The Following information has been supplied by Mike Inskip, originally from Bilston near Wolverhampton, who now resides in Australia. This is Mike’s theory on the spread of Dilhorne Inskips to Wolverhampton and it seems to be the “best fit” scenario….. Without evidence to state otherwise….I tend to agree with him !
Terry Inskip.
“Abraham Inskip (christened Dilhorne 6 June 1741) I think married twice, and a subsequent Bilston Inskip arose from each marriage – one each as follows:
1st marriage to Elizabeth Westbrook at Dilhorne when Abraham was 27.
Their child Richard Inskip was christened 4 November 1770 at Dilhorne. He went on to marry Elizabeth Bailey on 16 June 1794 at Dilhorne when he was 23. He was a stone mason and subsequently moved to the canal hub at Fradley Junction. There is a record of a Richard Inskip – stone mason Fradley Junction in William White’s Gazeteer & Directory of Staffordshire of 1834 ( he would then have been 64). (The Leicester University project web site is a very useful searchable source of old trade directories for the whole country – well worth a look). Richard was buried on 1 August 1838 at Alrewas – presumably the nearest church to Fradley Junction at the time – age 68
Richard & Elizabeth’s son Abraham Inskip was christened at Dilhorne on 30 October 1796. Now here’s where I think an error has occurred: An Abraham Inskip was buried on 2 June 1805 at Dilhorne. It has been presumed this was the Abraham Inskip born 1796 – i.e. the 9 year old son of Richard & Elizabeth Inskip. I believe it was NOT. This error is in part perpetuated by the Mormon website entry. I believe this Abraham did not die in 1805 at all and went on to marry Mary Mansell in Wolverhampton in 1819 and became a stone mason working in the Bilston Quarries until his death sometime between the 1841 & 1851 censuses. His was the first Bilston Inskip family. Abraham is recorded in the 1841 Bilston census as follows:
Address – Queen’s Square, Bilston, Head Araham Inskip age 45 stone mason. Born in same county? yes
The Abraham Inskip who was buried in Dilhorne in 1805 I think was the much older Abraham Inskip christened in Dilhorne in 1741(son of Richard & Ellen Inskip) who would have been 64 at the time of his death. Does anyone have a copy of the original 1805 Dilhorne Parish records to see if this is feasible? (The Dilhorne record for 1805 says Abraham Inskip, if it was a child being buried it usually gave the parents – this entry didn’t, so highly possible not the 9year old Abraham.)
Abraham’s first wife Elizabeth Westbrook I think was buried in Dilhorne on 21 Sep 1778 ( when her son Richard was 8. )
2nd Marriage to Mary Lowe 6 Sep 1790 at Dilhorne when Abraham was 49 years old.
I think this marriage went on to produce William Inskip christened Dilhorne 27 May 1792. This is my great great great grandfather. William went on to marry Sarah Nevitt in Stafford St Mary on 9 March 1813. After some 17 years in Stafford the family moved to Bilston around 1830 where William worked with his (half) nephew Abraham (born 1796 Dilhorne) and their various offspring till his death sometime between 1841 & 1851.William is recorded in the 1841 Bilston census as follows:
Address – Finney Wells, Bilston, Head William Inskip age 49 stone mason. Born in same county? yes”
I don’t think this is correct. Richard Inskip, stone mason, who died in Fradley was my ancestor. His age at death was 74 giving birth date as approx 1763. The 1763 bapt of a Richard was as son of John and Alice. A brother William was bapt at same time. Possibly the Bilston stone mason who was the father of another Abraham, and of George.
The above is a ‘best fit’ solution Vivienne. There were two Richards in Dilhorne at about the same time. One was christened with brother William in 1763 the child of John and Alice Robinson, the other in 1770 the child of Abraham and Elizabeth – we do not know from the actually records at what age they were christened ie they may not have been babies.
One Richard then married Anne Buckstone in 1788, he was a wheelwright and his will is on an earlier post. The other, the stone mason on the marriage record, married Elizabeth Bailey in 1794. It was a Richard and Elizabeth who moved to Fradley – on the 1841 census Elizabeth is living with her daughter Anne Brassington who was born in Dilhorne in 1816.
So, the issue is which married Richard belonged to which parent – and a good way of looking at that is to look at children’s names, Richard and Elizabeth called their first child Abraham, did Richard and Ann call any of their children Abraham? However, Richard and Ann had a daughter Alice, and there is no evidence that Richard and Elizabeth did. So on balance it looks as if Richard who married Elizabeth Bailey was most likely son of Abraham.
That being said, the death age of Richard Inskip in Fradley is interesting, but the death age of the other Richard also brings us back to 1763, and we know they were not both christened in that year.
You are quite right, in that the above may not be the answer, genealogy is fully of pitfalls for the unwary, and it is a question of putting together as many shreds of information as possible – going forward, back and sideways. I believe that Terry and Mike feel that for them this is the best solution, until further information suggests that it isn’t. If there is other data you would like to share, please do add it here. it is good for people to look at all the evidence and possible scenarios. Thank you for your comment.
Well that would certainly save me altering my tree! When Elizabeth (nee Bailey) was buried her age was given as 78 which gives a birthdate of 1770. The birth (or baptism) dates of the children is strange. Ann was bapt in 1816 which wasn’t far from her age on censuses, but Abraham in 1796, twenty years earlier, and Hannah was in 1822 when Elizabeth was 52!
I agree that when William and Richard were baptised in 1770, one or both of them could have been older than new babies. My interest is because there is an Abraham Inskip in 1841 (age given as 45 ) in Bilston who is a stone mason. He died in 1846 and his son Abraham was with his uncle George in 1851 (all stone masons). Now this George remarried in 1881 and gave his father’s name as William. If Young Abraham was really a nephew then the Abraham born 1796 would have been William’s son, but maybe it was a euphemism and he was Richard’s son. Ages were rounded down in 1841 so that Abraham could have been born later than 1796. I can’t find the baptism record for him as a child of Richard and Elizabeth on the new FMP views, only on Ancestry transcripts. Do we have any reason to doubt them?
This is all terribly complicated, isn’t it?
I quite agree that a birth date for Hannah in 1822 looks rather late – again I wonder about age. And you are right the only other christenings seem to be Abraham in 1796 and Anne in 1816. If you put in 1796 Dilhorne into FMP and then look through the list you will find Abraham’s christening – but it does not seem to have been transcribed.
Young Abraham (abut 1830) is with his uncle George in 1851. George was christened 1819 in Stafford, the son of William and Sarah. William was the son of Abraham and his second wife Mary Lowe. Thus George, was young Abraham’s Uncle one generatin removed.
ie Richard and William were half brothers
Abraham 1796 and George 1819 were first cousins
Abraham 1830 was George’s nephew.
So it does all appear to fit, and give a little more weight to Mike’s ‘best fit’ scenario. The best way to look at it is that it doesn’t disprove the scenario.