The Mystery of Jane Ann DAWES (1805-1852?)

Following the life of Jane Ann DAWES has been a challenge. I recently received a death registration for a Jane BENNETT whom I believed to be her. However, it is dated 16th January 1851 and since I have found her in the 1851 census which was taken in March I don't believe that this can be her. Of course, to believe that everywhere in the UK was dutifully recorded on the 30th March 1851 is a stretch so it could be. In any event, I wrote out a history of her life as I know it a while ago and thought it was time to make it public.

Previous information on Jane Ann's line can be found here.

Jane begins life in Hadlow, Kent where she is baptised on 14 November 1805 as the second child of Thomas DAWS and Elizabeth WHITEBREAD. I haven't found a record of her actual date of birth.

On 09 August 1809, a Poor Law Removal Order orders Jane Ann (6) along with her older brother William (5) and younger sister Susan (2) and parents Thomas & Elizabeth back to Uckfield, Sussex from Hadlow, Kent.

The Sussex Family History Group Marriage Index CD records the marriage of Jane Ann DAWS and Thomas CHALFIELD on 23 October 1825 at Holy Cross Church, Uckfield. Jane is shown as OTP (Of This Parish) and Thomas is listed as a bachelor from Maresfield. The name CHALFIELD is the first error which has thrown off my research. It should have been CHATFIELD.

There is no sign of Jane and Thomas in the 1841 census although two boys William CHATFIELD (13) and Henry CHATFIELD (11) whom I believe to be their sons turn up living with Johnathan and Naomi STEVENS in Fletching. Also living with this family are Hannah CHATFIELD (78), Mary DRAWBRIDGE (50), and Harriet HEMSLEY (22). Hannah CHATFIELD may be their grandmother.

Further proof of Willam and Henry as the sons of Thomas and Jane Ann is found in the Selected Sussex Baptisms from the Sussex Family History Group which lists William (baptised 26 August 1827), Henery (baptised 09 August 1829), and Alfred (baptised 17 April 1831) all sons born to Thomas and Jane Ann CHATFIELD and baptised in St. Bartholomew's, Maresfield. No record of Alfred can be found in the 1841 census or later censuses so he must have died before 1841.

Thomas senior must have died before 1837 when vital registration began as no death record can be found anywhere.

By the time of the 1851 census, Jane had re-married John BENNETT of Hellingly. She is listed as Jane A., age 45, and born in Hadlow, Kent. Further confirmation of her new identity is made by the additional people listed in their home on census night which was 30th March 1851. There is Henry CHATFIELD (21) born Maresfield, his wife Phillis (25) born Chiddingly and son James (1) born Uckfield. Also visiting were Jane COOK (17) born Maresfield, who is unmarried and shown as a daughter-in-law which was used interchangeably for step-children and Anne BENNETT (19) an unmarried niece born Chiddingly.

Henry and Phyllis' marriage is confirmed by the GRO marriage index which records it in the March Quarter of 1849 in the Lewes Registration District. After James, they went on to have eight more children. Henry's recorded birth location of Maresfield is consistent with his father's parish on Thomas and Jane's marrage record.

The wild card here is Jane Cook shown as a daughter-in-law. Since she is listed as unmarried she isn't likely the married daughter of John BENNETT making her his step-child and the daughter of Jane Ann. This means that Jane Ann must have married a COOK between Thomas CHATFIELD and John BENNETT. Young Jane's age of seventeen places her birth about 1834 and too early for civil registration records. Since there is no LDS batch number for Maresfield there are no IGI baptisms which can be used to find her. There is no record of a marriage between Jane Ann CHATFIELD and a COOK(E) on the Sussex FHG CD so either it happened outside of Sussex or it was missed.

Following Jane COOK(E) into 1861, she is found visiting Henry and Frances HEMSLEY in Uckfield. Also in the household is young James COOKE (6) born Hailsham who is a boarder. I suspect that James is Jane's illigetimate son and has been placed with the HEMSLEY's. Frances HEMSLEY nee DAWES is Jane's mother's younger sister linking the families again. Just to be clear here Jane Ann CHATFIELD/COOKE/BENNETT and Frances HEMSLEYare sisters.

