William Kaye (1778)

Hello Corinne

I think that I picked this William Kaye out of the 1851 Census which shows a William Kaye 73 Coal Master born Flockton and Hannah Kaye 74 born Emley, living at Crigglestone. I no longer think that this person is my ancestor as I found an error in a date further down my tree. I would have deleted him had I found a way of doing so. I am confident that it is not your ancestor and suggest that you ignore it.

How confident are you of the date of birth of your ancestor?

The baptism record for your William at Kirkburton, shows parents George and Hannah. A George Kay and Hannah Haigh were married at Kirkburton on 8/4/1822. This seems to be plausible for the parents.

I have not found a matching record for the family in the 1841 Census. This would be crucial to confirm dates of birth whilst William is still with his parents so that the family can be identified with confidence. Without the dates you are guessing. Were I to be researching this, my next step would be check the Kirkburton area page by page to see if the family has been missed or misspelled on the transcription to data. You can see the handwritten Census page images on ancestry.co.uk in order to check for transcription errors.

I have found the 1851 Census record where you have extracted the date of births and the siblings data however it is spelled Kaye with an "e". William is not on it (as might be expected). Worryingly this family (wrongly transcribed on Ancestry as "George Baye") is on the 1861 Census also spelled Kaye with an "e" .

Although this family seems to have a probability of being correct I would regard it as being far from conclusive. People had generally sorted out whether they were Kaye with an "e" by 1800. One taker of the census might have misspelled it but two ten years apart is unlikely.

The 1861 Census also has a George Kay (1806) and Ann (Hannah?) Kay (1808) born at Kirkburton, There is a grandson William (showing it to be a family name). Although the ages are tight for a 1822 marriage (I cannot find a marriage matching "Ann") the ages would fit William's birth date. This family may have a low probability of being your family but on my brief research I could not rule it out.

I think that you will have much difficulty going back earlier unless you can find record and confirm dates of birth of the 1841 Census. Even then 1700 records are terrible and 1600 almost non existent.

Hi Leslie. Thank you very kindly for looking at this as I asked, and so promptly. I should probably have explained my interest in the profile better, it is not a likely relative of mine (except insofar as we are all probably related somehow or other) and the FamilySearch tree isn't mine. I haven't even looked through it in any detail, and am not surprised to hear it may be unreliable - some ones I've seen there are excellent, others are a complete pig's ear but even those that are full of rubbish can sometimes be a convenient way of finding records that may be relevant quickly.

I have an interest in filling in birthplaces on profiles that are missing a birthplace, because when we're creating a new profile and have to check a list of suggested matches to avoid creating duplicates, it often makes it much faster if the people in the list have a birthplace in their birthplace field. William Kaye came up as a suggested match for a profile I was trying to create.

I am going to add what looks like the 1851 census record you said this profile was based on to the profile's Sources, and a birthplace, and edit Hannah's profile similarly to match the census record. If I've misinterpreted what you were saying, please feel completely free to reverse any or all of my edits.

While we can't delete profiles we no longer have an interest in, we are free to give up management of them - in case you were unaware of that option, it's the big "Remove Yourself" button in the Privacy tab should you wish to do so, but there is absolutely no pressure to do so.