Harrisons in Gisburn Forest

[Ashdene]

I am looking at my Harrison ancestor line in Gisburn Forest. My G G Grandfather was John Harrison (dob circa 1811) who apparently was the son of Stephen Harrison (1776 to 1857) from Hindley Head Farm in Gisburn Forest. I have John’s marriage certificate to Margaret Hitchin dated 25 April 1840, and death certificate dated 11 May 1870 aged 59yrs. This puts his DOB in 1811. According to research to date (and I refer to “The Harrison’s of Gisburn Forest by Bill Harrison) which has been followed my many others doing their own research, it is assumed that Stephen is John’s father although the details of his birth are very scanty. It appears reasonable as John’s address on marriage is Hindley Head and there are other references to Stephen living at Hindley Head also. However, there is no record of John’s birth. There is a John Harrison who was born in 1811 but his father is James, married to Ellen in 1808. James was a farmer, as was Stephen and John. James does not appear on the 1841 census, but I have noted that a James Harrison and then Ellen Harrison both died in 1818, and I just wonder if there is a link here. I wonder if anyone else has looked at this or could tell me who James was and if he could possibly be related. Or, could anybody advise me where to look next, or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

[gardener]

Hi
You say that you have John's marriage certificate. Does it name his father?

[Ashdene]

Hi

Yes, I should have said, it does say Stephen but isn't it possible to have said that if he had essentially been with Stephen since he was 7yrs old? I should have also said that close siblings are accounted for on record whereas John isn't

[Polly Lynn]

Hi, Ashdene,

Good question about John's father. Your John is person #25 in the book by Bill Harrison, Harrisons of Gisburn. The book gives a birth year of about 1812, and that another sibling William is born about two years after John and sister Mary was born four years before John (with space for losing one child). So the spacing is good for Stephen #7 to be John's father. John is not way older (Stephen the uncle taking a child from a deceased sibling) or way younger than other children (hiding a pregnancy) and he does not overlap a sibling in age (meaning he is not biological). So the spacing does not point to John being taken in by Stephen; although John could still have been adopted.

Author Bill Harrison in Harrisons of Gisburn Forest did not find any funny business among Stephen 7's family, so he did not suspect that John's father was anyone but Stephen 7. Maybe Mr. Harrison was reluctant to mention adoptions. Documentation might include James's will or probate and Stephen's will and probate. Also Orphans' Court, as part of probate; John might have inherited something from James or had a guardian appointed (Stephen), were James the father.

This is my first public message and being shy about a first posting I sent you a private message about 10 minutes ago. For the whole world the gist of it was that when a child is taken in at the age John was--age seven--when James Harrison died (1811), as you are suggesting John was his biological parents who raised him for a while are called mother and father, or late father and mother, or father (dec'd or deceased), and anyone who takes him in would be called something other than father: like sponsor (for someone who gives a bride away), master (for an apprentice). I would go with Stephen being the father. I wish I could look back at your message while typing this one, to get these names and dates right for when James died, but I think you said James died when John was about 7.

In genealogy when one document says one thing like story A (Stephen was John's father) and another distinct/unrelated/underived document says another thing like story B, you are in a quandry. In genealogy it is suggested that you find a third document. Of course that is what you are trying to do, find more documentation. Two Y DNA tests of two sons of Stephen 7 (John and say William) could show about when the two boys split, when their common ancestor was. If, as you suggest, John Harrison 25 was not a son of Stephen Harrison 7 then the split would not be the birth of Stephen 7 in 1776 (baptism), but earlier, whenever John and William have a common ancestor, say their grandpa, a generation earlier.

About finding more documentation, I have just seen baptisms, marriages, and burials from Gisburn Parish, work done by a genealogist we Harrisons hired, Dr. Kate Sherry of Ancestor Trail. Among other documents, she looked at Gisburn Parish through the lens of FamilySearch, which as you know is online and free to you. Have oyu looked for John's baptismal record there? Clearly Bill Harrison looked either online or at the actual register. You are right to notice that Bill gives real dates/days for the sister before John and the son after John, but John gets only an "about 1812" similar to two earlier siblings.

Lastly, you suggest that James was the father of John because of geography. Again I am going from memory because I don't know yet how to look at your message and type mine at the same time. Geography is good when people are very far spread apart. But Harrisons are thick on the ground in Gisburn Forest. Without going into detail, I see several heads of family on the same farm, same village. And 1812 is the Industrial Revolution, with some movement off the farms and into houses near factories and houses in town for practicing a trade or whatever. My point being geography is very important, but a little slippery. For example in the Harrison family there are no baptismal records for Gisburn Parish from 1642 to 1677, so trying to tell where fahters were living and children were born, good luck to me. That 35-year gap in baptismal records is almost a whole generation born and died (back then). Just because James is in the record, does not mean John is his child. John was baptised by his father, whoever he was, whether there is a surviving record or not. You are right to follow geography; it's one of the best tools, among other tools.

Good luck. And I would go with Stephen 7 being the father of John 25 until you have a second document (or a first and second) that puts his paternity in question.

Polly

[Polly Lynn]

Hi, Ashdene,

I have just reread your question. I noticed when you said John was 59 at death and said that that put his birth in 1811. Bill Harrison had "about 1812." And you gave as your reason for thinking James was the father to be that James had a son born in 1811. Remember that once John was dead it was no longer John who was saying he was 59 years old. And not everyone who dies in May 1870 and says they are 59 were born in 1811, al almost half of them were not born in 1811, depending on whether they have had their birthday yet. Point being, John, whose birth day/date is not known, could have been born not in 1811.

And also, both Stephen and James could have had sons born in 1811. We don't have a birth record for John, you said.

[Polly Lynn]

In genealogy, the assumption is that when children, especially under age say 14, are living with adults, those are parents and their children. LIkewise, when a man and woman are living with children, the couple are assumed to be married and assumed to be the parents of those children. We don't tend to question marital relationship of parents or legitimacy of children unless we have a reason to. I don't see yet a reason to doubt that Stephen is the father of John.