Welcome to our forum ~ please post your questions below.
Hello- I need to locate more info for a Jane Holt and Michael Flannery. They were married in Wardleworth, Lancashire, England (St Chad's) August 23rd 1824. They had 4 kids born in Rochdale, Lancashire, England (James, John, Catherine and Mary) between 1825 and 1831. Then another 4 kids born in Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Edward, George, Ellen and Jane), between 1834 and 1840. Then finally 1 child (Frank) born in Quebec, Canada in 1846 and another child (Lucy) born in Wisconsin in 1848. I am looking for info on Jane Holt (she is listed as being born abt 1800 in England) and her parents as well as info on Michael Flannery who is listed as being born abt 180 in Ireland and his parents.
A lot of confusion with this family. I can find the marriage of Michael and Jane at St. Chad's Rochdale on the Lancashire Parish Records on Line website as well as the baptisms of James, John, Catherine and Mary at St. John the Baptist Rochdale. Looking at baptisms for a Jane Holt in Rochdale between 1800 ant 1810 there are at least 11 possibilities. The only one showing on this site is the baptism of Jane at St. Marie's Sheffield. No sign of Edward, George or Ellen yet. They don't seem to be shoving up on the 1841 census anywhere. There is an Edward Flannery living in Wisconsin with his wife and child in 1860 with mother Jane and siblings Lucy and Frank, which seems a good bet but the mother was born in 1810 and Lucy was born 1848 in Canada and Frank born 1846 in Wisconsin, so not matching exactly what you have given, but close. If this is the correct family, then there is conflicting evidence there too. There is an obituary in the Waukesha Freeman newspaper (Waukesha, Wisconsin)which is where the family was in 1860, for Jane Flannery, mother of Edward Flannery, deceased at 73 in Dec.1882, which says she is the direct descendant of Sir John Holt and the heirs are awaiting "vast wealth" once they prove their right to it. Also mentions that the obit should be copied to Montreal papers. But the death register for Jane Flannery of Waukesha, Wisconsin shows her parents as Simon and Mary Healt, and that Jane was from Sheffield. As Edward was allegedly born in Sheffield, if it was he who registered the death perhaps he assumed that is where his mother was also born. In later census, Edward stated he immigrated to the U.S. in 1848 which would have made him about 14 years of age. Now looking for either Lucy or Frank Flannery born in Quebec adds a new twist. Quebec is and was very French Catholic and meticulous records of baptisms were kept. The only one I can find is a Michael Flannery infant of Michael Flannery and Jane Holt baptized Mar. 9, 1846 St. Bridget, Quebec. Sorry, but that's all I've got. Good luck.
Good fishing Helen.......
I was also only able to find the one baptisms in Sheffield (Jane 25th Dec 1840)
And that they were not showing up on the 1841 census.
I dont have all my Usrl's with me on my holiday Helen. Whats the one for the Canadian Archives for passenger lists.
Elaine in Florida.
Instant Messenger: Skype
I think the url. you are referring to is this one for Canadian Library and Archives www.bac-lac.gc.ca
I've had a look on there and all of the ship arrivals are much later than needed for this family and they seem to have arrived in between censuses. But... this could be something. Baptisms recorded at Grosse Ile Quarentine Station. Keep in mind it is in French. Michel Flanery born at sea 1842-08-16, christened 1842-08-19. Pere: Flanery, Michel, Journalier. Mere: Hoult, Jane. Godfather: John Clark, godmother: Marie Clancy. Ship: Mountaineer. Pere: comte King, Irlande. Mere: comte Angleterra, Leicestershire.
Building a story but not getting to the question that Kathy posed in her posting.
Yes that was the URL I was thinking of.
BUT... I think you hit the motherload.......
Michael father (Journalier) Day labourer would fit.Born King County Ireland? Is there such a county?
Jane Hoult mother born in Leicestershire, England
So we now know they were in Quebec by 19th August 1842.
As you said building a story.
PS Might help.Irish Counties.
Instant Messenger: Skype
Fist off- Thank you all so much for your help on this, it is so greatly appreciated. I did not want to reply to all of you with out letting you know how grateful I am for your help.
