William James BRAMHILL and Sarah (formerly KING)

[chiefsub68]

I've been trying to figure out for years if my gt grandfather, William James Bramhill b1855, and his wife were actually married. If anybody can pin down a marriage, I would be delighted! I've tried all the usual sources (OPC, Familysearch.org) without luck.

William is on the 1881 census as living in Denison Street with his brother, but his first child (my grandfather William John) was born in St Martin's Cottages in 1883. All of the children were baptised at St Matthias (with various spellings of the surname), but there's no trace of a marriage there. All the birth certificates give Sarah as "Sarah, formerly King". The 1901 census lists William James as a widower (Sarah died in childbirth in 1900) but he has put "20 years" as "length of time married" before crossing through it.

There is some confusion with another William James Bramhill or Bramhall who was roughly the same age as gt granddad. I think the other William was in the Liverpool police whereas my William James was first an office boy and then a Liverpool boatman.

This has been my brick wall for ten years. While I have the Bramhills back at least two more generations (WJ's father was John Bramhill, and his father was Thomas), I haven't been able to look at the Kings. Any help appreciated.

[Tina]

Hi in the census 10yrs after 1901 in Anx
22 Midghall St Exchange Dist Lpool.
William Bramhill widower 56 boatman
W 27 single seed crusher
Alfred 24 lift attendant
Sarah 22, Thomas 19 lift boy, Elizabeth 17 machinist.

all born Lpool.
I've never seen the number of years married in 1901 census, and you said he'd crossed it out.
Please can you send a copy to us, thank you.

Tina

[dickiesam]

I've never seen the number of years married in 1901 census, and you said he'd crossed it out.
Please can you send a copy to us, thank you.

Tina

Hi Tina,
There is no notation on the 1901 census summary form.
The 'note' re years married is actually on the 19** form in the proper column. The years written is 18 and has been crossed out by the enumerator because only the "married woman" was supposed to answer that question. Interestingly, there are children with ages from 27 down to 17 [bn 1894]. So why 18?

But if William's wife Sarah died in childbirth in 1900, did the child die as well? The only live birth I can find is that of a Samuel Bramhill, registered in Sept qtr of 1900, the qtr following the death of Sarah, William's wife. But that child is the son of a Mary Ellen Bramhill. He died in Sept qtr of 1901 and so is in the census.

Having scoured the GRO Index for a Bramhill/King marriage without success [1875 - 1900], it is beginning to look as though they were not married. There is the remote possibility that Sarah had married before and become a Taylor....

Marriage: BRAMHILL, William
Registration District: Liverpool, Lancashire.
Year/qtr of Registration: 1880 / Jan-Feb-Mar
Volume No: 8B; Page No: 19.
William Bramhill may have married TAYLOR, Sarah.

DS

[Blue70]

Here's the Bramhill/Taylor marriage:-






Blue

[simone]

William, the boatman, with his parents
1871
RG10; Piece: 3769; Folio: 121; Page: 29

1 House, 12 court, Davison/Dennison? Street
John Bramall 52
Elizabeth Bramall 53
William Bramall 16 boatman

reckon William, carter, a different guy, they are both showing onlater census',.
Bear with me will be back and post the details... just got to nip off for a bit

[simone]

1881
1 In 4 Court Nash St
RG11; Piece: 3631; Folio: 100; Page: 10
Wm. Bramall 26 carter
Sarah Bramall 21
Alice Bramall


also in 1881
1 in 6 court, Dennison? St
RG11; Piece: 3607; Folio: 58; Page: 6

John Bramhall 32
Catherine Bramhall 32
Mary Annie Tickle 12
John A. Bramhall 9
Peter Bramhall 3
Elizabeth Bramhall 1
William Bramhall 26 boatman, brother
John Tickle 20

[chiefsub68]

Thanks guys - and for pointing out my mistake vis the 1901 and 19** censuses. A Michael Bramhill was born in 1900, and died a few days after Sarah Bramhill.

Looks like they didn't marry. When I can get up to Liverpool, I'm going to root around to see if there are any St Martin's Cottages documents still.

Will

PS: Fairly sure the other William Bramhill isn't my man. Wrong address, wrong occupation.

[dickiesam]

Thanks guys - and for pointing out my mistake vis the 1901 and 19** censuses. A Michael Bramhill was born in 1900, and died a few days after Sarah Bramhill.

Looks like they didn't marry. When I can get up to Liverpool, I'm going to root around to see if there are any St Martin's Cottages documents still.

Will

PS: Fairly sure the other William Bramhill isn't my man. Wrong address, wrong occupation.

Hi Will,
Just putting events in sequence. I now understand why I couldn't find a birth which would correlate with Sarah's death in childbirth. The Michael Bramhill birth took place the previous year and he died in the prior qtr to that of his mother.

Birth: BRAMHILL, Michael
Registration District: Liverpool.
Year/qtr of registration: 1899 / Jul-Aug-Sep
Volume No: 8B; Page No: 51.

Death: BRAMHILL, Michael
Registration District: Liverpool
Year/qtr of registration: 1900 / Jan-Feb-Mar
Age at death: 0
Volume No: 8B; Page No: 35

Death: BRAMHILL, Sarah
Registration District: Liverpool
Year/qtr of registration: 1900 / Apr-May-Jun
Age at death: 38
Volume No: 8B; Page No: 33.

DS

[simone]

William is on the 1881 census as living in Denison Street with his brother,.

Also in Dennison Street in 1881 is Matthew King and his family, at no 48..
RG11; Piece: 3607; Folio: 62; Page: 13


Mathew King 36 dock labourer, b Ireland
Margaret King 35b Ireland
Margaret King 12 b Liverpool
Mary A. King 7 b Liverpool
Elizabeth King 6 b Liverpool
Arthur O'hare 50 boarder


(William is on image 6, the King's on image 13, so not so far away )
wonder is Sarah connected to them,,daughter, sister, maybe

[simone]

In 1871 Matthew is at 3 house 10 Court, Dennison Street
RG10; Piece: 3769; Folio: 120; Page: 28
with wife Margaret and daughter Margaret 3, and son James 5 months.

William is with his parents in 1871 at Dennison Street
1871
RG10; Piece: 3769; Folio: 121; Page: 29
1 House, 12 court, Dennison Street,

so these families pretty close to each other for a while then

no other Kings in Dennison Street in 1881.

(1891, William (Bramel) in same house as in 1881 with his brother, 1 house in 6 court , RG12; Piece: 2906; Folio 127; Page 6)

[chiefsub68]

Hi - thanks for the leads on the King family. It certainly gives me a new line to investigate. I was beginning to despair with no sign of a wedding and hence no marriage certificate.

Will