Genealogy Forum UK

Nick there is a burial at Halesowen for John Toy 9.2.1797. No more details but he could be the son of Wm and Elizabeth

Linell.

anyone got halesowen parish record that cover this year ? who were the witnesses ?


William Toy
Betty Westwood
10 Apr 1786, Halesowen,Worcester,

linell wrote:Nick there is a burial at Halesowen for John Toy 9.2.1797. No more details but he could be the son of Wm and Elizabeth

Linell.

Was that on the Parish records?

10th April 1786. St John the Baptist, Halesowen
William Toy otp bach
Betty Westwood otp spin
Banns
Witnesses:- John X Clark and Joseph Chandler

grangers14 wrote:10th April 1786. St John the Baptist, Halesowen
William Toy otp bach
Betty Westwood otp spin
Banns
Witnesses:- John X Clark and Joseph Chandler

Great thanks.

Any advice on how I could connect William Toy to these two? It sounds very plausible, but it's not 100% certain as yet.

Also, can we get a population record for Halesowen around this time?

Also according to the LDS there is only 1 John Toy born in Halesowen around the time that John Tay was born (1795). The source is the 1841 census and it gives his age as 40 (b 1801), but that could have been rounded up.

There is also a John Foy (edited to Toy by a member) who was born in the same year 1801, although they are different people as they live with different people.

Hmm, and now there is this John Toy who was buried in 1797 in Halesowen. This person could be son of William and Elizabeth, but then he could also be older than what we may think, as we have no information about age. He could be an old man. Anyway of finding that out?

Also one other fact is that I have a John Toy in Halesowen aged 40 in 1841 census - with a christening on 1795 from LDS under John Tay, which means he is between 40 and 46...
...and William Toy in Halesowen aged 45 in 1841 census - with a christening on 1790 from LDS under William Tay, which means he is between 45 and 51.

The fact that there is this 5 year gap on the range for these 2 people are leading me to believe that they are brothers from William and Elizabeth Tay.

And as I know that William Toy 45 in 1841 census is my ancestor, I believe I now have a good shout for William and Elizabeth Tay being William and Elizabeth Toy, and my ancestors.

NickToye wrote:

grangers14 wrote:10th April 1786. St John the Baptist, Halesowen
William Toy otp bach
Betty Westwood otp spin
Banns
Witnesses:- John X Clark and Joseph Chandler

Great thanks.

Any advice on how I could connect William Toy to these two? It sounds very plausible, but it's not 100% certain as yet.

Joseph Chandler was a Church Official who Witnessed a lot of Marriages. Don't know about John Clark, could be a friend/relation or someone else connected to the Church.

NickToye wrote:Also, can we get a population record for Halesowen around this time?

Halesowen was in Shropshire until 1844. The Post Office Directory for 1845 gives a total of 17.000. But that included all the local Townships which surrounded the Town.

NickToye wrote:Also according to the LDS there is only 1 John Toy born in Halesowen around the time that John Tay was born (1795). The source is the 1841 census and it gives his age as 40 (b 1801), but that could have been rounded up.

There is also a John Foy (edited to Toy by a member) who was born in the same year 1801, although they are different people as they live with different people.

Hmm, and now there is this John Toy who was buried in 1797 in Halesowen. This person could be son of William and Elizabeth, but then he could also be older than what we may think, as we have no information about age. He could be an old man. Anyway of finding that out?

Nick not everyone is on the LDS site. Some people were baptised in Non Conformist Chapels or not at all, there could be a dozen John Toys/Tays. You cannot connect people just because they have the same surname. However I believe that you found a John Toy living in Crock Street near Wm Toy, so he probably does connect somewhere.

The burial I found for John Toy in 1797 from the Halesowen Register does not give an age, he could be a child or an elderly gentleman.

There are a lot of Toys and Tays in the Halesowen Parish Register, I will try and go through them tomorrow.

HTH Linell.

linell wrote:

NickToye wrote:Also according to the LDS there is only 1 John Toy born in Halesowen around the time that John Tay was born (1795). The source is the 1841 census and it gives his age as 40 (b 1801), but that could have been rounded up.

There is also a John Foy (edited to Toy by a member) who was born in the same year 1801, although they are different people as they live with different people.

Hmm, and now there is this John Toy who was buried in 1797 in Halesowen. This person could be son of William and Elizabeth, but then he could also be older than what we may think, as we have no information about age. He could be an old man. Anyway of finding that out?

Nick not everyone is on the LDS site. Some people were baptised in Non Conformist Chapels or not at all, there could be a dozen John Toys/Tays. You cannot connect people just because they have the same surname. However I believe that you found a John Toy living in Crock Street near Wm Toy, so he probably does connect somewhere.

The burial I found for John Toy in 1797 from the Halesowen Register does not give an age, he could be a child or an elderly gentleman.

There are a lot of Toys and Tays in the Halesowen Parish Register, I will try and go through them tomorrow.

HTH Linell.

Well normally I would say yes there could be multiple people of the same name, but like you say the fact they live on the same street, and they have the same 5 year age difference could well point to them being brothers.

Also John Toy was resident in Long Lane not Crock Street (I don't think anyway), however Long Lane and Crock Street are fairly close by.

And I have 2 death records for John Toy in Stourbridge. 1838 and 1859.

You may be right, who knows, you need to find some evidence that they were infact brothers. Could be Cousins or step brothers, seems like you need to do a lot more research before making any definite conclusions.

Linell.

linell wrote:You may be right, who knows, you need to find some evidence that they were infact brothers. Could be Cousins or step brothers, seems like you need to do a lot more research before making any definite conclusions.

Linell.

Yeah I know, trouble is I don't know where to start here. I'm overwhelmed with information.

But what we do know is that a William Toy and a John Toy were both baptised with the same parents, or parents with the same name. They were 5 years apart in age, and they both appear in the 1841 census with the same age difference in very close proximity.

What evidence needs to be uncovered to prove this?