I think you all may be correct. My Mom passed away in January of this year. She and I began working on this line over two decades ago. We were working of bits and pieces of info from her Mom and the memories my Mom had. Two weeks ago, I finally was able to connect my ggggrandfather James Flannery to his brother Edward Flannery. Edward was born in Sheffield, England and James stated that he was born in Rochdale and Sheffield on different documents. It makes sense now, born in Rochdale, but raised in sheffield until the family moves to Quebec, then, Illinois then finally to Waukesha, Wisconsin. I do have James in Sutton, Brome, Quebec, Canada for a number of years beginning in 1848, until he passes away there in 1887. He was very prominent, mayor, leader of militia etc. I first ran across Edward decades ago in a book at the Waukesha, Wisconsin public library. Edward was a very well to do man, and purchased a spring called Hygeia Springs in Waukesha, Wisconsin, which was a county that many of James's offspring ended up in, so I always thought they may be related somehow, but never had proof, until two weeks ago. It was sent to me in an email from Chris Cherry St Chad's Rochdale. She found the marriage record for Michael and Jane, and the first 4 kid's baptism records. I already had the next 4 kids baptism records from Sheffield Norfolk Row, and the last two were on the census from Wisconsin. It was tricky because Jane's name is sometime transcribed as Holt, Hott, Out or Gut. Yes, Jane passed here in Waukesha, but I could only find an index of her death. Could some one send me the obit and anything else on her death you may have found, or tell me how to find it?
Which brings me now to Jane. When I was young and would act out, my Mom would refer to me as Lady Jane. This was not endearing, but rather to note I was acting entitled, as there was a "Lady Jane" in the family long ago who was a lady in waiting to a queen of England. My Uncles were all given old surnames as middle names and my Uncle Mark's middle name was Holt. I asked my Grandma long ago what that name was from, and she told me it was because the Flannery side married a Holt who was a direct line from Sir John Holt. Now, I know all of these "stories" need to be taken with a grain of salt, but it does seem parts of them may be true. I wonder how both Michael and Jane ended up together in England? I doubt if Jane was a direct descendant to Sir John Holt, as from what I have found, he and Anne Cropely had no children? But perhaps I am back too far in time or not far enough, but that is the only Sir John Holt I have come across.
Many thanks to each of you again. I will keep digging, with new info you have provided. I so wish I could call my Mom right now and let her know all of this, she would have loved how this story unfolded.
Mmmm I also found in our database the following.
Flannery, Jane (of ~, born 1840-11-06).
Baptised December 25, 1840, by T Holden at St Maries, Sheffield.
Parents name(s) are Jane Holt & Mick'l (~).
Sponsor: Mickl Cassidy Cath Mulony :Page No 3 :Reg No ~
I dont have information on the entry from the Methodist Chapel on Norfolk Row.
Seems a little confusing.
Would have expected Michael to be Catholic and Jane to be Methodist especially as Michael came from central Ireland. (Kings County).
Elaine in Florida.
Instant Messenger: Skype
I think you can add another person to this family line. Emily Jane Holt Flannery was born Mar. 7, 1843 in Canada East (what would eventually become Quebec). She married John Godfrey Spice. They had 7 children and John was 14 years older than she. Her mother, Jane Flannery, is living with them in 1870 in Clayton County Iowa. She died June 17, 1910 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In one place she stated she immigrated to the U.S. in 1850 and in one place she had stated it was 1852. So more or less the same time as Edward had given (1848). I know as I get older I don't remember exact dates either and round it up or down. Most of the information in my earlier posts came from either familysearch.org, the web site for the Lancashire parish records online, Library and Archives Canada (see url in post to Elaine), or on Ancestry.ca. I'll try to send the obit notice to you via your email.
I think the Norfolk Lane Chapel in question is the Catholic Chapel which preceded St Marie's (on the same site). The baptism you found must be from that chapel but incorporated in the St Marie's registers at a later date (St Marie's was opened in 1850).
Appreciate the update on the RC Chapel on Norfolk Lane.
Elaine in Florida.
Instant Messenger: Skype
Hi again everyone,
I am posting here as I am still standing in front of this brick wall. I cannot seem to figure this one out. Any input or direction anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated, as I am at a loss as to where else I can look.
Jane Holt is my 4th great grandmother.
She married Michael Flannery on August 24th 1824 in Rochdale Lancashire, England.