The only Jane COOKE in 1841 of an age to be this Jane is found in Uckfield with the family of William COOKE (70). His wife's name is Jane COOKE (35) who could be Jane Ann, especially since she is shown as not born in Sussex. The children's ages are spread between 15 and 6 with George (15), Charles (11), Tilden (male 8), and Jane (6) all born Sussex. The oldest boys, George and Charles ages conflict with the births of William and Henry CHATFIELD so I don't believe that these are her children. Therefore, only Tilden and Jane are potentially hers although given the age difference of 35 years between Jane (Ann) and William I believe that he married her to provide a mother for his children from a previous marriage. Then again, William is pretty old to have children this young even from a previous marriage. If young Jane was really a step-daughter of Jane Ann then her status is supported as a "daughter-in-law" on the 1851 census. So she could be either the child of William COOKE and a previous wife or William and Jane (Ann).

The Selected Sussex Baptisms from the SFHG help to clear up this mystery. An illegitamate son is baptised at St. Bartholomew's, Maresfield on 14 Apr 1833 to William COOKE - Carpenter and Jane CHATFIELD. The given name is Fidler although I believe that the census entry of Tilden is more likely correct. The way Fidler is written certainly could be mis-transcribed as Fidler. Later in the same record, a legitimate birth is found for Jane Ann COOK who was baptised 01 February 1835 and again on 01 December 1835. This means that Jane Ann and William were married sometime between 1833 and 1835. There is a William COOKE listed as an inmate of the Uckfield Union Workhouse in the 1851 census which may explain why no marriage between Jane Ann and John BENNETT can be found. Although there are a number of William COOKE deaths in Sussex between 1841 and 1861, there is only one in Uckfield which is registered in the March Quarter of 1852. According to the 1851 census, William COOKE was born in Heathfield about 1767 which is consistent which his age of 70 in the 1841 census since the rounded down 70 represents any age between 74 and 70.

There is no record of Jane Ann after the 1851 census. The GRO death index has a Jane BENNETT listed as dying in the March Quarter of 1851 in Registration District Hailsham. I like to believe that Jane Ann was dying and that's why her family had gathered around her on census night in 1851.

The only marriage of a John BENNETT to a Jane COOK is found in the September Quarter of 1838 in West London. I don't believe that this is theirs.

Therefore, I believe that in 1825, in Uckfield, Jane Ann DAWS married Thomas CHATFIELD of Marefield. They had three children William (born 1827), Henry (born 1829) and Alfred (born 1831), all in Maresfield. Sometime after Alfred's birth in 1831, Thomas died and Jane Ann remarried William COOKE but not before she had baseborn Tilden in 1833. Then in 1835, Jane Ann COOKE was born in Maresfield. William COOKE was committed to the workhouse between 1841 and 1851 and Jane Ann went to live John BENNETT of Hellingly where she died and John disappears after 1851 although there are a couple of GRO deaths that could be him between 1851 and 1861.

Gladys Kathleen DAWES or HORWATH

In the words broadcast from Apollo Thirteen "Houston we have a problem!"


I received the death certificate for Gladys Kathleen DAWES (1897-1979) and it opens up more questions than it answers. The earlier post on Gladys is available here.

It appears that Gladys died as the result of some sort or accident or unfortunate circumstance.

If I read it right, she died of an asthma attack brought on by an allergic reaction to an anesthetic which was administered at the Royal Sussex Hospital because Gladys had a fractured femur or broken hip. There was a coroner's inquest on 20th November 1979 and the last entry under the multiple causes of death is the word "misadventure." Was the misadventure the reason for the broken hip or the hospital's excuse for her accidental death?

Next we have her name which is shown as Gladys Kathleen HORWATH. Gladys never married and her death is indexed as DAWES but here her name is shown as HORWATH otherwise DAWES. I do know that she was a piano teacher and some kind of performer with a stage name of Kathleen YORK-PALMER. This is what Reg BARNES recounted about her in his memories.

