Hi:

I have been using both FMP and Ancestry.com to try to locate the parents of Mary Hough wife of Joseph Washington. I've been looking at what both these places have for baptismal's none of them really stick out as being correct.

Does anyone have any ideas of what I should be looking at to make the best connection for Mary Hough.

I do have the Marriage Record for Mary Hough and Joseph Washington, which is dated: 6 May 1781 and the Place of Marriage: Cathedral Saint Peter, Sheffield, County York, England. Mary was a Spinster at the time of marriage, so she had never married. So, I would imagine she was at least 21 years of age, because NO father is mentioned. The spelling of her last name is "Hough" and the connection that SMP makes is to an Elizabeth Hough, with the word "spurious" after her name. Several of the those that just had a women's name used "spurious" after it. What does that word mean. . .?

Anyway, I need some ideas on how to find Mary Hough's Parents: Thank you, Cathi Gross

Hi Cathi

Spurious was the word sometimes used to denote an illegitimate child.


Denise

Hi

There is a Mary Hough who was baptised in Ecclesfield on 12 July 1757; her mother is Elizabeth Hough and father's name is left blank. So, if spurious indicates illegitimacy, then this could possibly be the Mary you are looking for.

Carol

Thank you for your reply. . .I had seen this particular Baptism for Mary Hough, but it troubled me. Is there anything I can do to confirm that this Elizabeth Hough, was the mother of Mary Hough, who married Joseph Washington?

One more question: My Joseph Washington's Occupation was a Cutler? In this time period, Would a Cutler have married a Women who had no reference to who her parents were? Just wondering. . .

Ok One more Question: My Joseph Washington was originally born in Leek, Staffordshire, England, but his Father William had Joseph placed in an Apprenticeship in Sheffield. So, could he have married a Mary Hough from his home town of Leek, Staffordshire, even know he was working in Sheffield? Is that a possibility?

One more Question: Did parents have an influence in this time period, in who their children married?

Hi Cathi

As you're discovering, the further back you go the harder it is to find/prove anything and much of it ends up being guess work.

With the lack of 'concrete' information you have to look for other clues - which may help you get there in the end, but might not.

When searching for parents theres sometimes a clue in how the couple name their children. Names were often carried down and tended to follow the pattern of first children named after either the parents or grandparents, and then using up those names for subsequest children - so you can see a pattern/link (as I think as happened with 'Joseph'). However, this isnt a definite, but can be useful to help. So what are the names of Joseph and Marys children? You might expect to find a Mary and a Joseph and a William (Josephs father) - others - is there an Elizabeth??

You could also consider the names of the witnesses to Mary and Josephs marriage to see if theres any clue/link to Mary.

Prior to Civil registration in 1837 theres was no requirement to include parents names in the marriage record. In 1781 there would only be need for 2 witnesses to be recorded. These witnesses might be the parents, but could equally be siblings, other relatives, friends etc. So the lack of a name that looks like it might be a parent doesnt mean the parents werent known.

Paterental permission if they were under 21 would only be required if the couple were marrying by Licence. If marrying under Banns that didnt require explicit parental permission - just no parental objection when Banns were read.

If they married under Banns, sometimes the Banns record (which is very similar to the marriage record) can provide a bit more information - such as age. But there isnt always a Banns record to be found.

But the witness names might give something away - is there a surname you've come across before? Or a search on the witness names anyway? If Elizabeth is Marys mother then in all likelyhood she would have subsequently married and gone on to have other children, so bear that in mind when looking at/searching witness names.

The occupation of Cutler in itself doesnt denote any kind of status - a Cutler might have owned his own works and employed people (but you might have expected to see (Cutlery Manufacturer), equally he might just be an ordinary 'employee'. I think Joseph would still have been an apprentice when he married in 1781 (?).

Its quite possible that Mary Hough could have come from Leek so its worth searching for a baptism in that area. When did Mary die - did she manage to live to make the 1841 census, which would have shown whether she was born in Yorkshire or not??

Equally - when did she die/was buried. Any burial record MAY give an age (which wouldnt necessarily be 100% accurate but could be a help)

Denise

Cathi, following the excellent reply from Denise, just a couple of extra thoughts:

1.Joseph Washington must have finished his apprenticeship at 21 (at least) in 1781, allowing him to marry (see Apprentices and Freemen). The fact that he did not purchase his freedom till 1802 was his choice to make. He presumably worked in the meantime for his former master, or maybe someone else, before deciding to go out on his own with a trade mark.
2. It is possible that he married a girl from Leek, but in that case it would be likely that the marriage would be in Leek, rather than in Sheffield.
3. You have been lucky with the Washington line because they were just about the only Washingtons in Sheffield in the time period 1750 to 1880., and the Apprentices and Freemen file gives a lot of factual detail. If you look at the same file for the Hough name you will find a few clues which may be worth following up on. Obviously there is no direct reference to any female, but there appear to be, in the right period, only 3 brothers (unusually named), who might be Elizabeth's brothers.
Good Luck
Dave

Joseph and Mary (Hough) Washington did NOT name any of their Girls Elizabeth. . .
Here are the names of the children I have found by their baptism:
1. William Washington, born 1783, Baptized 2 February 1783 in Sheffield
2. John Washington, Born 1784, Baptized 15 August 1784, in Sheffield
3. Margaret Washington, Born 1786, Baptized 22 Jan 1786, in Sheffield
4. Eleanor Washington, Born 1788, Baptized 11 May 1788, in Sheffield
5. Ann Washington, Born 1790, Baptized 25 Dec 1790, in Sheffield
6. Samuel Washington, Born, Baptized 1 January 1793, in Sheffield
7. Joseph Washington, Jr. Born 1795, Baptized 18 Oct. 1795, in Sheffield

