Genealogy Forum UK

...James Bradley b1838

Can anyone see where I've gone wrong?

As you will see, this marriage has been looked up and I have his father as James

Marriage 9 Apr 1887 St Luke Cradley Heath
James BRADLEY F W Miner Peartree St Father James Bradley Miner
Mary PRIEST F W Peartree St Father Richard Pearson Miner
Wit; William Grove X Harriet Priest

Here are the results of the other 2 look ups....

Marriage 13 Oct 1856 St Thomas Dudley
James BRADLEY M B Miner Dudley Father Richard Bradley (Dec) Miner
Hannah WILLETTS M S Dudley Father Thomas Willetts Boat Builder
Wit; Edward Willetts X Mary Willetts X

Marriage 1 Jan 1871 St thomas Dudley
James BRADLEY 22 W Miner Dudley Father Richard Bradley (Dec) Miner
Jane PARSONS 20 S Dudley Father Joseph Parsons Miner
Wit; Charlotte Bowen X John Smith X

mallosa wrote:
Marriage 13 Oct 1856 St Thomas Dudley
James BRADLEY M B Miner Dudley Father Richard Bradley (Dec) Miner
Hannah WILLETTS M S Dudley Father Thomas Willetts Boat Builder
Wit; Edward Willetts X Mary Willetts X

Here's a James with father Richard (a nailer)

1851: Cox's Lane, Rowley Regis
Richard Bradley 45 Head Nailer
Susannah Bradley 36 Wife
Joseph Bradley 18 Son U Nailer
James Bradley 13 Son U Coalminer
Maryann Bradley 8 Dau Nurse
Richard Bradley 7 Son
James Smith 17 - U Coalminer
(all born Rowley Regis)

Is this Richard with son James?

1841: Old Hill, Rowley Regis
James Bradely 74 Nailer
Sarah Bradely 30
Ann Bradely 5
Samuel Bradely 80
Richard Bradely 35
Hannah Bradely 40
Joseph Bradely 9
James Bradely 3
Richard Bradely 1
James Bradley 25 Nailer (not transcribed)
(all born in County)

mallosa wrote:
Marriage 1 Jan 1871 St thomas Dudley
James BRADLEY 22 W Miner Dudley Father Richard Bradley (Dec) Miner
Jane PARSONS 20 S Dudley Father Joseph Parsons Miner
Wit; Charlotte Bowen X John Smith X

If this is him, I'm wondering if his age is right on that look up

1871: Peartree Street, Rowley Regis
James Bradley 32
Jane Bradley 21
Mary Ann Bradley 11
Jamima Bradley 66 (age 6)

These look like 2 different James to me
one with father James
one with father Richard ....that james marries twice

hmmmm dunno now

think it must be an error on the marriage
cos the census tie up dont they

1881: 65 Pear Tree Street, Rowley Regis
James Bradley 44 Head Coalminer
Jane Bradley 28 Wife
Mary A. Bradley 21 Dau Nailmaker
Jemima Bradley 19 Dau Nailmaker
Hannah Bradley 7 Dau
Samuel Bradley 3 Son


and
1891: 21 Pear Tree Street, Rowley Regis
James Bradley 53 Head Coalminer
Mary Bradley 40 Wife
Harriet E Pearson 20 Step Dau S Staple Maker
Richard Priest 16 Step Son Ironworker
Hannah Bradley 16 Dau Staple Maker (bolt)
Joseph Priest 13 Step Son Screwer Nut and Bolt Factory (married Hannah Parsons)
Samuel Bradley 13 Son Blower for Chainmaker
Sarah E Priest 11 Step Dau
James Bradley 2 Son
Zephorah Bradley 5ths Dau
Mary Bradley 3 Dau
(all born Rowley Regis)

Does this link Mary who marries James Bradley in 1887 in..

look...in 1881 James Bradley and wife Jane are living next door to what looks like possibly Richard Priest
http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =920429321

1881: 65 Pear Tree Street, Rowley Regis
James Bradley 44 Head Coalminer
Jane Bradley 28 Wife
Mary A. Bradley 21 Dau Nailmaker
Jemima Bradley 19 Dau Nailmaker
Hannah Bradley 7 Dau
Samuel Bradley 3 Son

next door are Richard (34) and Elizabeth (32) Priest and family



brother of Jabez who marries Mary Pearson

Mary then marries James bradley

1871 Peartree Street Rowley
Richard Priest 63 Head Coal Miner
Elizabeth Priest 60 Wife
William Priest 34 Son Unm
Richard Priest 23 son Mar
Elizabeth Priest 22 Daur Mar
Samuel Priest 19 Son Unm
Joseph Priest 11 months Son
All born Rowley



I think add it all
put a note re James as father on 3rd marriage and get an urgent recheck on name of father on that marriage
but looks ok to me just a mistrans by vicar maybe

Thanks for looking at this Jan!

I've been tearing my hair out with this one

Here you go, this is what I've added - ..here

also added in the notes...
To be rechecked!
Marriage rec has James as his father on this marriage, could it be a mistrans by vicar?


and added as an Urgent lookup

can now be archived pending