On marriage certificate it states both are from Blackwater. All census records state she was born in 1810. This would make her 14 at time of marriage, which does not seem right. On her death certificate it states her parents were Simon and Mary, but her last name is spelled Healt.
I did find a Simon and Mary Holt, that were married in 1805 in Rochdale. On the marriage record her last name was Jackson, but is listed as a widow with no maiden name.
Jane and Michael had many kids. their first 4 were baptized in Rochdale, the next 4 at Sheffield and the next child was born at sea on the way to Quebec in 1842. On that record it states Jane was from Lestershire, so I do not know if she was born in Lancashire or Leicester.
They stayed in Canada a bit, had 23 more kids born there and in USA.
I can place her in Rochdale and Sheffield until 1841, then Quebec until abt 1845, then Wisconsin and Iowa until her passing. Jane passed away in Waukesha Wisconsin USA in 1882, thank you to Helen below.
To compound this all, Holt is spelled Out, Healt, Hoult.
Their children's names in birth order are-
James Lawrence- b 1825 Rochdale
John- b. 1827 Rochdale
Catherine - b. 1829 Rochdale
Mary - B. 1831 Rochdale
Edward - b. 1834 Sheffield
George - b. 1834 Sheffield
Ellen - b. 1836 Sheffield
Jane - b, 1840 Sheffield
Michel - b. 1842 on the ship Mountaineer on way to Quebec
Emily Jane Holt - b. 1843 Quebec
Frank - b. 1846 Wisconsin
Lucy A- b. 1848 Wisconsin
Does any one have any ideas on where else I can check?
Thank you in advance.
Kathy, just a couple of points of clarification:
In the 19 th century in England the minimum legal age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. However under 21 required parental consent.
On the marriage record the Blackwater reference almost certainly means simply that both parties were living on Blackwater Street Rochdale.
You state that they were married on 24th August 1824 and the first child was baptised in 1825. Do you have a date for that baptism? ( was she pregnant at the time of marriage?
Wow, that is incredible. 12 yrs old, I cannot lie, kind of speechless with that one.
Would there then be some where noted the parents names and that they signed off?
Married August 23, 1824 St Chad's Rochdale
1st child James Lawrence baptized June 26, 1825 St John the Baptist born May 31, 1825.
the following url is for a photo (50 yrs ago) of Blackwater St Rochdale with the Parish Church (St Chads) on the skyline.
I am guessing that a parent would be listed as a sponsor on the marriage.Not pregnant at the marriage then.
the GRO Index (free) has the following civil birth registration:
Dec Quarter 1840, Sheffield, Jane FLANNARY. Mother maiden name Hoult.
You can order the PDF version of the certificate online for £6.00. This will have on it Jane's DOB, their address in Sheffield, Michael's occupation, the name of the person registering the birth (probably Jane or Michael) and the date of the registration.
on the same site there is also the birth of Ellen FLANNARY in March quarter 1839 in Sheffield. Mother Maiden name Hoult. That PDF cert can also be purchased online for £6.00.
And on the same site there is the death of George FLANNAREY age 2 in sept Quarter 1838 in Sheffield. PDF can be purchased on line as before
Thank you so much Dave! All 3 are now ordered.
Have you seen the will of Sir John Holt, Lord Privy Seal, who died in 1710? I believe that holds the key to your family history of claims to vast wealth. It is available on Ancestry, and quite difficult to read but it seems to open up possibilities for males named Holt born later in the century to try to claim part of his wealth.
Hi Dave, yes, I can see it, but cannot read it. I am trying to find it transcribed, but having no luck. I have no clue if the claim in the obituary was ever true, never heard anything like that growing up. I am pretty sure the "vast wealth" is long gone by now. I do know when any of us girls would become a bit full of ourselves, my mom would call us "lady Jane". It would be amazing if I was able to tie this line to him, he seems like a very interesting man of those times. I will keep digging.Thank you! Kathy
Dave, I have been able to locate it transcribed. Very interesting, it took so long to settle this will, over 50 years. Many clues there and some familiar surnames too. Thanks again! Kathy
Well found. I had managed to transcribe about 50 %of the words on page 1 but that was enough to see how contentious it could be.an interesting problem.
