Family History

stationboy · Post by **stationboy** » Thu 01 Nov, 2007 10:44 pm

My family has one branch going back ti mid-late 1700's in wortley, does that count as Leedsunfortunately, there we get stuck as there are two people of the same name, can't work out which is which, one is family, one is not. So it could go back even further as they were weavers, and probably had been in the area some timeNot trying to claim the record though, not got the proof I need

wiggy · Post by **wiggy** » Fri 02 Nov, 2007 12:08 am

cnosni wrote: so a bit of french or norman nobility is coursing through ones veins don't you know! Please accept my condolances.On a serious note which ancestor was the "Gateway Ancestor" that pointed you in the direction of the gentry?i would have to point to thomas wigglesworth,the first to move leeds way as the industrial revolution was in its infancy.he was born at padside hall,and because the majority of the family were born in or around padside,thornthwaite or coniston in craven,all of which are in the ancient manor of the lords of wigglesworth,it was mostly a matter of forking out money and following the paper trail.d'arquess,turned to de archess,then to de arches de wyklesworth and so on to wigglesworth.the name wykelsworth was around long before the norman conquest,and originally refered to the area of land,rather than the folk that lived on it.

Post by **cnosni** » Fri 02 Nov, 2007 4:43 pm

wiggy wrote: cnosni wrote: so a bit of french or norman nobility is coursing through ones veins don't you know! Please accept my condolances.On a serious note which ancestor was the "Gateway Ancestor" that pointed you in the direction of the gentry? i would have to point to thomas wigglesworth,the first to move leeds way as the industrial revolution was in its infancy.he was born at padside hall,and because the majority of the family were born in or around padside,thornthwaite or coniston in craven,all of which are in the ancient manor of the lords of wigglesworth,it was mostly a matter of forking out money and following the paper trail.d'arquess,turned to de archess,then to de arches de wyklesworth and so on to wigglesworth.the name wykelsworth was around long before the norman conquest,and originally refered to the area of land,rather than the folk that lived on it.Nice one Wiggy,its not many people who are as fortunate as you.However i think Matthew Pinsent tops them all,fancy being a direct descendant of Edward I, the Hammer of the Scots!!!Only trouble is that means he was descended from William the Conquerer as well

TenDaysaLoiner · Post by **TenDaysaLoiner** » Thu 11 Dec, 2008 12:48 am

My dad was born and bred in Leeds (well Shadwell, near Roundhay Park) and grew up in Harehills when it was Leeds' 'des res' area - how things change! and he was sure his Leeds ancestors went way back. But when we traced them, his first ancestor to come to Leeds (Water Lane, Holbeck) was George Pool Hepton, a shoemaker who became a loan agent who was born out in East Riding around 1813, and came to Leeds maybe the 1840s.The Heptons originally came from Bubwith, only a few villages away from where mum's ancestors have been since records began. I even found one of dad's ancestors married one of mum's in the very East Riding village where I live now - and dad was shocked to discover he wasn't even a West Riding man, back past the mid 19thC.He'd have sworn he was in a long line of Loiners, and they had totally forgotten they ever came from the East Riding.One of my mum's East Riding ancestors travelled the 20 miles to marry at St Peter's in Leeds, in 1806. But that was because his young wife died leaving him with a tribe of infants and being a busy farmer he had to remarry fast. So he married his wife's sister (technically illegal but lots of people did it) Presumably they came to Leeds because no-one knew them there. Ah I forgot and this is late too, around the 1870s... my mum's grandmother - also from East Riding village - was illegitimate so was dumped, as a newborn, with a relative in Leeds who brought her up, but used her like a slave - free labour! She managed to escape back to the East Riding and married and lived there - but never forgave her parents for dumping her in Leeds. They were a second marriage too and went on to have loads of kids plus the ones they had already but for some reason left my great grandma in Leeds.

Si · Post by Si » Thu 11 Dec, 2008 8:42 am

Hi TenDaysaLoiner,I have an ancestor (mid 1800s, West Riding) who also married his late wife's sister. Are you sure this was technically illegal, as it isn't incest?

Lilysmum · Post by **Lilysmum** » Thu 11 Dec, 2008 9:40 am

My friend's Dad is the youngest of 20! children,10 with his fathers 1st wife who died and another 10 when he married his late wife's sister. I have also found an instance of this happening in my family tree,though not with that amount of kids,I don't think it's illegal as it's not a blood relation.

drapesy · Post by **drapesy** » Thu 11 Dec, 2008 8:37 pm

Lilysmum wrote: My friend's Dad is the youngest of 20! children,10 with his fathers 1st wife who died and another 10 when he married his late wife's sister. I have also found an instance of this happening in my family tree,though not with that amount of kids,I don't think it's illegal as it's not a blood relation. It certainly isn't illegal

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Thu 11 Dec, 2008 11:55 pm

Lilysmum wrote: My friend's Dad is the youngest of 20! children,10 with his fathers 1st wife who died and another 10 when he married his late wife's sister. I have also found an instance of this happening in my family tree,though not with that amount of kids,I don't think it's illegal as it's not a blood relation. My mother's brothers and sisters all had large families. They came from Hemsworth. My Auntie May who died just after the war moved to Outwood. Her brother Sam who also died around the same time stayed in Hemsworth and the families lost touch. Two of my cousins one from each of these branches met at Wakefield Mecca, and it was only when the two families met up to arrange the wedding that it was discovered they were first cousins. I'm sure they went ahead with the wedding.

Post by **cnosni** » Fri 12 Dec, 2008 1:20 am

Trojan wrote: Lilysmum wrote: My friend's Dad is the youngest of 20! children,10 with his fathers 1st wife who died and another 10 when he married his late wife's sister. I have also found an instance of this happening in my family tree,though not with that amount of kids,I don't think it's illegal as it's not a blood relation. My mother's brothers and sisters all had large families. They came from Hemsworth. My Auntie May who died just after the war moved to Outwood. Her brother Sam who also died around the same time stayed in Hemsworth and the families lost touch. Two of my cousins one from each of these branches met at Wakefield Mecca, and it was only when the two families met up to arrange the wedding that it was discovered they were first cousins. I'm sure they went ahead with the wedding. First cousins are ok to marry too,as well as being able to marry a dead spouses sibling.We think we liove in times with low moral values.well we probably do,but some of the stuff they got up to from about the mid 19th century,such as close relationship marriages ,would certainly be frowned upon today,far more than then.This was also a time,especially in the large towns,that "living over the broomstick" was rampant.Im not so sure that we actually live in slightly more puritanical times now,rather than what we percieve that the Victorians did through our rose tinted spectacles.Its just that scandals were kept within communities,where as now such cases would be well publicised.

simon2710 · Post by **simon2710** » Mon 08 Jun, 2009 11:04 pm

As far as I am aware, I had an ancestor in the early 1700's who was a horse trader in Leeds. I know very little about him, and I presume he had a horse and cart and sold cloth or what-not on the streets of Leeds.