Joseph Washington born 1795 Married Mary Bright on the 18 May 1815 in Sheffield These are the name of their children, the one name that is repeated are both Mary and Ann their two daughter's named Mary and Ann Die, they end up calling finally on of the Girls Mary Ann. And the Name Joseph and John are repeated for boys. These are the names of their children:
1. Ann Washington, Birth 21 Jan 1816, Baptized 24 March 1816, Burial of this girl: 31 July 1816
2. Mary Washington, Birth 19 July 1817, Baptized 12 August 1817, Burial of this girl: 4 April 1824
3. Ellen Washington, 1819. . .she married First Charles Yates and Second George Taylor
4. Mary Washington, 1820 . . .Burial of daughter: 13 Nov. 1800, Sheffield
5. Joseph Washington, 1822, Married Sarah Carnall
6. Margaret Washington, 1823 - 1913 married William Horridge
7. Elizabeth Washington, 1828-1902 married Jonathan Woodward
8. Mary Ann Washington, 1832 - ?, married Henry Smith
7. John Washington, 1837-1876, married Sarah Hodgson

IF I was going by the Importance of names for Mary Hough by the names repeated in two different generation for Girls would be. Mary, Ann, Eleanor (Ellen), and Margaret. these could be possible names of her mother. As for Boys names repeated: Joseph and John. . .so that is a possibility for a father's name.

Did naming children have importance during this time period? if so then I possibly have some clues to help with find Mary Hough's parents.

There was a John Hough who was baptized on the 15 April 1745 at Sheffield in St. Peter's his father was Joshua Hough, father's Occupation: Filesmith
I could not find an early enough marriage for him. . .But I have seen this baptism of a possible son for John Hough baptized 1745:
1. John, son of John Hough, 5 Feb 1762, It's an Independent Non-Conformist Church, in Sheffield and it appears that the son John was in the 1841 England Census at age 80 with wife Sarah. But this john appears to be living in the District of Doncaster, Yorkshire NOT Sheffield.
It also appears or might be possible that the John Hough baptized in 1745 may have been buried on the 26th of Oct 1767, At Saint Peter's

2. Their was a William Hough, son of Ann who died in 1769 burial at St. Peters's. I find it interesting that the mother was named rather than the father, possibly implying that the Father was dead, because the Mother's name used instead. Perhaps her husband was the John Hough, baptized in 1745 and died in 1767. Again Conjecture. . .But a possibility

John Hough 1745-1767 and Ann are the only possibilities at Sheffield that might be the parents of Mary Hough who married Joseph Washington. And Mary Hough may have had two sibblings, a John born 1762 and William who died in 1769. All THEORIES. . .with no real proof.

Ok, I think I've answered my own question about John Washington who was baptized in 1745. He was two young in 1760, when Mary Hough, Joseph Washington's wife was baptized. So, it couldn't have been that John Washington. . .BUT what about the John Hough that had his son John Hough baptized on 5 February 1762. . .Might he be the correct John? I wonder if the church where this baptism took place may have more baptisms and where would one go to find the rest of these baptisms for Independent Non-Comformst Church, which FMP does not give it's name too. Maybe it has the answer, I'm looking for about the Parents of Mary Hough.

I have found a Baptism for a John Hough, Dated 21 March 1730, Baptism place: Emley, Yorkshire (West Riding). Father: Sampson

This John would have married about 1751, which could work for the birth of Mary Hough who was baptized abt. 1760.

Again just Theories with no Proof. Just something to think about.

Cathi et al
With regard to Mary Hough we have two indisputable facts
1.She married Joseph Washington in 1781
2 . A Mary Hough was baptised 1857 , illegitimate, mother Elizabeth.
These two may or may not be linked.
Knowing the various different scenarios of what happened to illegitimate children born to young, unmarried females, consider the following
An Elizabeth Hough married in Sheffield in 1761 to John Sherwin. They went on to have several daughters (fmp).
Assuming this was the same Elizabeth, mother of Illegitimate Mary, what happened to 3 yr old Mary when her mother married?
She would either be accepted by John Sherwin and go to live with them, or she would not be accepted and therefore be either left with her grandparents or just possibly be "adopted out". If either of the latter 2 then I believe she would not want to name any of her children Elizabeth.
. I would not rule out that Mary Hough, illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth, became the wife of your Joseph Washington
Elizabeth would have been at least 17 when she gave birth to Mary so she was presumably born 1740 at latest and most likely between 1735 and 1740.
The name Hough in the Apprentices and Freemen list has an interesting set of records. There are not many Houghs and a few are much too early (1600s) and a couple are too late. But in the mid 18th century there is only one family from that source.:

A man named John Hough , A Filesmith, had 4 sons who became apprentices. They were
Sampson Hough born 1716
John Hough born 1718
Joshua Hough born 1720
Willoughby Hough born 1729

It is very possible that Elizabeth Hough was the daughter of one of the first three of those 4 sons.
Dave

Cathi, following up on Denise's suggestion of naming conventions I find the following quote interesting. It is from Family Search, among other sources about Victorian conventions:
"There was even a convention in the order in which the ancestors were honored – probably to avoid insulting anyone. Although it was far from universally used, the usual British naming convention was as follows:
• The first son was named after the paternal grandfather
• The second son was named after the maternal grandfather
• The third son was named after the father
• The fourth son was named after the oldest paternal uncle
• The fifth was named after the second oldest paternal uncle or the oldest maternal uncle
• The first daughter was named after the maternal grandmother
• The second daughter was named after the paternal grandmother
• The third daughter was named after the mother
• The fourth daughter was named after the oldest maternal aunt
• The fifth was named after the second oldest maternal aunt or the oldest paternal aunt
If there was duplication (for example, the paternal grandfather and the father had the same name), then the family moved to the next position on the list"

