two blocks. I’d suggest therefore that the photo is only part of Routledge’s buildings.

@7RIrF This is the only picture I have of Routledge Buildings. As you see it's not a row or terrace. It's just a 'building'. In my experience most of the addresses including the word "buildings" were exactly that - a building. It's a bit misleading that it's usually in the plural form 'buildings'. As for the name they usually, but not always, take their name from the surname of the owner. If you can yell me just which census you found Routledge Buildings in I can probably help you a bit more. What exactly do you mean by "(Blank) Buildings"?

Well! That was a nice little wander around a place I love, and looking so much better than it's ever done before. Thank you Malcolm for all your hard work.

@loopylou I can certainly agree that Clarkes Cottages and the Craigs Bldgs adjoining the Puddler's Arms are one and the same thing. My only reservation is that the 4 dwellings of Craigs Bldgs have become 9 dwellings in Clarkes Cottages - but it is possible. However, I'd be hesitant to say that Millfield Cottages are the same thing as the flats in Craigs Bldgs. It seems like an odd thing to call a flat a cottage. It needs some more work. If we get a bit of rainy weather this week I'll have another look at the area. Have you read any of the posts in the topic "Puddlers Raa (Row)"? There's some interesting info from people with first-hand knowledge of the area. You'll need to get your wellies on to read it as you'll have to 'wade' through a lot of info which isn't directly related to Puddler's Row. We do tend to digress a bit on this forum! One of the things you'll find in the topic is this photo of Liddle's buildings from 1910. The angle on the corner suggests to me that it may be the building marked in orange here. It's definitely on a corner!

Sorry, I forgot to include the source of the enumerators description of the buildings:

Make a cup of tea, there's no way of explaining this quickly! This may throw a little light on the mystery! The enumerator for Bedlington, District 9 in the 1911 census, was one J W Gaskin. He appears to have been a man who took his work very seriously. Going above and beyond the call of duty in meticulously recording the statutory requirements: name, age, birthplace etc. of each person he recorded even a brief description of the building in which the residents lived. From these descriptions I think its now possible to identify the buildings at Bank Top – at least in 1911. @loopylou Yesterday you described the census for 1911 in the following manner. (I’ve taken the liberty of colour coding your text so that I can compare them to census records, photos and maps. Unfortunately I can't use coloured text here). You said: “No. 1 Craggs (missing, a shop? Uninhabited?) BLUE No. 2 Craggs Buildings (Weightman) BLUE No. 3 Craggs Buildings (Elliott) BLUE No. 4 Craggs Buildings (Kinghorn) BLUE following these are Old Puddlers Arms (Mawson) GREEN Old Puddlers Arms (Thain) GREEN Old Puddlers Arms (Cole) GREEN Old Puddlers Arms (Burrell) GREEN All of these addresses ”Old Puddlers Arms” have two rooms each, which equates with the eight rooms described in the auction. then confusingly Craggs Buildings (no number) (McMullen) RED No. 2 Craggs Buildings (Thompson) RED No. 3 Craggs Buildings (Hutchinson) RED No. 4 Craggs Buildings (Campbell) RED No. 5 Craggs Buildings (Hadaway) RED Craggs Buildings (no number) (Parker) RED These also had two rooms each. Then after follows River View. It would appear that No. 2/3/4 are duplicated, but I do not think that these are the same properties, rather that the end six properties later become No. 9-14 of Craggs.” Let's ompare that with what the enumerator says. The enumerator describes the buildings these people lived in as follows: P 10: Sch nrs. 217 – 219 “Craigs Buildings, 1 block of 4 cottages” (1 unoccupied therefore only 3 sch. Nrs.) BLUE P 10: Sch nrs. 220 – 223 “Old Puddler’s Arms, 1 block 4 dwelling houses” GREEN P 11: Sch nrs. 224 – 229 “Craigs Buildings 2nd block in flats, 6 dwelling houses” RED There after follows River View starting with “a semi-detached villa, a villa, 6 more semi-detached villas and then 1 block 7 cottages”. If we transfer that information to a map (this one from 1924 as it’s the nearest I have) it looks like this: Following on from the red marking of Craigs Buildings, 2nd block, I’ve marked the enumerator’s description of River View: semi detached villa (pink), villa (yellow) and 7 semi-detached villas (purple), 1 block of 7 cottages (orange). If we then transfer that information to the 1930s photo it looks like this: There are a couple of questions that arise: The unmarked space between the blue marking and the green marking has no immediate explanation from the enumerator. I would suggest that it could be one of the 3 houses, each with four rooms, described in the 1864 advert as these are “adjoined” to the Puddler’s Arms. If this is the case then it should be marked BLUE. Much depends on the location of the outer wall of the Puddler’s Arms – to the right of or to the left of the unmarked space? In total, the three cottages have 12 rooms. The advert dated 1869 includes 6 double cottages of 2 rooms each. This also gives a total 12 rooms, so these could be the 3 roomed cottages mentioned in 1864. An alternative explanation for the space would be that it was occupied by the 2-roomed cottage offered for sale with the Puddler’s Arms in 1869 as part of the same lot for sale in 1869. If this is the case then it should be marked GREEN. To me it seems that, at least in 1911, the large building contained not only the public house (to the right) but also 6 flats (to the left). I’ve said before that housing was at a premium due to the need for a greatly increased workforce in Bedlington. Perhaps the Puddler’s Arms originally occupied the whole of the building but renting out accommodation may have given the opportunity to provide a better income – for infinitely less effort.

That's the first picture I've ever seen. Hadn't heard about the fire either. Thanks!