James & Ellen Lee (nee Langan) missing from 1861 census

Post by **S_Lawler_Lee** » 27 Feb 2011 06:03

With the help of a wonderful local researcher I have finally been able to find the my 3 x gt grandparents James Lee and Ellen Langan who were married St Peters on 19 August 1860
"James Lee Full Bachelor A Porter of Portland St father William Lee Gardener
Ellen McCooey Full Widow Portland St father Charles Langan Upholsterer"

The same researcher also found 2 baptisms for their children Ellen Lee Born 25 Dec 1860 baptised 17 March 1861 at Holy Cross in Liverpool and Peter Lee (my gt gt grandfather) born 13 Oct 1863 and baptised 10 Jan 1864 at St Josephs in Liverpool.

However despite lots of searches I have been unable to find birth certificates for either Ellen or Peter the most likely ones ie closest to their births were not them (Ellen D Qtr 8b 312 & Peter Lahey S q8b 85) and I can not find the family in the 1861 census.

The family would have had another child from Ellen's first marriage Either Mary Ellen or Mary Ann b abt 1857. The mother is also known as Ellen on one marriage and Mary Ellen at her first marriage to James McCooey in 1854 at which time her age was given as 19.

I don't have an age for James Lee and Ellen is a widow in the 1871 census living in Clifford St RG10 Piece 3788 folio 63 page 7

Any suggestions as to finding birth certificates and or 1861 census records would be greatly appreciated. I am so pleased that the researcher was able to find the baptism records otherwise I would have no evidence for Peter's birth at all.
cheers
Sandy

Post by **Tina** » 27 Feb 2011 07:34

Hi Sandy

Fantastic result from your researcher, very pleased for you.

I think I've found them in 1861, as Lea
mistranscribed as SEA...

116 Portland St
James Lea 30 corn porter bn Manchester
Ellen 24
Mary A 3
Ellen 3mnths all bn Lpool

RG9/2654/272/27

Tina

Ellen Lee birth looks good 1860 dec qtr although it is W Dby rego

ps sent error to Anc re Lea

Post by **Hilary** » 27 Feb 2011 11:18

Well done Tina

The most likely explanation is that their births weren't registered. Up until 1875 the rsponsibility for registering births was on the local registrar. they got paid for each registration. From 1875 it was the mother's responsibilty to register the birth and if they didn't thery were fined.

Have you contacted the Liverpool register office or the GRO and asked them to do a search usung the date of birth you have? If you do I would ask them to search for all variations of Lee including Leigh.

Hilary
Ed Officer

Post by **dickiesam** » 27 Feb 2011 11:38

This death fits with James Lea's age in the 1861..

Deaths Dec 1866: Lea, James - 35 - Liverpool - 8b - 172.

Incidentally, the surname in 1861 had also been mis-transcribed as SEA on FMP as well. Correction sent.

DS

Post by **S_Lawler_Lee** » 27 Feb 2011 21:23

Yippee - thank you so much you guys have been amazing supporters of my search and I have learnt so much. Never thought of Sea! My wonderful researcher is probably well known to many of you on this forum. First rellie from Manchester.
cheers
Sandy

Post by **Tina** » 28 Feb 2011 05:03

Thanks folks

and to D.S for fixing up fmp.

Tina

Post by **Katie** » 28 Feb 2011 09:05

Well done Tina

As I always say keep whittling away and they will pop up

Post by **Tina** » 01 Mar 2011 08:02

Hi Katie
That's wombating not whittling...

Tina