It would be interesting to see it transcribed - can you let us have the link
Here is what I found- https://books.google.com/books?id=Ad9IAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=will+of+sir+john+holt&source=bl&ots=AwWHq3LA7h&sig=VNr5xzPHGlNEhCt1VzZpXjHrUGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicup7vrtbdAhUo64MKHetqDjc4ChDoATAOegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=will%20of%20sir%20john%20holt&f=false
If the link does not work, it is a free ebook on google. The Life of the Right and Honorable Sir John Holt. Original will is also included.
Here is the activated link:
Thanks Dave. I received the PDFs today. Unfortunately no new info as far as Janes parents or date of birth. Other than on each pdf they listed, Radford Gardens, Leicester Gardens and Brocco Gardens as addresses. Do you know what these were? Were they street names? Back to the drawing board.
Radford Garden & Leicester Garden I would say were in the Allen St/St Philips Road area of Sheffield. By my 1969 street directory they are not listed.
Brocco Gardens probably was off Brocco Bank.
Have you tried our Directories over to the left?
Elaine in Ottawa.
Instant Messenger: Skype
Kathy, is there no info on those PDFs about Michael's occupation?
Dave, He is listed as laborer on all 3. I was so hoping for some clue, but not here guess.
We are missing something here.
How could a simple labourer afford the passage to Canada for himself, wife and 7 children?
Who paid the ship captain at least £35 and that was before paying for their supplies for the journey, which turned out to be 68 days afloat.
Would a Union foot the bill? If so, which one, considering he was born in Ireland.
The record of Michael and Jane's son at the port of Grosse Ile Quarentine Station, Quebec in 1842, does corroborate that Michael was a labourer. I believe the British govt. was paying passage for people willing to settle in Canada. I have ancestors who immigrated to Canada in the 1870's under such a scheme.
Edit. I found a newspaper article from 1843 reporting that the British American Land Corporation was encouraging immigration to Canada with free ship's passage and land in the Eastern Townships of Canada. There is reference to a Royal Charter and Act of Parliament 1834.
Helen, here is my understanding of the law in the early 1840s. The 1834 Poor Law Act enabled parishes to pay for passage of their poor to the colonies. There are many published numbers of passages assisted by various Unions. A parliamentary motion of 1840 , available in full online from Hansard, proposed that central government should run a scheme to fund such emigration. Sir Robert Peel who was against the motion, stated that the colonies should pay, not the government. The motion was rejected
Therefore in 1842 the Flannery passage, if it was assisted, would have been paid by a parish (Union) or perhaps by the colony, not by the uk government.
I have been searching the Lancashire records for all the children born
to parents Simon and Mary and found the following unusual one.
Wesleyan Methodist, Rochdale.
Ann Holt, born 12 March 1813, baptised 27 March 1813, daughter of Simon and Mary,
Sailor in her Majesties Ship the Blake, of the parish of Dalton in Prembrokeshire,
Hello Kathy et al,
Throwing in a couple more possibilities: On Family Search website can be found:
Baptism record for:
Jane Holt and Jane Grundy both on the 20th Sept/1807 at Ringley, Lancs. (Res:Pilkington)
Parents in both records: George Holt and Hannah Grundy.
I have not made any connection of George Holt to Simon Holt as they possibly had different parents.
and a baptism record for:
Jane Holt baptized 14 Sept/1801 at St.Chad's Rochdale
Mother: Fanny Holt. No father named.
This Fanny Holt could be a possible sibling to Simon Holt who married Mary Jackson in 1805.
There is a baptism for a Simon Holt on 13 Aug/1780 at Pilkington,
parents: Thomas and Mary Holt.
Fanny bapt: 16 Sept/1782
+ at least four other baptisms for these parents.
My money would be on Fanny and maybe brother Simon, ended up rearing Jane Holt, for whatever reason.
Wendy in Guelph:sleuth_or_spy:
Sorry, that should read Wendy in Guelph
For some reason, Bravenet did not grant the opportunity for editing this time
Many thanks to all of you, for all your digging and finds. I have to admit, this line is kicking my butt. Dead ends for decades. I cannot help feeling I am missing something that has been in front of me the entire time. Taking into consideration that the death record info would have been provided by a child of Jane's, I cannot say that the Simon and Mary as parents is absolutely true. I sure wish I could figure this out with some legal paperwork. Ah, the frustration of genealogy is addicting...
