TWISS or TWIST from Haydock

[Kirsty]

• Do you have Joseph on the 41/51/61 censuses? The combined information of the censuses should give you an aprox. birth year and birth location.
• Do you have Joseph's burial record? The burial record should give you age at death, which in turn should help with year of birth.
• Joseph had a daughter named Sarah and a son named Thomas, which although not conclusive, helps tie Thomas and Sarah TWISS/TWIST to Joseph.

All of the above plus the 1789 baptism should tie together to give you a firm connection between Thomas & Sarah and Joseph.

 

Also, if Thomas & Sarah aren't Joseph's parents, then who is? If you've eliminated everyone else and who remains matches the censuses, burial record and naming patterns then it looks like you've got a winner to me.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Kirsty

[Lainey1978]

Yeah, he had to have been born around 1789. But there WAS another one born in May of that year, to a James and Mary Twiss/Twist. I suppose those are the only other candidates. I don't know what happened to that Joseph.

 

Just for the record, I believe his parents are Thomas and Sarah, but I just want to be sure. Or to try to be sure. I guess both of these could be that Joseph (the one born to James and Mary), meaning he died, but the burial doesn't mention an age or parents or anything:

 

Baptism: 3 May 1789 St Mary the Virgin, Prescot, Lancashire, England
Joseph Twist - Son of James Twist & Mary
Born: 9 Apr
Abode: Prescot
Occupation: Labourer
Register: Baptisms 1766 - 1809, Page 102, Entry 40
Source: LDS Film 1657583

Burial: 23 Jun 1789 St Luke (formerly St Wilfrid), Farnworth (Widnes), Lancashire, England
Joseph Twist -
Abode: Prescot
Register: Burials 1761 - 1812, Page 69, Entry 4
Source: LDS Film 1655234 item 3

[Kirsty]

I see what you mean.

 

Hmmm. This is a tricky one.

 

The burial you found could be for either Joseph or an entirely different Joseph. If only that burial had contained just a little more information - frustrating or what.

 

Not wanting to throw fuel on this fire but..

The Joseph who is the son of James and Mary is a slightly better fit date wise.

On the 2nd August 1866 burial record for Joseph it records he died at the age of 77.

Joseph son of Thomas and Sarah would actually have only been 76..

But Joseph son of James and Mary would have been bang on the money at age 77. Also, Joseph's eldest son was James (the eldest son was often but not always named after the paternal grandfather).

 

However, the Joseph son of James and Mary was born in Prescot (going off the baptism record)

And the Joseph son of Thomas and Sarah was born in Haydock (going off the baptism record and then backed up by the 51/61 censuses).

 

This isn't crystal clear but the Haydock bit swings it for me.

Also, I know Joseph changes his occupation but for the most part he seems to have been employed at the colliery (even the basket making could have related to the colliery). Thomas was employed in the colliery and it looks like son followed in fathers occupational footsteps..

 

Does that help (or just make things muddier - lol), Kirsty

[Lainey1978]

No, that helps a lot! So you think the Haydock Joseph--son of Thomas and Sarah--is the right one? I don't know enough about the area to know which is more likely. I know, for example, that Haydock and Prescot are in the same general area..that's all I really know, lol!

[Kirsty]

I'm from Newton-le-Willows which boarders Haydock. A local person wouldn't confuse Prescot and Haydock. They're really quite separate. If Haydock "belongs" to a larger town (if you know what I mean), then that larger town would be St. Helens and never Prescot.

 

I know we can all present examples of where a persons location of birth varies (even when we are 100% certain we are looking at the same person). However, from the very first example (baptism record) to the very final example (burial record) and everything in-between (census records and children's baptism records) Joseph's birth place and residence remains the same = Haydock. Never any variation.

 

It just feels really "right" in this respect. The total consistency of birth place and place of residence just rings true (to me anyway - lol).

 

Also, Thomas TWISS and Sarah nee KNOWLES appear to have been from Haydock too. And interestingly, I was going over my TWISS / TWIST notes when I realised Thomas TWISS b. 1753 was the son of another Thomas TWISS who was living in Haydock at the time of his 1740 marriage. So that's a really long (at least three generation, including Joseph and his father and grandfather) connection with / residence in Haydock.

 

Here is the 1740 marriage I was referring too;

 

15/05/1740

St. Luke, Lowton, Lancs

Thomas TWISS and Mary BAILY both of Haddock and in this parish by Pub:

 

and then there is another line which is difficult to read and I'm not 100% certain whether is belongs to the above marriage or not but it reads something like as follows;

Settled to this place and then what looks like a signature.

 

NOTE: Haddock in an old spelling of Haydock.

 

Lainey, I've really enjoyed this thread. It's got me re-examining my tree and really thinking about why I've drawn the conclusions I've come to. Which is a very good thing - lol.

 

Bye for now,

 

Kirsty