William BAKER, abt 1795 - Limited details, many guesses...

William BAKER, estimated birth date of 1795, is the 2nd great-grandfather in the LEWIS line to brothers Jack & Bill, 3rd great-grandfather to their children, 4th great-grandfather to their grandchildren! The original families came from the USA to Ontario (Upper Canada), then to Manitoba, finally to Vancouver, British Columbia.  

This line goes as follows:  William & wife Margaret, 2nd child Eliza Jane BAKER & first husband John Lewis AIKEN, their 2nd child Alma Jane AIKEN & her 2nd husband Isaac Charles LEWIS, their 7th child Charles William LEWIS, to their 2 sons Bill & Jack LEWIS; both married with children & grandchildren.

William BAKER, estimated birth 1785, is known only because his daughter Eliza Jane BAKER - from her 2nd marriage registration July 1, 1862 (to Clark Peter Aiken, older brother to her first husband, John Lewis/Louis AIKEN) stated her parents were William and Margaret BAKER. No maiden name for Margaret was included.  See rather messy hard to read registration record below - parents Wm & Margaret, in last 'box'.  

Clark Aikins 39 Kingston M[ale]   Robt & Martha | Eliza J. Aikins 37 Kingston female Wm & Margaret

And, that's all I've been able to find on her parents to date, with many spelling variations used along this research journey. Their origin is unknown, but it might be expected they came as early settlers from either the USA to Upper Canada or, from Great Britain. No details of her parents were on her first marriage registration - just the basics. 

The 1851/52 Census shows no William or Wm. Baker with a Margaret with children including an Eliza Jane aged about 18. To date, I have searched in umpteen different ways on four different repositories so far, with no nibbles at all: Family Search, Library & Archives Canada, Automated Genealogy, Ancestry, Ontario Ancestors...  

However, in the 1861 Census for Kingston, Frontenac County, a James R. Baker is listed in Kingston, Frontenac, Ontario (p.1), along with 3 younger females in the household: Eliza Jane BAKER aged 28, Mary Jane Baker aged 19, and Sarah Baker aged 16.  All 4 in the household are listed as single (p.2), leading one to believe realistically that this is a family group of siblings. All 4 are listed as having been born in Canada West, and religion as Wesleyan Methodist. James is listed as a "yeoman" [farmer].  

When I saw that all 4 in the household were single (p.2), I wondered if their parents had died a few years earlier, leaving the farm to James to work to support the other unmarried children. There is a gap of 5 or 6 years between James and Eliza, and a gap of 8 or 9 years between Eliza and Mary Jane. Possibly there were one or two other siblings in those age gaps, either having died or moved away for work or sisters with a new husband. Many possibilities, no clues, few records. 

And finding no record of either parent on 1851/52 or 1861 Census, I'm assuming both died before 1851. As the youngest child with James on the 1861 Census is Sarah, aged 16, born about 1837, we can assume that Margaret - and William? - were alive at Sarah's birth in 1837 in Kingston. 

My assumption, since I could find no listings of a William Baker in Frontenac County, nor a Margaret Baker on any census, is that both parents may have died of various potential causes, before 1851. I have not found death records for either of them - yet. 

One can speculate that William BAKER was very likely to have been a farmer, living in or around Kingston, Frontenac County, where his children were born and raised.  If James, born about 1818, is his eldest son and heir - an assumption based on James being the yeoman of a farm in the county where he was born - then William and Margaret may have married about 1815-1817. From that potential marriage date, we might guess that William and Margaret might have been born about 1785-1790, i.e., aged 25-30 years of age at their marriage, give or take a few years. 

There are a lot of assumptions and estimates in this very brief amily history.  I have a short list of more documents to research, including looking for any wills or legal paperwork, land records, cemetery records and perhaps death registrations. Perhaps a detailed history of the area will provide more information - I have hopes!!  

                                -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

If any of these people are also your ancestors, I am happy to share what I have about their families and ancestors as well. You can best contact me at calewisATtelusDOTnet - as Blogger is not allowing me to reply to any comments on my posts.  