Kathy and Wendy
I cannot solve this issue but believe I can unmuddy the waters a little:
There is a marriage of Simon Holt to Mary Simmons in 1804 in Dean (Bolton) 14 Oct 1804.
This couple had 8 children from 1805 to 1822, all baptised at the Anglican church at Ringley (thank you Moira) and all stated to be resident Pilkington (Pilkington was 10 miles South of Rochdale and 3 miles west of Dean/Kearsley/Ringley.
Mary, 18 June 1805
Edward 22 Mar 1807
Richard 30 Jul 1809
Mary Ann 26 April 1812
Thomas 27 Nov 1814
Charles 17 Apr 1817
Nancy 27 Jun 1819
William 18 Sept 1822
This family is in Dean Bolton on the 1841 census with Simon 61 , Mary 59 and with them are daughters Mary Ann and Nancy and son William, along with 3 much younger children, at least one of whom (Ellen) is illegitimate (GRO)
This Simon is clearly the one baptised Ringley 1780 (parents Thomas and Mary, thank you Moira) and the layout of his family clearly does not include a Jane. Why would they have a Jane and not baptise her in the same place as the other 8?
I therefore suggest that this family is not linked to the family Kathy is researching
PS back in the 1970s I lived very close to Dean/Kearsley/Ringley (which can be regarded as the same place) and I travelled to work through what had earlier been Pilkington, 3 miles away. Despite that proximity I can honestly say I have never visited Rochdale, which is 10 miles from there.
I am emailing you an attachment of the baptism of another of Michael and Jane's children. Another child was named Michael after the one born at sea died (Note that the child buried at Grosse Ile, Quebec was named Michel which is French for Michael). This second Michael was born Feb. 6, 1846 to Michael Flannery and Jane Holt and baptised at Ste. Brigide, Quebec on Mar. 9, 1846. Ste. Brigide is approx. 50 KM northwest of where your ancestor James Flannery settled in Sutton, Quebec. As you already have Frank b. 1846, either Frank was baptised as Michael and then the family changed his name to Frank later, or Jane immediately became pregnant again after having Michael and then delivered Frank at the end of 1846 or early 1847. I can't find a baptism for Frank. You'll note that the page of the register is very difficult to read. I checked all 16 pages of this register on-line at ancestry.ca and all the pages are as bad if not worse. The register likely has been damaged with water at some point in history. Not getting you any further back, but still, building a story of where the family was living at the time. I can't help but feel there is a clue in the naming of the children. Irish families often followed a specific pattern when naming children. You can google Irish naming patterns to see what I mean.
Thank you Helen! I
I had no clue the first Michael died. I think long ago, I came across a death record for a Michael Flannery, but parents were not named, so was not sure. I will check my shoe box.
Sorry, my mistake. the only record for the first Michael is the baptism at the quarantine station on Grosse Ile. It doesn't specify if he died there or not.
That is fine. The theory does make sense, after seeing this baptism record. Michael and Jane's names are on it and the date matches all other dates on the page, so I think either first Michael passed or one or both were named one name and for whatever reasons, baptized a different name. Oh this family is giving me a real run...
Kathy,the following link takes you to the Rochdale on line list of marriages for 1824 and the marriage of Jane Holt and Michael Flenary in the list. The witnesses were Thos Nield and D Nield, who were regular witnesses on most of the other marriages in the list.
They were clearly church employees so that implies Jane and Michael were married in the absence of witnesses who were relatives or friends. This would imply that Jane was not obviously under 21 and was able to successfully lie about her age.
In the list of their children you have Michel Flannery born aboard ship 8th Aug 1842 and Emily Jane Holt Flannery born 7th March 1843. There seems to be something wrong there. Only 7 months between the births.
Oops, sorry a couple of typos in my earlier message.
For Thos Nield read Thos Fletcher
Read IF she was under 21 etc
Thank you. So you think Jane lied about her age? I do not have a solid birth document, so all I have to go on is the census and death record, which of course was not filled out by her. So, she would have lied on everything, straight through her whole life. It does make me wonder why. Maybe lying at time of marriage meant she felt she had to lie on everything. As far as Emily Jane it seems to be some what the same scenario. No birth record, most census have her born in Canada, one has her born in England. They all have her born anywhere from 1842 to 1845. Find a grave has her birth as 1844, Wisconsin death record states 1843. Oh this family and their secrets...