Applying this to the children of Joseph Washington and Mary Hough which you have listed earlier.
First Son Joseph, tick
Second Daughter Eleanor Tick
So second son (John)and first daughter Margaret would point to Mary's parents being John and Margaret. However, what if I am right in suggesting that Mary was brought up by her Grandparents because she was left behind by her mother, the illegitimate Elizabeth. I propose she would choose her grandparents to name her children within the convention. As circumstantial evidence there is a burial in the area for a Margaret Hough in 1766 (mary would be 10) and I have already indicated a John Hough, son of John, born1718 who could have been father of Elizabeth.
Third son Samuel checks out as a Washington in Leek, and of course fourth son Joseph checks out and I can find no trace (FMP) of a history of Margaret in the Washingtons of Leek. However there are several Margaret Houghs historically in the Sheffield area (FMP).
Dave

Brilliant find Dave - this is so useful!!

On the names theme I found (but am sure Cathi already knows)

William and Eleanor had:

Samuel - 1749
Thomas - 1751
Ellen (Eleanor) - 1753
Joseph - 1760

Plus I suspect there may have been a couple of children who died shortly after birth - burials but no parents names. theres a William - Born and died 1757, which would fit the gap between Ellen and Joseph ??

Also, I believe Eleanors father was called Thomas.

So while the naming convention might not be an 'exact science' - the general principles are there so far!!

Denise

Dave is totally brilliant and because of him. I have seen Page 256 History of the Cutlers Company, under the "Hough" Section. Yes, this very helpful. BUT as I have done another sweep through FMP, I have found one more marriage for Another "Mary Hough" And I think it's possible that this Mary Hough could have been the daughter, of Elizabeth Hough, Baptism Date: 12 Jul 1757 Because of the church, St Mary, at Ecclesfield, in County Yorkshire, England.

It's probable that this "Mary Hough" who was baptized at St. Mary's Ecclesfield was same Mary Hough who was married at the same church Dated: 30 Nov 1783 to a William Hague.

While My Mary Hough married Joseph Washington at a different place than the Baptism. 06 May 1781 Cathedral Saint Peters and St. Pauls, Sheffield, County York, England.

At this point, I don't know what to think. It's possible that the Mary Hough who married William Hague was a lot older. The Marriage Record does not tell if they were a bacholor or a spinster. And it doesn't give an age for either of them. So, it will need more investigation to rule this Mary Hough out as the child of Elizabeth Hough, Spinster (Illegitimate)

AND. . .One more thought to RULE out is some have said that the spelling of the name could have been Hague. If that is the case, I have found one baptism for a Mary Hague baptized 07 Sep 1759, in It doesn't name the Church Parish, but it was in Sheffield, Yorkshire, England NOT Ecclesfield. Her father was John Hague, Occupation: Cutler. . .So, this is something that needs to be discused and ruled out, if she is the proper daughter for Elizabeth Houge, Spinster, Illegitimate

page 227 Bottom of page and 228 of History of the Cutlers Company has these Hague, Hagh, Hague, Haigh, Hague, Hage Hague, Haigh, Etc.

It's amazing how many spellings there were and could the name "Hough" be just another spelling for the same family?. . .I have a tendency to say NO that Hough is very different from all the others spellings, but I could be wrong.

So, these are my thought's for the moment

One more thought. Is Ecclesfield a part of the Sheffield District? I am Not familiar with England, since I have never lived there. Perhaps Dave could explain the Area better. I know the GRO Index, puts Ecclesfield in a district of it's own or it appears different. Yet is a part Yorkshire the County in the (West Riding). Anyway, It would be could to get a lesson about the Area. It's all new to me.

Cathi,
To find info about the area just read the Wikipedia entry for Hallamshire, which was the area controlled by the Company of Cutlers.

Forget about Hague haig etc. That is just a computer looking at the word and finding names with similar letters.
The reality is that just about everyone was illiterate. They could only pronounce their name, they could not spell it. The spelling was done by the vicar or his assistant writing down what he heard, and different scribes would spell the same sound differently. And then there were local dialects confusing the issue.
How Did he hear Hough? Was it Huff ( ROUGH), Hoff (cough) How (bough), Hoe ( dough)?, Hoo ( through)?
Those are the possible spelling alternatives you should be considering. Also there may have been transcription errors from Haugh to Hough, so you should consider Haw.
It is clear that you have access to all the right sources. Your problem is that you are in a time period where the factual information is very sketchy, You can only find the few available facts and form an opinion based on them. Getting proof is very difficult, if not impossible. You have been very lucky in that your Washingtons were almost unique in the area , and Hough is rare, so you have moved a long way very quickly.
We all have what we call brick walls in our family trees, and sometimes they remain just that for years until some new piece of info becomes available and allows to break through the wall. Your best clue is that there is a good chance that Mary Houghs parents or grandparents were John and Margaret, and if you could find a marriage then you would be closer. But people did live together without going through a recorded marriage ceremony
Dave

Cathi, Here is better clue.
FMP has the following TWO baptisms in 1757
1. Mary Hough, the one you know
2. Mary Haugh. could be a transcription error.
I do no have subs so cannot see the full records
It looks like your good luck may be continuing

Dave

Hi Dave:

Here are those two Baptisms with the last name Haugh, which is very close to Hough and like you said could be a transcription error between and "a" and "o".
1. The First Baptism (Mary Haugh): Dated 30 Nov. 1756, the father Willoughby Haugh (This is probably Willoughby son of John Hough listed on Page 256 History of the Cutlers Company, under the "Hough" Section
2. The 2nd Baptism (Mary Haugh) Dated the same except one year later, 30 Nov. 1757, the father Willoughby Haugh, again most likely the son of John "Hough" listed in the Hisotry of the Cutlers Company and it appears to be the same baptism but different years, 1756/1757?