Her parents, Ernest DAWES (1866-1948) and Mary Jane WRIGHT (1865-1941), were estranged at the time of their deaths but I don't believe that they ever got divorced. In Mary Jane's will, she expressed concern that Gladys wouldn't inherit her proper legacy from her father although Gladys was the only grandchild of "Thomas the Builder" to inherit one of his houses in 1925.

QUESTIONS - QUESTIONS - QUESTIONS
Was HORWATH another stage name? Would a 1979 coroner's inquest have been published in the papers? Where are inquest documents archived? Asthma and allergies certainly do follow the LANGRIDGE / DAWES family lines right down to my father's family and me.

Any assistance with this dilemma will be greatly appreciated.

George DAWES Line - New Development

The marriage certificate for George DAWES (1821-1869) and Esther COTTINGTON (1831-1863) arrived in the mail yesterday. Until then, I assumed that Esther was George's first wife, however, the certificate shows him as a widower.

Therefore, there might be more children from this family that we don't know about. George had five with Esther and two more with his last wife, Sophia SANTER (1831-1914). See more about George's families in a previous post here.

Now, I thought that solving this would be easy. Look for marriages for George in Uckfield before 1849 when he married Esther. EUREKA there is one! BUT, the marriage registration page for
the December Quarter 1844 has four possible spouses.

The good news is that they all have different given names which is not usually the case. With my luck, they are all Sarah or Harriet. Now, all I had to do was find a death between 1844 and 1849 and I would have her. EXCEPT, Sarah DAWES died in Dec. 1845 and Elizabeth DAWES in Sep. 1847. It's never easy, is it? Given that Elizabeth died closest to the marriage date with Esther of 1849 and that one of the witnesses was William HARVEY, I am going to guess that Elizabeth HARVEY is the best candidate. I have ordered this certificate so we'll see if I am right in a couple of weeks.


There are three DAWES births in Uckfield between the marriage date of 1844 and Elizabeth's assumed death date of 1847 (2 in Mar. 1846 and 1 in Mar. 1847) that could be attributed to George and Elizabeth. Although, there are no children who are unaccounted for in 1851 unless they were living with extended family, maybe the HARVEY's.


Now, to try and find the HARVEY family in the census.

NEWS FLASH: I checked my research spreadsheet that I enter all my B,M,D notes into and found a marriage between George DAWES & Sarah PECKHAM registered in Holy Cross Church, Uckfield 01 Dec 1844. So Elizabeth was the wrong choice!

Research Progress or Lack Thereof...

While I'm waiting for the certificates I've ordered from the GRO, before their price goes up, I thought I would present the ancestral DAWES family going back from by grandfather, Tom (1880-1933).

This fan chart goes back 4 generations or to my 4th great grandparents. All fourteen of them except for Katherine JUPP's parents. A lot of dates are missing in the last band which is my next priority plus finding the parents of Katherine so I can complete the generation. As for my 5th great grandparents, I only have one couple, the parents of Sarah CROWHURST.

For those of my cousins, who are descended from the siblings of Tom, this chart also applies to you.

Public Record Office in UK Increases Fees

This has nothing to do with my DAWES genealogy but it may be of interest to those of you who are following my blog.

The UK Public Record Office will be increasing the fee for birth, marriage and death certificates as of April 6, 2010. See their website for the full announcement.

The chart outlines the charges for standard online orders. While they complain that there hasn't been an increase for several years, a 32% hike in fees is nothing short of gouging. Especially, when you realize that they could still eke some saving out of other means. For example, they recently started sending folded certificates in normal business envelopes at a significant postage saving. Why not include several certificates in the same envelope? Most of us order several at a time and I've always wondered why they were posted separately.

At current Canadian dollar exchange rates (about $1.55), the certificates are a bargain at C$10.85 compared to a few years ago when they cost over C$15. However, compared to ScotlandsPeople where a certificate costs about £1 or C$1.55 for the same or more information, this is terrible. And, the certificate from ScotlandsPeople is delivered immediately over the internet. What happened to all of the PRO initiatives to automate certificate delivery?

Consequently, I am ordering all the missing certificates for my direct family lines before the end of March.