Kathy, you misunderstand.
IF she was 14 on the day she married, and IF there were no family or friends there on that day, then in order to marry she must have said she was 21, ie a lie.
I am trying to imagine if a 14 year old girl could convince a vicar she was 21.
The marriage was by Banns so for a few weeks before the impending marriage would be posted outside the church, allowing anyone to object.So if she was 14 and her parents were local. surely they would have heard about it.
EDIT Do you know what happened to Ellen, Mary and John?
You can be certain Emily was not born in March 1843, and was probably not born at any time in 1843
There are very good reasons why this family is so confusing, and to take it further you need to establish which info is reliable and which is not.
Michael was born in Ireland and moved to England, presumably to find work, like many others. He was unqualified and illiterate. Therefore by definition he was poor, so he would have to live within the confines of the Poor Law, which in itself changed while he was in England.
By 1824 he was living and presumably working in Rochdale, where he met Jane and they married (we have the record). From that record we learn they were both illiterate and they had no family or friends as witnesses at the wedding. Whatever her real age, they presumably convinced the curate that she was 21, therefore no parental consent needed.
9 months later Jane gave birth, which would stop her working. That made them poorer. She kept having children (in total she had 12 in 24 years), so they became yet poorer. He remained a labourer throughout.
Most people in this situation could make use of the Poor Law and ask the parish for relief, but Michael was not born within the parish of Rochdale, so they did not qualify for that relief. In fact even if he did not ask for relief, the Rochdale Union could get him removed back to Ireland (before 1834)
Around 1836 they moved to Sheffield, presumably for a better chance of work, or perhaps to escape from being sent to Ireland. They could not have gone by rail because that line was not opened till the 1840s.
In 1834 the Poor Law was changed so that the local union could not remove him back to Ireland, UNLESS he asked for relief. But things were getting worse: more children, and because of the Corn Laws, a higher cost of living and less work availability. So they would need relief, but he could only qualify for that from the parish of his birth. And if he requested relief in Sheffield they could legally remove him and his family to Ireland.
If he could not find better work he would have no option. They would be removed to Ireland at the expense of the parish of his birth. That is one feasible explanation of why they were missing from the 1841 census.
But there was no work in Ireland, and Michael was returning with a wife and 7 young children. That would be a big drain on the Union resources. How to get rid of that drain? They could pay for the family to go to Canada, a one off cost.
Did they travel to Liverpool to board the Mountaineer, or did the Mountaineer pick up extra passengers at an Irish Port? Perhaps somehow the Irish Union managed to do the transaction without them going to Ireland, but then where were they at the census?
Whichever it was, it was a horrendous journey. She docked in Canada 68 days after leaving Liverpool, 30 of the 505 passengers (no cabins) died on the journey and food and supplies were running out after 6 weeks. Two more died in quarantine. Legal proceedings were started against the captain. Jane gave birth on board. The only privacy from other passengers during the journey would be hanging blankets. I dare not think too much about the sanitary arrangements.
From there things got better. If they had nothing the local agent would fund them to go up country where there was work, good pay and opportunity for both Michael and the older children; and there was, unlike England, education for the younger children.
Now let us go back to the beginning. They were illiterate, so nothing was written down. If they were asked their age they would say what they thought it was, and they may be wrong by a few years. If Jane said in say 1850 that she was 40, she would not realise that calculated back to her being 14 when she got married, so she would not correct her mistake, if indeed it was a mistake. After what she had been through in the last 25 years she could easily have lost a few years here and there. Would she be able to accurately remember the ages and birth dates of all 12 children? Her age was unreliable.
She would of course know her their parents’ names, and had no reason to lie about that, unless she was illegitimate and wanted to cover that up by inventing a father name. Jane must have mentioned her parents' names to one or more of her children.
That brings us to the reliability of Simon and Mary Healt as her parents. It is clear that Jane told her son Edward that her maiden name was Holt. But she could not spell it. So why would Edward spell it Healt?