From looking at the original at FMP it looks spelled "Haugh" and the year appears to be 1757 although it could be mistaken for the year 1759. I went back about 5 pages to clarify the year and I ran across 1756 Burial at Altercliffe (Month: March) towards the very bottom of the same page after the months March, May, June, July, September, Nov, Dec. The Year changes at the bottom to 1757 January, then March, April, next page to December and then it seems to change again to a new year BUT it doesn't seem to change the year when it get to February again It should have said 1758, but it doesn't, then it goes through all the months again and at the bottom they have a modern stamp of the year as 1756. What I am looking at is the Black and white copy of the Record, NOT the Brown paper one. Anyway, there seems to be some confusion to the year on the Black and White Copy of this Baptism Record. But I believe it was most likely 1757, because Willoughby had another daughter named Margaret baptized in the year 1759.

My question is Why isn't there a boy Named Willoughby in Joseph and Mary Hough Wahsington's family. There is a daughter by the name of Margaret, who may have been named after a sister named Margaret or a mother. So, like you say it makes it difficult to decide who the parents were.

But it appears that Her Grandfather was John Hough, Cutler who his children, Josh, Willoughby, and Sampson Apprenticed on Page 256 History of the Cutlers Company, under the "Hough" Section

I will keep looking, perhaps another clue will fall my way.

Also, one more thought This Willoughby who baptized a daughter Mary as stated above. His occupation was listed as "Files." It looks like an abrev. word for Filesmith. Is that what it is?

History of the Cutlers, page 256 really doesn't give enough data but this is what it says,
It's five names down under "Hough"
Hough, Joshua, Sampson and Willoughby, sons of John, 6; F. 1741, F. 1737, F. 1750
So, it appears that the F. Stands for when John's son gained their freedom:
Joshua Hough Freedom 1741
Sampson Hough Freedom 1737
Willoughby Hough Freedom 1750

Willoughby appears to be the youngest son of John Hough it does not say what he was apprenticed in. But the Baptism for both Mary and Margaret says "Files".
So, is this the same Willougby Hough, son of John Hough, Cutler? Or am I missing something.

Both Mary and Margaret were Baptized at Sheffield, Cathedral Church of St Peter & St Paul, Which is the church that My Mary Hough was married at to Joseph Washington.

Didn't most Marriages take place at the Daughter's families Church where they lived?

Some other thoughts about Willoughby Hough:
1. It appears that he married an Ann Cook on the 14 February 1757 at the St.Peter's and St. Paul Catherdral At the same Church these children were baptized by Willoughby
2. Mary was baptized on 30 November 1757, 9 months after Willoughby's marriage to Ann Cook
3. Margaret, Baptized 10 August 1759, Same Church
4. John, Baptized 29 June 1762, Does not say church. . .only says, Yorkshire, Bishops Transcript of Baptism, Sheffield, County Yorkshire (West Riding), England
5. Willoughby Hough, Sr. was buried 14 May 1767 same church both daughter's Mary and Margaret were baptized at
6. Willougby Hough, Jr. is baptized by mother Ann Hough on 5 August 1767 at the same church as the the first two girls, Mary and Margaret (St. Peter's and St. Paul's at Sheffield)

So, All the names except Willoughby are familiar to the names that my Mary Hough and Joseph Washington had named their kids.

So, this Willoughby Hough and Ann Cook may have been the parents of my Mary Hough.

One more thing that I could check would be see, if any of the names of the kids for the Mary Hough who married John Sherwin were Willoughby or not. I would imagine if one of their boys was named Willoughby then it might be the other way around. Unless Willoughby is a common name for the Sherwin's. So, this is something to look into next.

Cathi,
The confusion in years in the 1750s was caused by the Decree in 1752 that the UK was going to change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Up to that point the calendar year ran from !st April to 31stb March. Thereafter it was from !st Jan to 31 Dec. 1752 was only 9 months long (minus 11 days for the date adjustment) Not every scribe switched immediately and there was some defiance. Therefore in the years following 1752 there can be confusion in some church records.
I believe that again you have been very lucky in that the Hough/Haugh name was rear in Sheffield in that time period. In fact the Apprentice/Freemen record indicates only one family(though we cannot rule out that there may have been another one or two who were not involved in the cutlery trade, it Is unlikely).
If you carefully and study all you can find on those few family members, there is a good chance you will find what you want. Find all the facts (original documents), study them, correct them (transcription errors) then see what you get.
You have:
1. Apprentice and Freemen: A man called John Hough, Filesmith who must have married around 1710 to 1715. He had 4 sons Sampson about 1716, John 1718, Joshua 1720 and Willoughby 1729. There appear to be marriages for all of these in FMP. Get the details. Check the originals for transcription errors (eg Marg vs Mary)
2. Willoughby had a daughter Mary in 1857 and a daughter Margaret
3. A Catherine had a daughter Mary, illegit, in 1757. Catherine most probably was sister of the four boys.
4. Joseph Washington married a Mary Hough in 1781 and the birth pattern looks traditional, and there is a Margaret.
5. William Hague married Mary Hough in 1783. Anything in their birth pattern?
6. A Catherine Hough married in 1761. Did she leave her illegitimate daughter with her father John and his wife? What about her children pattern? If Mary was with her, they probably would not have a Mary.
7. Willoughby has many different spelling possibilities.
In that time period the law stated that only Anglican Churches could perform marriages. (exceptions for Jews and Quakers). But non conformists could do baptisms and burials. The only Anglican churches were Sheffield, Ecclesfield (5 miles away) and Bradfield (10 miles away). If you lived in the triangle between you would choose to marry at the most convenient one. The terrain was rugged, there were few bridges over the rivers, the roads were awful (in the 1790s Samuel Taylor Coleridge famously visited Underbank Unitarian in the middle of that triangle and described the diabolical nature of his journey. It was far from Xanadu and stately pleasure domes). There are only 5 miles between Ecclesfield and Sheffield, and there were 20 years between baptism and marriage, so you cannot make a link between baptism church and marriage church.
It looks like there are no available baptism records for the four brothers, or their father so I assume perhaps they were Methodist.
There is a good chance you will have some success.
Dave