Thomas WHITEHOUSE 1829-1909, Coalminer

Thomas WHITEHOUSE was the 4th of 7 sons by Joseph WHITEHOUSE & possible wife  Mary (Collins? Groves?-unverified). Thomas and second wife, Sarah, are my paternal 2nd great-grandparents  through my grandmother Harriet Bunn.  

Thomas was born about 10 July 1829 in Rowley Regis, Staffordshire, England, UK. The family moved to the Dudley area in the early 1840s, which was several miles away, likely for work in the coalmines. This region is a southern part of the major coalfields running through the middle of England. See image with sketch of coalmining in Dudley here with smokestacks spewing forth...

Thomas married an Elizabeth or a Sarah _____, likely in 1852 in Dudley - this has yet to be confirmed. So many Thomas Whitehouse men, so many Elizabeth and Sarah/Sara women, and Whitehouse surnames. More digging still to do.  A great example yet again that there could be a surprising number of same-named men with the same surname in the same place, marrying the same-named wife's first name, around the same time. Sigh. Sometimes research is a frustrating slog! Thomas's first wife died within a year, no children noted. 

As a widower, Thomas then married on 16 July 1854 to Sarah PRICE, whose first husband Thomas Shutt had died a year earlier in 1853 in a coal mining accident. Their daughter, Nancy Shutt, was born in June 1853, in Dudley, Worcestershire, England. So, both Thomas and Sarah were widowed at young ages. Thomas' step-daughter Nancy is seen as a Whitehouse child on all censuses.

On the marriage record, it states that Thomas was a "Furnaceman"; his father (deceased) was a Nailer, and Sarah's father was a Miner. See document below.

Thomas and Sarah had the following 5 children in the Dudley/Netherton region: 
    1.  Sarah Elizabeth [ancestor], b. 7 Nov 1858, d. 30 Sep 1928 in Barrow-in-
             Furness, Cumbria; m. 18 Aug 1879 to George BUNN b. 26 Apr 1857
             [search Bunn posts on this site]; 9 children 
    2.  Benjamin, b. Mar 1867, d. after 1901; m. Margaret Milray abt Sep 1890 in
             Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria; no children 
    3.  Henry, b. est 1869; m. Martha ___ est 1888; one daughter; not verified 
    4.  William (Billy), b. 1871; m. Florence (Flo) 3rdQ 1889; 4 sons known
    5.  Enoch, b. 1875; no further information on him to date - too many Enoch
            Whitehouse men in the region to clarify the 'right one.'

One should take note of the blank years between the 1st child and 2nd. Normally with few birth control measures, children would come every 1-3 years apart. So there appear to be at least 2 children lost. Perhaps miscarriages, perhaps illness, perhaps a record misfiled - no details found. as yet. 

On the 1891 Census, Thomas & Sarah are living still in Barrow, with Benjamin and his wife Margaret  and the two younger boys, William & Enoch, working in the Iron Works and  Steel Works. In the 4th Quarter of 1895, Sarah died, aged 60 years,; no information anywhere about how she died so young. 

The 1901 Census in Barrow shows Thomas, listed as aged 74, is living with Benjamin & wife, with their 3 yr old son William. Benjamin continues to be working at the Iron Works, and Thomas is also still working, this time as a "Shipyard General Labourer." A hard-working man all his life. Also, clearly the Iron Works and Shipyard were still going strong, providing good work/wages for the men. 

Finally, we find that Thomas died in the 3rd Quarter of 1909, aged 80, when compared with his baptism record of 10 July 1829. Ages found on censuses are always taken with a grain of salt, as one doesn't know who gave the information. On the 1901 census, for example, his daughter-in-law may have given the information as both men would have been working. 

 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

If any of these people are also your ancestors, I am happy to share what I have about their families and ancestors as well. You can best contact me at calewisATtelusDOTnet- as Blogger is not allowing me to reply to any comments on my posts.