Edward was 6 when he arrived in Canada, and would have had no education in England. There was a budding state education in Canada, but in the French part it was run by the Catholic Church, and of course was in French. So Edward will have had a rudimentary education in French. Therefore, when he came to write down what he heard as Holt he would not write Holt (he would pronounce that as we would pronounce Halt). I suggest he would spell it Heault (the eau as in bureau). Did he forget the u or was it lost in the transcription? Incidentally, there are French words which start with the letter H, but it is always silent. This would explain why the name Holt may be written as Out or Ot or even with a G instead of H
This leads me to suggest that Simon and Mary Holt may be more reliable as her parents than we thought (though thinking about French pronunciation perhaps Simeon is also possible).
What about the Sir John Holt story?
He died in 1710 leaving vast wealth, and he was childless. His will is in itself strange in that the wealth remained under the executors control until his nephew (also John Holt, later Sir John) would die. Then it would pass equally to any male children of that nephew. The Executors did not go through the correct procedure of proving the probate. That was done about 50 years later. So the contents of the will did not become public till about 1760. All sorts of people would try to lay claim from 1760 onwards.
But how would Jane know about any of this? She was illiterate. That story has to have come from one of her ancestors, even if it was only that one of them knew the story and wanted to claim in hope, or perhaps to impress a potential wife.
Sir John Holt’s home estate was in Suffolk close to Bury St Edmonds. There were 2 Simon Holts baptised in Suffolk in 1773 and a third in Leicestershire in the same year. I can find only one potential marriage in Suffolk and one death of a Simon born in 1773.
We know Jane married in Rochdale. Simon Holt was quite a rare name back then, and of all the UK records available we can identify only 2, possibly 3 different Simon and Mary possibilities (thank you Moira):
Simon and Mary who married in Ringley, Bolton in 1804. They had children regularly in Ringley (no Jane) and are in the 1841census in the same area so can be eliminated.
Simon and Mary (Jackson, widow) who married in Blackburn in 1905.
Simon and Mary who baptised a child Ann in a Wesleyan Chapel in Rochdale in 1913. (He was in the Royal Navy). That chapel was opened in mid 1809 and its baptism records date from then. There was an earlier more temporary Wesleyan place of worship there but if they did baptisms the records are not extant.
I cannot make any positive connections, but there are a lot of coincidences.
I hope this helps to clarify some of the confusions, and hopefully leads to further finds. Sorry it is so long.
Hello Dave, WOW thank you. That is amazing how you broke this down. You brought up points I had not considered or known.
There are pieces missing that would help if known.
The passenger list for the Mountaineer, would help me to know who made the trip in 1842. I find no record of Michael after the recorded birth of his son aboard the ship.
I find it interesting that none of Michael's children named their son's Michael. But the name Jane runs in all of them. It makes me think Michael was not well looked upon by his children.
Oddly as well, no one named Simon either.
Michael's son Edward came to Waukesha, Wisconsin (a couple of miles from where I live) and did quite well for himself. He worked for the railroad and built an incredible spring (Hygeia Springs) in the heart of Waukesha. He appears to be the child who did very well.
Michael's first born child James (my 3rd great grandfather), stayed in Quebec, became the Mayor and head of the Militia.
James had a son, my 2nd great grandfather. He named him Osmanlia. I have no idea where this name came from and have never heard of it before. It would be interesting to know where it came from.
I thought I replied to you yesterday, but I see the message did not post. Nothing at all for John and Catherine, except the baptism records. This is where it would be nice to see the passenger list, to know if they came over too or stayed in England. I did find Mary in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, so I think she came in 1842.
So as you said, I need to work with what I know, which is difficult.
I know they married in 1824, no witnesses, and both are illiterate, no age provided for either.
On two birth certificates Michael is a listed as a laborer, so I would assume he did not make much money.
Ship record states he was born in King's county Ireland and she was born in Leicester
I have absolutely no record of Michael after 1842, other than Jane kept having kids, I assume Michael was the father, because I cannot find birth records in Canada or US for the last 3 children. I can only find death records and census records and marriage records.
Your explanation of the Holt/Healt makes perfect sense.
I do know some of the Quebec family traveled back and forth over the boarder and switched allegiances a couple times. But, for the most part remained Loyalists. I find that somewhat strange that the children were baptized Catholic before Quebec, but switched while in Quebec.
Going off your theory, I could work the known Simon lines. I have already started that last year, but came to the conclusion I may be following the wrong line. You make very valid points in that Edward had to be told this info from some one. I have always felt Edward really carried most the family as they turn up living with him from time to time in the census records.
It is also odd that no one knew of this Holt story until I saw the obit. I would have thought that would have been passed along for ages. Sadly, my Mom passed 1 year after I finally discovered Michael and Jane. I have asked her siblings if any of this sounded familiar to them, but they said they had not heard of it, but had heard some one was a lady in waiting to the Queen at some point. Some one remembered being told we were related to Jane Seymour. These are all stories and there is not one shred of proof. I keep them in the back of my mind and will wait and see what if any info, proves to be true.
I cannot thank you enough for your time, and your clear and concise thinking. You shed light on certain facts and followed them up with common sense theories. It is fascinating.
In earlier posts Helen has provided you with a recorded date of birth and baptism for for a second Michael Flannery in 1846 with father Michael and mother Jane, so you do have evidence for Michael senior in 1846 in Canada.
Also I must apologise to Helen who provided a birth record for Emily in March 1843. That is only 7 months after the recorded birth of Michel aboard ship so I doubted it. The one that should be doubted is the date of the ship birth. I am sure Michel was born aboard the ship, but I doubt if the date recorded was accurate. Those passengers would not know the date in the middle of the ocean, and the captain seems to have been at least very inconsiderate if not downright imcompetent with regard to his passengers.
Even so, it must still be very tight between Michel and Emily?
If you have no birth records for Frank and Lucy, how do you know they were children of Jane?
Have you considered that one or more of the children may have died aboard the Mountaineer?
Hi Dave, Again you bring up a very logical point with the date of birth for Michael #1.
I think I need to really peruse the Quebec records, I think more answers will be found there. I did notice in a few records, Flannery was mistaken for Hammery with the cursive F, L, H, n and m being mistaken, so maybe I will page through each register of the major churches there.
I do wonder who came over and who died in Quebec, but have no proof of any other than what I have. So perhaps you are correct, maybe more died enroute. I have good records for James (Michael's first born) in Sutton, Quebec, but I think it was Helen who directed me to Michael #2 record in a place a few miles from Sutton where James lived while in Quebec. So perhaps more info will be found in the surrounding areas. I also have citizen ship papers for a few of James's kids who travel between Quebec and Vermont. I will scour Vermont records to. I know there is more info some where.
I think I need to also try and locate the ships passenger list. My uncle visited Sutton Quebec a few months ago, unfortunately it was on a week end and the historical place was not open. Perhaps a well crafted letter to the historical society will lead me somewhere.
I have Frank and Lucy info from census records and marriage records. They are listed as Jane's children with Michael the father. They live with Edward for a time in Milwaukee with Jane, and are visiting Emily with Jane in another. I know census records are not a true legal document, but they are a part of the story.
Thank you again Dave.
Suggest you look at the following site
In particular the following verbatim paragraph, and more specifically the final sentence (my capitals).
This notable English family name, Holt, emerged as an influential name in the county of Lancashire where the Holts were recorded as a family of great antiquity seated with manor and estates in that shire. This ancient Lancastrian name was first recorded about 1190 in Lancashire when Hugo Holte was lord of the manor and estates. The Holt surname can be found in many places, but this site is mainly looking at the distribution of the name in Lancashire, England. By the 13th Century the Holts held many halls and lands, the principal families located at Castleton Hall; Stubley Hall; Bispham Hall; Shevington and Ince; and other branches at Ashworth Hall; Grizlehurst Hall; Bridge Hall; Stubbylee Hall; Little Mitton Hall and Balderstone Hall. The family history and genealogy is most intriguing. THE HOLT NAME IN THE PARISH OF ROCHDALE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WEALTH AND DIGNITY.
That seems to provide the source of Jane's story.
Note that Sir John Holt was born at Grizlehurst Hall near Lancaster
Thanks Dave. I have been to this site a couple of times. I just cannot make a connection. I searched all of the Quebec sites the other day and came up short there too. I just cannot place Jane with proof anywhere for birth. It is as though I am beating my head against a wall. I even tried to descend through the John and Thomas Holt tree and I cannot connect Jane with any Holt at all. Maybe it is time to find a Holt DNA site? I am thinking that may answer some questions. No one living ever heard of this story before until some one on here sent me her obit. Ironically any one I have reached out to through DNA matches, is very intrigued and wants to help, but then never heard from again. Oh Michael and Jane, I wish I could speak with them... lol.