Cathi

As this is such a 'head scratcher', Dave T and I have put our heads together to look in detail at your Washington- Hough 1781 marriage and the id of Mary Hough. We are convinced it is solvable because Hough was at that time a rare name in Sheffield, and there were some very unusual first names as well. Along with the 'pattern' of naming down the generations.

A key clue is the identity of MARGARET MAKIN, one of the witnesses at the wedding. We think she probably married a couple of years later in 1783, and she was the daughter of John Mekin and his wife Ann Hough. Ann was one of the older sisters of Willoughby Hough, the father of Mary Hough baptised 1857. So if your Mary was Willoughby’s daughter, then the witness Margaret Makin (Mekin) was her cousin and that would seem to fit.

We have built up a long list of references which show a very detailed picture of this Family going back to the early 17th century, and there are lots of coincidences which seem to confirm the connections.

Dave will make that list available and we're happy to explain our 'research strategy'.

Denise

Hi Cathi

Below is a link to an Excel file which is a Timeline (Chronological order) of many factual references to your Hough/Haugh/Hugh family. To make it easier to follow it has been colour coded. To make searching in FMP easier use the wildcard , viz H*ugh.
You will note that MARGARET occurs many times in the family over the generations, and it does not occur in the other couple of families of the same name in the area.
Dave

https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Hough%20With%20Colour%20Code.xlsx?role=personal

Hi Dave:

Yes, I have been coming to the same conclusions just working on other things:
John Hough, Filesmith married Mary Hawksley on the 27 May 1714, Sheffield, St. Peter & St. Paul
They had these children Baptized at St Peter's & St. Paul's Cathedral:
1. Elizabeth, Baptized: 8 April 1715 married Charles Shaw 25 May 1738
2. Sampson, Baptized: 5 Sept. 1716, Freedom Certificate 1737
3. John, Baptized: 15 Oct. 1718, Freedom Certificate 1739
4. Joshua, Baptized: 18 Nov. 1720, Freedom Certificate 1741
5. Mary, Baptized: 25 Jan. 1722, Burial 14 Mar 1723
6. Ann, Baptized: 5 Nov 1724, Married John Mekin, A Cutler, Date of Marriage 17 Nov 1747, Daughter Margaret, Baptized: 26 Dec. 1760, A Margaret Makin was a Witness at the Wedding of Joseph Washington and Mary Hough on the 6 May 1781. So, it would appear that Margaret Makin was a cousin to Mary Hough.
6. Hannah, Baptized: 30 January 1726, married 30 March 1752 to John Woodcock / Wedcock, Cutler
7. Willoughby, Baptized: 21 Feb. 1727, Received Freedom: 1750; married Ann Cook, on 14 February 1757 and had these children: Mary Hough, 1757, Margaret, 1759, John Hough, 1762, Sampson, 1764, Willougby, 1767; Father Willougby died age 39 and was buried 14 May 1767 at St. Peter's and St. Pauls, Sheffield.
It appears that his daughter Mary, 1757 may have been the wife of Joseph Washington and shed was would have only been 10 years old when her father died in 1767.
8. Mary, Baptized: 3 March 1730, Burial 30 Aug 1731
9. Joseph, Baptized: 3 March 1730
10. Sarah, Baptized: 27 March 1733
11. Margaret, Baptized 22 Sept. 1734

PS: Can't seem to open the https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Hough%20With%20Colour%20Code.xlsx?role=personal

Thank again for all your help. Cathi Gross

Denise and Dave:

Wonderful job on the Spread Sheet. . .Thank you for helping me to get in. Great Job!

https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Hough%20With%20Colour%20Code.xlsx?role=personal

From the work Dave and Denise did from the Excel Sheet this is what I have found. I hope I'm thinking like you are. . .
Next family group appears to be:
John or Johannis Haugh / Hough, a Filesmith who married Maria Stwardson in the year 1686. They had these Children:
1. Margareta Hough / Haugh, Baptized 10 May 1687, at Sheffield, was Buried: 5 Sept 1688 at Sheffield, father John
2. Sarah Hough / Haugh, Baptized 25 July 1688, at Sheffield
3. Hannah Hough / Haugh, Baptized 4 Sept 1690, at Sheffield
4. John Hough / Haugh, Baptized 12 Feb 1691, 8 year Apprenticeship 1705, List of Aparentices and Freemen, p. 239 Heading 'Haugh' - John son of John, f., dec.(Dec. = Abbreviation for Deceased?); to Bayley Sampson, f.; 8, 1705, F. 1713
Father: John Hough appears to have died and was buried 24 March 1698, at Sheffield
Wife: Maria Stawardson appears to remarry on the 19 July 1694 to Ricus Barker


Page 256 History of the Cutters Company - shows a John Hough (I) s. of Sampson to Dawson Wm. ., Fi. (Filesmith)., Certificate of Freedom 1686. . .That would fit with the time of marriage for John Hough and Maria Stwardson in the year 1686.

