ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2004-06 > 1087675170


From: "Dick Mathews" <>
Subject: Re: Layzell family in Rochford district
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:03:28 +0100
References: <20040618100006.6B76422653@webmail219.herald.ox.ac.uk>


Adrian

I do so love a puzzle!

In the 1851 census index for the Rochford district there are quite a lot of
LAYSELLs, LAYZELLs, LAZELLs and even one LAZELE. (And FreeBMD offers
LAYZILL and LACELL.)

Mary Ann Layzell aged 8 born Rochford has the key "139 THD" i.e. folio 139,
Thundersley. Others with the same reference are:
William 39 bn Downham (Downham and Rawreth are adjacent, by the way)
Mary Ann 32 bn Kent Rd St George
Ephraim 15 bn Rayleigh
Amelia 6 bn Laindon
Esther 4 bn South Benfleet
Hannah 1 bn Thundersley

I presume these are one household, but Ephraim looks a little old to be Mary
Ann's son.

Myrah Laysell aged 10 bn Hawkwell has the key "26 HCL" i.e. folio 26,
Hockley. The only other Laysell with this key is William, aged 14, bn
Rayleigh. But "26 HCL" is also the key for John Clark, 52, bn Eastwood, and
Mary Clark 56 bn Ramsden Bellhouse. So these four people, at least, are on
one page - there may be other relatives whose surname is not Clark or
Laysell.

In the 1861 census William and Mary are RG9/1083 f 44, and they have several
young children (Agnes, 5: Sarah, 3: Edward, 2: Elizabeth, 2 weeks) and 20
year old daughter Myrah. Of the other children with them in 1851, Hannah is
on folio 46 as a nursemaid, Esther is on folio 7 as a servant, Ephraim is on
folio 26 with wife Ann as a Farm Servant and Housekeeper, and Amelia I can't
find. Nor can I find the William who was with John Clark in 1851.

In the 1841 census HO107/343 f44 at Rochford Common on one schedule of two
households are

William Layzell 25 Ag Lab
Mary 26
Ephraim 6
William 4
Myra 9 mo
John Clark 40 Ag Lab
Mary 45

So I suspect the answer to your conundrum is that William was married twice,
and his first wife was the daughter of John and Mary Clark. (And while Mary
Ann born 1843 wasn't John and Mary Clark's daughter's child, what else but
granddaughter would one use to describe her to the enumerator?) While the
enumerators in 1841 were supposed to round ages, some didn't, and if Mary
was 26 in 1841 it's unlikely she's the same person as Mary Ann aged 32 in
1851. In addition, in 1841 all the people have a "Y" in the "Born in the
County" column, whereas Mary Ann was born in Surrey.

I think you need to search for a marriage about 1835, in Rayleigh (where
Ephraim and William were born) or one of the nearby parishes. You also need
to search for a death between the date of the 1841 census and 13 Feb 1843
for Mary Layzell, and a subsequent marriage to Mary Ann Chapman. Both of
these you can do via 1837online, or you could trawl through the burial and
marriage registers - Rochford would be a good place to start. There is a
FreeBMD death Jun 1842 for Mary Lacell, ref. Rochford 12 151 which might be
yours. And there's a Rochford RD marriage Dec 1841 for William Lacell, and
all eight references have been indexed. None are Mary Chapman. (But this
couldn't be yours anyway if the death in 1842 is the right one.)

Let me know how you get on.


Dick Mathews
Southend on Sea


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Gray" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:00 AM
Subject: Layzell family in Rochford district


Hi all,

My Layzell ancestors are troubling me at the moment - I have a lot of
contradictory
evidence, and I can't currently make head or tail of it. I hope no-one minds
if I post a
precis of what I have to the list in the hope that someone (Please?) can
come up with
some helpful
suggestions. Then when I get to Chelmsford next I can launch a coordinated
attack on
the blighters rather than flapping round like a wet hen! I hope you will
bear with me as it's
a long precis!

On April 13th 1861 Mary Ann Layzell, spinster, 18, of Hullbridge Marshes,
Hockley, and
daughter of William Layzell, Bailiff, married William Bewers, bachelor,
labourer, aged 26,
also of Hullbridge Marshes, at the parish church in Hockley. Witnesses
William Bennet
and Myrah Layzell. Forward of this moment I have them well documented!

5 days earlier the 1861 census for Hockley (RG9/1083 Folio 87) records:
(I've removed
a few people who don't seem important at the mo)
John Clark Head 62 Farm Bailiff
Mary A Layzell Granddaughter 18 b. Hawkwell
Ellen Layzell Grandaughter 1 b. South Benfleet
Mercy Layzell Grandaughter 9 also b South Benfleet
William Bewers Lodger 26 Labourer

Surely that has to be the same couple?

Granddaughter seems to be being used loosely as I have Ellen's birth
certificate -
daughter of Mary Ann Layzell - and William B. and Mary Ann seem to have
reared her as
one of their own. The only doubt here is that on the birth cert her mother
"Made her
mark", but two years later signed her wedding entry.

The fun starts with Mary Ann's birth certificate - Born Feb 13th 1843 at
Rochford to Mary
Ann (nee Chapman) and William Layzell. There is a surfeit of Mary Anns
around, which
doesn't help, but it appears to suggest that if I have the right couple the
Mary Ann is
NOT the grandaughter of John and Mary Clark. To confuse matters further I've
found
William Layzell, Farm Bailiff, at Old House Farm in South Benfleet (no 22 on
schedule,
but no folio number) with daughter Myrah (the witness?) . William's wife is
also a Mary A,
but born "Surrey, New Kent Road".

In 1851 (I have yet to get this entry so am working from a version on the
Layzell
surname archive, which gives it as in Shoebury while the index apparently
has that family
in Thundersley!) William and Mary Ann (Born "Kent Road, St George" have a
daughter
aged 8 Mary Ann, born Rochford. But William is born in Downham whereas ten
years
later it's Rawreth!

So... I have lots of people. Each piece of evidence that I have the right
ones is
accompanied by another, obfuscatory, piece. I know I have to prove or
disprove the
marriage of William and Mary Ann Clark/Chapman (but in Essex or Surrey or
where?),
but has anyone any suggestions as to what on earth else I can do? I have,
and will, try to
sort baptisms out but given the limitations of the census returns it's not
easy!

Confused, but grateful for any assistance.

Adrian




This thread: