|
|
Post by poppy on Jul 9, 2010 21:18:58 GMT -5
I have got into a bit of a muddle with this one, so does anyone have them in their Tree please  Richard Eddy Nankervis, Bap Pendeen 26/05/1869, son of Martin Nankervis 1843 and Mary Ann Eddy 1846. Free BMD has him marrying 1889 Lanchester Durham to Margaret Ann Trezise. I have a Bap for her Pendeen 10/02/1864. Parents: William Trezise and Mary Ann. BUT in the 1891 census RG12/4086 F55 P40 Tanfield Lanchester he is with his mother and siblings 26 SINGLE, coal miner. 1891 a Margaret Ann Nankervis 27 is living with her parents William Trezise and Mary Ann in Wales RG12/4450. She has a daughter. Lily aged 1 born Dipton , Durham. 1901 RG13/466 F215 P28 she is living in Durham village Dipton as a servant to Thomas Mitchison 50 but one of the children has this surname as his middle name  Richard Nankervis in 1901 is now stated as a married Lodger in Dipton RG 13/466 F216 P30......if I have followed the correct person. I can't trace any of them in 1911, have I made an error somewhere Poppy |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 10, 2010 2:11:07 GMT -5
Hello Poppy - I am having a look at this problem for you now.  I did run into a couple of problems that are now solved but they don't provide your answer as yet. Firstly - Martin Nankervis was the 13th of 14 children to William Nankervis and Jane Lanyon who married at St Just in 1822. (I can provide further details later for you.) Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is details of Martin's family in 1881!  Given the difficulty I have just had I am going to presume that you have not yet found them. Lizzey Colliery Greencroft, Annfield Plain, Lanchester, Durham Mary A KERVIS, Head, mar., 36, Cornwall Begarlees? Martin do., son, unm., 17, coal porter, Cornwall Pendeen Richard E do., son, 12, coal driver, Cornwall Pendeen William do., son, 10, scholar, Cornwall, Pendeen Mary J do., daur., 7, scholar, Cornwall, Pendeen Henry do., son, 5, scholar, Durham Mickam Now that I have found that little lot I will take a look at the main part of your query and see what I can find. CT |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 10, 2010 4:22:16 GMT -5
Well, well, well!  Richard Eddy Nankervis and Margaret Ann Trezise were ............... FIRST COUSINS! Margaret was the daughter of William Trezise and Mary Ann NANKERVIS with Mary ann being an elder sister to Martin Nankervis William Trezise and his family must have moved to Wales about 1866 between the baptism of son William at Pendeen 5th June 1865 and the birth of son Thomas at Neath in the December Qtr of 1866. By 1881 they had a further five children born at Maesteg. Returning to the family of Martin and Mary Ann Nankervis for a moment. It appears they were the first and only Nankervis family in Durham so you can add another child for them. James Nankervis born and died 1877 Lanchester Registration District. In 1901 Richard Nankervis, married, age 32, was lodging at Dipton, Collierly, Annfield Plain with the family of Mary E Jakes. As you have said - Margaret was now living as a servant to Thomas Mitchison. Interestingly show now says she is 31 so has dropped a few years off her age!  What is not clear here is just who is the father of her three children. I have no doubts at the moment that all your information is correct and you have the correct Richard and Margaret living separately in 1891 and 1901. The 1901 Census is confusing as it lists Thomas Mitchison firstly as head of the household. Then comes Margaret Nankervis - relationship to head Servant. And now we have the three Nankervis children. By the strict wording of the Census form the relationship to the head of the household of all three children is 'son' or 'daughter' indicating that Thomas Mitchison is the father. But I would very much doubt that he was the father of Lily. And that now brings into doubt - again - the parentage of Edith and Thomas. The fact that Thomas has Mitchison as a second name indicates that Thomas Mitchison is the probable father.  But then was he also the father of Edith Maud who was born four years earlier? I am also unable to find any of this family in 1911 so unfortunately I cannot currently provide any more answers.  But it does look as though Richard and Margaret separated but apparently did not divorce. CT |
|
|
|
Post by poppy on Jul 10, 2010 6:06:39 GMT -5
Hello CT, Many, many thanks for re-checking what I had found, and adding more information It was Richards mother stating he was single in 1891 , that made me think I must have gone wrong somewhere. Apologies for putting this in the wrong area  Poppy |
|
|
|
Post by marshke on Apr 24, 2011 13:08:01 GMT -5
Have just found this post, I have William Nankervis 1871 marraige to Elizabelth Mary Hocking in Durham,
And decendants
I am interested in William but anything on Nankervis family
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 3:25:28 GMT -5
Hello marshke
I have Nankervis in my family but the farther you go back the more the name changes and
it gets very confusing with all the variations.
If you could post some details of any ancestors that you have found that would be helpful.
One of my Nankervis is an Elizabeth Jane bap. c1848 St Just.
The line then goes back to a John Ankervise who married Mary Tresise 1766 St Just
and Henry Ankerwis who married Grace Taylor 1742 St Just.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 13:55:43 GMT -5
How are you getting on marshke?
Its not an easy name but post some more if you can.
If not then I can try and work with your William.
|
|
