Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Genes Extras

Genes Reunited subscription bonuses

As a way of saying thank you to our subscribers, we have launched Genes Extras. You'll find exclusive competitions and discounts on family history magazines, days out and much more.

Take me to Genes Extras


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

I am so confused

Page 0 + 1 of 4

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 07:35

- sorry no time now, but a search for births under Free BMD as Coleran or as Colleran between 1890 and 1920 in Lancashire gives patterns of births that might be tied in via marriages to the various families in the area in 1918

- will have another look later


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 07:05

1861 census:

Name: Martin Colloran
Age: 4
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1857
Relation: Son
Mother's Name: Anna
Gender: Male
Where born: Liverpool, Lancashire, England


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:58

1881/1861 census

born abt 1825/1831 Ireland,
married to Julia,
living in Ormskirk


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:57

-marriage Dec 52 Ormskirk
- marriage Jun 64 Preston
- marriage 1918 Wigan (as mentioned above)


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:54

Now the other mentions that don't fit the Bury/Rochdale/Heywood area:

Birth Sep 1855 Liverpool
Death Sep 1876 Liverpool (b abt 1852)

[ Ed: poss the Martin son of Anna on the 1861 census (see posting on page 6 below)]


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:51

- and birth registered Dec 1865 Bury (on Ancestry as Collern)


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:48

- and Martin in 1881:

Name: Martin Colleran
Age: 14
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1867
Relation: Son
Mother's Name: Monica
Gender: Male
Where born: Heywood, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Heap
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Street address: 7 Hampsons Ter

View Image
Occupation: Cotton Mule Piecer

Registration district: Bury
Sub-registration district: Heywood
ED, institution, or vessel: 8b

Household Members:
Name Age
Martin Colleran 14
Monica Colleran 34


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:43

- and Martin and Mary in 1901:

Name: Martin Colleran
Age: 36
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1865
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Mary
Gender: Male
Where born: Heywood, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Heywood
Ecclesiastical parish: Heywood St Luke
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Registration district: Bury
Sub-registration district: Heywood
ED, institution, or vessel: 9

Household schedule number: 69
Household Members:
Name Age
John Colleran 17 son b Bury
Joseph Colleran 10 son b Heywood
Martin Colleran 36 head carter born Heywood
Mary Colleran 42 wife cotton waste picker born Liverpool
Mary Colleran 7 daughter b Heywood
Winnifred Colleran 4 daughter b Heywood


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:35

Martin and Mary possibly in 1891:

Name: Martin Colloton (image looks more like Colleron)
Age: 25
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1866
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Mary
Gender: Male
Where born: Heywood, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Castleton
Ecclesiastical parish: St Martin
Town: Heywood
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Registration district: Rochdale
Sub-registration district: Castleton Further
ED, institution, or vessel: 3

Household Members:
Name Age
Joseph Colloton 6/12 son born Heywood
Martin Colloton 25 genl labr
Mary Colloton 34 wife cotton sorter born Liverpool
John Hanlan 7 stepson born Bury


Ivy Report 14 Dec 2007 06:25

Hi Billy

Thanks for the witnesses' names.

Martin Colleran has the rarer name and may be easier to find. Ancestry has very few individuals with this name, even using the soundex option.

There are just two of that name on the England 1901 census with connections to Lancashire - both born about 1865 in Heywood, which has an Oldham postcode and is roughly equidistant between Bury and Rochdale. I do wonder if it is actually just one individual, enumerated twice - once by his wife, and once at the place he stayed overnight.

A Martin Colaran married in Rochdale in Sep 1866, and there is a Martin Colleran marriage in Rochdale in 1890.

However, there are other places linked to the name - Wigan (about 20 miles further west) Ormskirk (another 10 miles still further west) and Preston (north of Wigan).

Martin Colleran married Delia Freyne in Wigan in Mar 1918

I'll check those 1901 census references.


Billy Report 13 Dec 2007 21:00

I cant believe the response that i have had and all so informative, can i just thank everybody that has posted i appreciate all this hard work very much.
The witnesses on the Marriage cert are:

Martin Colleran
Catherine Burns


Katwin Report 13 Dec 2007 20:52

Hi Billy,

Like Stan I believe you can be reasonably assured in sending for the birth entry of Daniel Ingham born in Blackburn in 1873 December quarter, 8e 319 as that of your grandfather.

You have been given some excellent advice here, and if you take one step at a time, his birth is the most logical place to start.

To send for certificates online go to - - you will need to register with your e-mail address and a password. A certificate costs £7 and they are not too busy this time of year!

Good luck,



Stan Report 13 Dec 2007 19:45

Hi Billy

As there was only one Daniel Ingham born in Blackburn between 1865 and 1885, I think it is reasonable to conclude he is yours - born Oct-Dec 1873, Blackburn 8e 319. I would be surprised if that were the wrong person. He also happens to be the first one born after 1865 anyway.

Edith Mercer is the harder one to find, in fact. Her father's name could be made up, of course, to avoid a blank space on the form if she were illegitimate, as well as her age being wrong. I think the quest is do-able, albeit at some cost in time, and possibly in abortive certificates. There was even an Edith Claire, or Clara, Mercer born in Blackburn in 1886 (Jan-Mar 1886, Blackburn 8e 397), although her father is Robert, an ironmonger.




Ivy Report 13 Dec 2007 18:28

Apologies Billy,

I don't think I've added anything useful this afternoon.

If you can post those witnesses, that may be very helpful.

Logging off for now.

All the best


Ivy Report 13 Dec 2007 18:13

Hi Stan,

Here is a possible in 1891 for the Edith Mercer aged 13 in 1901:

Name: Arthur Mercer
Age: 1
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1890
Relation: Son
Father's Name: Francis
Mother's Name: Alice
Gender: Male
Where born: Newton; Manchester, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Newton
Ecclesiastical parish: St Luke
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Street address:


Condition as to marriage:


Employment status: View Image

Registration district: Prestwich
Sub-registration district: Newton
ED, institution, or vessel: 18
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members: Name Age
Albert H Mercer 8
Alice Mercer 32
Arthur Mercer 1
Edith J Mercer 3
Emily Mercer 11
Francis Mercer 33
Francis Mercer 6

Is it possible to rule this one out as the child in the institution in 1901? Comments welcome


Ivy Report 13 Dec 2007 18:09

Hi Billy

Just quickly posting one further 1901 possibility - an Edith May Mercer:

Name: Edith May Mercer
Age: 6
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1895
Relation: Granddaughter
Father's Name: John
Mother's Name: Elizabeth A
Gender: Female
Where born: Blackburn, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Blackburn
Ecclesiastical parish: Nova Scotia All Saints
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Employment status: View Image

Registration district: Blackburn
Sub-registration district: Blackburn, Northern
ED, institution, or vessel: 34

Household schedule number: 114
Household Members: Name Age
Edith May Mercer 6 granddaughter
Elizabeth A Mercer 27 daughter in law
James E Mercer 22 son, single
John Mercer 64 head
John Mercer 26 son (married)
Lettice Mercer 24 daughter, single
Marcy Mercer 61 wife
Selina Mercer 20 daughter, single
Ellen Sellers 67 sister in law, single

(edit: this too does not look likely - I wondered if John might be John William, born around 1875, and although there are two John William birth registrations in Blackburn in 1875/6, checking the 1881 census shows that this John is neither of these)


Ivy Report 13 Dec 2007 18:05

Hi Billy,

I've just realised that I may have misled everyone with an earlier post of mine. I've gone back and posted an edit to it, but it is worth saying here too.

Your information on Edith is just that - not Edith Ann. So not only could all the various Edith Mercers be possibilities, but also people such as Edith May, Edith Alice etc etc.

I am very sorry to have misled people (although I think some people were aware that there were wider possiblities).

Will try to be more careful in future!

All the best


RobG Report 13 Dec 2007 18:05


Further to your earlier reply, the copy received from the GRO isn't a photocopy of the original cert, merely a photocopy of the original transcription, as the actual original is retained at the local office. Whilst some local offices do give a new transcription, others give a copy of the original cert.



Ivy Report 13 Dec 2007 18:02

Hi Stan

Could you stay around for a few minutes longer? I've briefly looked at the thirtenn year old - and I'm meaning to find her in 1891 since she is there with her two brothers - Arthur would be just 1 in 1891 so may be findable....

(just making amends first)


Stan Report 13 Dec 2007 17:49

Ivy, your post is quite interesting. However Robert Mercer married Mary Jane Bellfield Jul-Sep 1892, Oldham 8d 894. So not John William as the father I am afraid. There is an Edith Mercer in an institution in 1901, aged 13. I didn't look up the details, and finding her back in 1891 will be tricky, but she would be right for the age at death I found.