So, Next Father: Sampason Hough, I think that's what next on the excel sheet.

Am I heading in the right direction?
Cathi

Thank so much for all your help. It's been fun.

This is what I found for Sampson Hough:
No Wife:
Sampson's Children:
1. John Hough, Baptized 24 February 1665, Tankersley, Yorkshire, England, Page 256 History of the Cutlers Company Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686
2. Margaret Hough, Baptized 9 June 1669, Tankersley, Yorkshire England
3. Ann Hough, Baptized 28 Sept 1675, Tankersley, Yorkshire, England
4. Mary Hough, Baptized 25 July 1676, Tankersley, Yorkshire, England
5. Nathaniel Hough, son of Sampson Buried: March 1676, Tankersley, Yorkshire, England

Hi Cathi

We did consider the marriage of John Hough to Maria Stewardson, as its a perfect fit in terms of time/place. My only slight reservation was that, as far as I could see, her father was called Christopher (? needs checking) and thats a name that doesnt appear anywhere. Which seems a bit at odds with the names that keep running through the generations.

Now that might be because;

- Maria and John only had 1 son John, so didnt get the opportunity to use Christopher.
- Christopher died when Maria and Johns children were young (or Maria was young) so they never knew him so wouldnt use the name Christopher when naming their children.

But everything else fits so in the absence of an obvious alternative I think its the best guess.

Denise

Good morning Denise:

Thank you so much for your help. You and Dave have been Angels. I really appreciate the time you both have taken to help me. Two more thoughts on the matter

Since John Hough who married Maria Stewardson was dead by 1693. How was John able to give his son John an Apprenticeship, since he was dead by 1693. (age (256): Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686) Wouldn't his wife had to have been the one to do that, since he was dead.

What are you thoughts on that. . . .

2nd Question:
It appears that Maria remarried in 1694 to Ricus Barker. The name "Barker" is a name seen before in the family. In fact William Washington, (son of Joseph Washington and Sarah Carnall) his 2nd Wife (who he was not married to and had several Children with and Came to Connecticut, USA with was Named: "Esther A. Barker". I wonder of she was related to Ricus Barker and Maria. I was trying to see if Ricus and Maria had any children, but could find anything in the Sheffield Area. I wonder if they moved away for a bit and how would I find where they moved to? It would be interesting to see if there is any connection there. Maybe she was a 2nd cousin to William Washington or some kind of cousin, since it a bit back there.

3rd Question: Would some of John (of Sampson Hough) married to Maria, could some of them been born in Tankersley, Yorkshire. Also there was another John Hough that died in the year 1737 and was buried in Tankersley rather than Sheffield. What should I think about that? Does that cause an issue?

Thanks again for your help,
Sincerely, Cathi Gross

Cathi, dealing with q1. JOHN SON OF john (dec) to Bayley , Sampson fi 8, 1705 F 1813 means : John, who was the son of john who was already deceased, was in 1705 apprenticed to Sampson Bayley filesmith for 8 years. In 1713 John both qualified for, and chose to purchase, his trademark.
Dave

Oops, for 1805 and 1813' read 1705and 1713
Dave

Thank you Dave for the confirmation. I just wanted to make sure the John Hough that died in 1693 was the right person. And you helped confirm this, since there is no other John hough that was dead by 1713, when the son john received his Freedom Certificate. It appears by the way it is written that the father was dead by the time John the son had begun his Apprenticeship back in the year 1705. I have not seen any other burial's for a John Hough before this, but will take another look to make sure.

Curious: How did Dorthy _ _ _ _? who Was buried 1664 in Rotherham became one of the Last Sampson Hough's Wives?

Going back through FMP I have found 2 other Burials that could have also been a match for his wife.
1. of Course was Dorothy Haugh, buried in the year 1664, Rotherham Minister, Yorkshire
2. Grace Haugh, buried 1663, Rotherham Minister, Yorkshire
3. Mary Haugh, buried 1658, Rotherham Minister, Yorkshire

Maybe The First Sampson Hough was married more than once?. . .

One other Question how did the First Sampson Hough _ _ _ _ _say 1624 to 1660s who may have married Dorothy Haugh who was Buried 1664 in Rotherham. How did this name come up for being the father and mother of the Next Sampson Hough, married to possibly a Margaret_ _ _ _? who gave birth to John Hough, Baptized 1665, Received Freedom Certificate 1713?

Found a few more things for the Rotherham Area of Yorkshire some marriages that could have been the children of Sampson and Dorthy _ _ _ _ _?
1. Sarah Haugh married Elias Broadhead, 10 August 1664, Rotherham (Poss. Aprox. birth year 1643)
2. James Haugh married Jane Hurst, 22 July 1668, Rotherham (poss Aprox Birth Year 1645)
3. Isabel Haugh married Thomas Turner, 30 June 1668, Rotherham (Poss Aprox Birth year 1647)

I also found some more things in Tackhill, Yorkshire, England. Is there any relationship to Rotherham and Sheffield?
1. Margaret Hough, wife of John, Burial 26 August 1646, Tackhill, Yorkshire, England
2. It Appears that John remarried: Dorothy Hough, wife of John, Burial 8 June 1656, Tickhill, Yorkshire, England

Are these Possibilities . . .? I can't find Anything that Connects a Sampson and a Dorothy together. . .Except maybe the Burial of 1664 in Rotherham, but it does not say who her husband was?

And one more thing: Found a Wedding 1635, in Sheffield between a William Hough and Margret North. . .The parish register of Sheffield in the county of York
by Sheffield, Eng. (Parish); Drury, Charles, of Sheffield, Eng., ed; Hall, Thomas Walter, 1862-1953, joint ed
Site Address: https://archive.org/details/parishregisterof02shef/page/216/mode/2up/search/Hough

Anyway ideas. . .??????
Cathi G.

If you read the excel sheet you will see that Sampson Hough married Dorothy Littlewood in 1623. Dorothy is spelt strangely but if you search D*y you will find her.
Dave

Hi Cathi

To answer your earlier questions

I couldnt find any children for Ricus and Maria in Sheffield either. They could have moved away but to try and find them you'd need to do a wide search for any childrens baptism anywhere. If you find out where Ricus was born - if it wasnt Sheffield he may have moved back to where he was born?


On the Spreadsheet theres a John Hough (hammerman) at Tankersley whos having children around that time (we found a daughter Hanah B 1737) (so obviously a Hough line at Tankersley). We hadnt made any direct connection to John Hough/Mary Hawksleys family. But I wouldnt have thought it was linked to John Hough and Maria Stewardson either, unless you can find the occupation of John on his and Marias childrens baptism records?

Because it is so messy, this is what we tried to do with the spreadsheet on Sheet 1 - break the findings down into obvious groupings based on Location, fathers occupation and dates.


There are 3 children born in about the right timeframe, father William
James (or Jacob) 1636
John 1643
Sara 1650



Denise

There are 3 children born in about the right timeframe, father William
James (or Jacob) 1636
John 1643
Sara 1650

Hi Denise: Could this William that married Margaret North in Sheffield also have had a child name Sampson Whose son John was apprenticed, "for Son John to Wm. Dawson, Freedom 1686
Freedom 1686 • Sheffield, Yorkshire, England"
Page (256): Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686

It just make more since to me, I guess, more then anything else, but there is nothing to prove it. I just hate that. And the Sampson that had a son John Apprenticed, could have been born about 1642, which would have fit in with William Hough and Margaret North.

What are you feeling's on this. I like what you have layed out so far, but I think I am getting more confused.

Oh one more thing, it would appear that William Hough that was married to Margaret North had a son William Apprenticed to be a grinder: page 256 "History of the Cutlers Company", Heading "Hough" William, son of William, Brightside, h.; to Newbould Francis, Newfield, Grn (Grinder) 7, 1654

Isn't Brightside also in Sheffield, Yorkshire (West Riding), England?

Thank thank you again for all your help, it has been very kind.

Cathi Gross

I found a Sampson Hough in the Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, It's all written in latin, so I'm not sure what the words are saying. I found it on ancestry.com, where I also have an subscription. This is where he was living according to the Quarter Session Rec.
1. 31 May 1666 • Holbrough, Wakefield, Yorkshire, England
2. 10 Oct 1687 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England
3. 11 Oct 1687 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England
4. 20 Apr 1688 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England

It uses the word Indictment and it gives the years 1687 - 1692

Does anyone know what these Quarter session Records are about? And is this Sampson Hough, that Sammon Hough whose son John was apprenticed, "for Son John to Wm. Dawson, Freedom 1686
Freedom 1686 • Sheffield, Yorkshire, England" Page (256): Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686

Cathi,
The quarter sessions were criminal trials which were held every 3 months at Wakefield. If you send me a copy of what you have I will translate
Clearly Sampson committed a crime and was tried.
Dave

Hi Cathi

Well it is possible, especially as the gaps between those 3 children are quite wide, which would indicate more children. But even doing a wide search I cant find any others.


Yes, Brightside is in Sheffield but nothing to tie that William to other Houghs yet.

.
Well I think this is where a lot of us end up when searching our trees when we get back to this time period. Unless your family is well documented, fairly unique/notable, uncommon name, its all pretty much guess work as the facts to prove anything just dont exist.

While I am a big believer in following the naming conventions down generations, as you've found, it can also cause issues. I have the same problem in part of my family.

I think you have a lot of key data in the spreadsheet and in your early post re Joseph Washington and Mary Hough and their children. What I've found useful is to draw out the various family groupings- effectively into mini trees. Then pin them on a wall so its a clear visual representation you can study more easily. I've found that using something like an old roll of wallpaper is great. I use coloured 'post it' sticky notes, so its easy to 'move people around' if you decide they dont quite fit a particular group.

You've already got a start with the colour-coding/timeline and groupings in the spreadsheet. It might help to clear the fog a little.

Denise

Denise you have been a big help! Thank you. :wink:

I have one last question:

I found a Sampson Hough in the Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, It's all written in latin, so I'm not sure what the words are saying. I found it on ancestry.com, where I also have an subscription. This is where he was living according to the Quarter Session Rec.
1. 31 May 1666 • Holbrough, Wakefield, Yorkshire, England
2. 10 Oct 1687 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England
3. 11 Oct 1687 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England
4. 20 Apr 1688 • Wortley, Wakefield, County Yorkshire, England

It uses the word Indictment and it gives the years 1687 - 1692

Does anyone know what these Quarter session Records are about? And can the Latin be interpreted?

And could this Sampson Hough, that Sammon Hough whose son John was apprenticed, "for Son John to Wm. Dawson, Freedom 1686 - Freedom 1686 • Sheffield, Yorkshire, England" Page (256): Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686

He would' diffidently fit in as one of children of William and Margaret (North) Hough's Children, since there isn't a baptism for him. William Hough, Occupation:Grinder
Children of William and Margaret, married 6 Oct 1635
1. Margaret Hough daughter of William, Buried 26 Oct. 1636
2. Jacobus (Jacob), Baptized 23 October 1636
3. William Hough, Baptized 12 April 1640, Apprenticeship for 7 years to Francis Newbould, GrinderGrinder from 1654-1661 in Newfeld, England (Newfeld I believe in in Durham, England)
William Married Ellen Cutforsha, 11 May 1665
4. John Hough, baptized 2 Oct 1641/42
5. Sampson Hough, Abt. 1642/43, Residence (From the Yorkshire, England Quarter Session 1637-1914 Records) 31 May 1666 Holbrough, Wakfield, Yorkshire, England, 10 Oct 1687, 11 Oct 1687, 20 April 1688 Wortley, Wakefield, Yorkshire, England. An Apprenticeship for son John, Page (256): Hough, John son of Sampson, to Dawson Wm., Fi , F. 1686 (No Name for Wife)
6. Sarah Hough, Baptized 15 Sept. 1650.

Anyway, a Sampson Hough fit's within William and Margaret (North) Hough's family and is a possibility.

Anyway, do you know of anyone who could translate the Yorkshire, England Quarter Session Records 1637-1914. Maybe it has something that will connect Sampson Hough, to this family or another.

Thank you, again for all your help and thoughts on this matter. :innocent:

Hi Cathi

Think you must have missed Dave Ts earlier post (before my previous one)

Denise

CATHI please read the message below which is a straight copy of one I posted earlier.
Cathi,
The quarter sessions were criminal trials which were held every 3 months at Wakefield. If you send me a copy of what you have I will translate
Clearly Sampson committed a crime and was tried.
Dave

Hi Densie and Dave: Yes, I did miss the earlier message by Dave. I have been in and out all day. So, please forgive me. Thank you for understanding you have both have been a huge help.
Cathi :innocent:

Cathi
Thanks for the four Wakefield Quarter Sessions files. One (1688) is in English and very short. Sampson Hough of Wortley was ordered to pay Nineteen shillings and a penny to Edward Pedley for work done by Edward and his wife for Sampson.
In todays values that would be several hundreds of dollars.
The other 3 are in Latin and they are very good quality copies. However the handwriting is terrible in each case so just reading the words is difficult and some are impossible. Fortunately each document is structured in an obviously standard legal format, so I have been able to get the general sense of each one.
One of the two in 1686 is about a dispute between Sampson Hough of Wortley and Maria the wife of Edward Pedley. They lived in the adjoining house. There was an altercation and he spoke strong insulting words and physically attacked her. She threw a rock at him.
The court decided they were equally to blame.
The second one in 1686 is only one day different from the first, but it is very different handwriting, and it is more serious. Sampson Hough of Wortley and Edris Storks (a farmer) are charged with beating up a man called Lewestride Goudge, who was also known as Johan Smyth and Johan Johnson. There are words like malicious, injury. There is also reference to whipping, but I am unsure whether they whipped him or that they were sent for corporal punishment. Johan was granted compensation.
Now the really serious one.
In 1666, January, Sampson Hough of Holbrough, (and one or two other men (one of Wortley)) were charged with a vicious attack on a man called Lewestride Goudge, aka Johan Bammforth. The assailants are described in very strong terms as a disgrace to their ancestors, scum of the earth (my very loose precis). Loud screaming is mentioned
It is unclear whether the victim survived or not, but, regardless of that, the assailants were sent to be executed.

So you have at least 2 more Sampson Houghs for your timeline
I cannot find a Holbrough, but there is a Howbrook a little south of Wortley and north west of Tankersley.
Dave

Thank you Dave:

That is fantastic! and very helpful. I am beginning to think that the Hough/Haugh may have come from Ashbourne, Debyshire, England. As I have been putting together as you have shown through the graph and adding other possible family member. It's beginning to make some sense. The Children of Nicholas Hough and Jane Killingbecke appear that a couple of the children may have come into Sheffield area. Still doing more work, but everything you and Denise have proved have been a big help.

Thank you so much for the translation of documents I sent you.

Sincerely,
Cathi Gross

I was WRONG, the Children of Nicholas Hough and Jane Killingbecke do NOT Work at all Ashbourne, Derbyshire, England.

I was WRONG, the Children of Nicholas Hough and Jane Killingbecke from Ashbourne, Derbyshire, England, do not work at all. So, I don't what to confuse anyone who is working on this line.

Hi Cathi

If you remember an earlier post from Dave

This marriage was in Crich, Derbyshire. And although as we've said, we havent been able to find any trace of Sampson (Samsson) and Dorothy after their marriage (which is why we highlighted the death of a Dorothy Hough/Haugh in Rotherham), or any children, there does seem to be a strong 'Hough' line in Crich/Wirksworth in Derbyshire.

Sampson and Dorothy must have ended up somewhere - quite possibly Sheffield or Wortley (I have ancestors that moved from Crich/Wirksworth to both Sheffield and Rotherham, so not beyond the realms of possibility).

So it might be worth investigating the Houghs in Crich/Wirksworth just to rule them out.

Denise

Hi Denise

Thank for the idea, and I will it out check for the Hough Family.

Cathi :innocent: