Can you help me find Martha Armitage's last name? Any advice welcome!! (England)

+3 votes

I could really use some extra pairs of eyes on one of my brick walls! Martha (Unknown) Armitage was born c. 1791 in the Huddersfield area of West Yorkshire. She married Joseph Armitage, probably in the 1810s, and had at least three children: Mary, 1821; Frances, 1829; and Joe, 1835. The records I have for the births of Frances and Joe don't give the last name of their mother.

Searching FamilySearch for possible marriage records yields a couple of possibilities: Martha Rowley (Huddersfield, 1816) and Martha Crow (Almondbury, 1814) are the strongest contenders. Martha Illingworth (Rothwell, 1813) and Martha Armitage (Leeds, 1818) are a little farther away geographically, but I suppose not completely impossible. (And the possibility that her maiden name was actually the same as her married name would neatly explain why that's her name on her kids' records!)

Any advice on where to go from here would be appreciated.

WikiTree profile: Martha Armitage
in Genealogy Help by Lianne Lavoie G2G6 Pilot (423k points)
edited by Lianne Lavoie

2 Answers

+3 votes

Well I have to admit defeat here. The parish of Almondbury contains Lockwood so it's likely to be the correct one as Martha gives her birthplace as Lockwood. The children were baptized in the non-conformist Baptist church. It's not impossible that they were older than normal baptisms. You might also want to check Edward (1820) and William (1835) who were also baptized at Lockwood to parents Joseph and Martha. Ages in the 1841 census were rounded down to the nearest 5 so the best fit for Joseph's death is 1844 (aged 55). You can order a copy of his death certificate from using these details but it won't have Martha's maiden name of course.

GRO Reference: 1844  J Quarter in HUDDERSFIELD UNION  Volume 22  Page 239

by Matthew Fletcher G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
+2 votes

Possible older child

1851 census has a grandson age 13 (though it's not ruled out that he's from a previous marriage)

But this one

suggests there was another couple at the same chapel with the same names, as they're supposed to be birth dates not baptisms, being Baptists.

by Anonymous Horace G2G6 Pilot (568k points)
PS I now see that Richard was with them in 1841 as well.

I *think* that Richard might be an illegitimate child of Mary Armitage. He's Martha's grandson, and in the 1861 census he's Frances' nephew. And Mary was 19 when Richard was born, while her siblings (that I know of, at least) were too young. Hard to be certain, though, with what I've got.

So, you're saying that Edward doesn't belong to this family, since he appears to have been born quite close in dates to Joe, who is in my family, correct? In that case my next step might be to find everything I can on that family as well, and see if I might at least eliminate some possibilities that way. Thanks!

On the other hand, Baptist chapels didn't have huge congregations.  Could be there's some reason that date is wrong.

Related questions

+3 votes
2 answers
302 views asked Dec 19, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Mike Soulliere G2G Rookie (220 points)
+7 votes
3 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
84 views asked Feb 19, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Anonymous Armitage G2G Rookie (220 points)
+6 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
178 views asked Sep 16, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Darlene X G2G Rookie (220 points)
+1 vote
1 answer
118 views asked Jun 17, 2013 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+3 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright