I've been nibbling away at one of my many brick walls, and felt that it was time to write something up. People performing pre-civil registration research in England and Wales will easily relate to the problems I describe here. Although solid progress was made, there are still parts for which I feel that I may be painting a story rather than uncovering one — you be the judge.

The research relates to my Jesson line during the early 19^th Century, and in particular to Thomas Jesson, the grandfather of the Mary Jesson researched in A Rich French Actor; one of my g-g-g-g grandfathers.

My friend Peter Lucas has been conducting a One-Name Study (ONS) on the Jessons for many years (originally http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jessonfamily but moved to http://www.maberly.name/Jessonindex.htm in August 2018). We have pooled our knowledge on several occasions, but we both knew that there was something missing in relation to Thomas.

Thomas was born around 1792 in Sapcote, a small village about 10 miles SW of Leicester. He was baptised on 14 Apr 1792 to a Thomas and Rebecca Jesson at Sapcote All Saints. Sapcote baptism of Thomas Jesson DE933/2, p. 19 1792-04-14 2017-01-19 Sapcote Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, page and entries unnumbered, baptism of Thomas Jesson, 14 Apr 1792; "Leicestershire baptisms", database with images, Findmypast (www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE933/2, p. 19; Record Office for Leicestershire. His mother was Rebecca Gent, and his parents were married in the same parish during 1790. Sapcote Banns of Marriage Jesson-Gent banns 25 97 Leicestershire banns DE933/5 1790-06-15 2017-01-19 Sapcote Parish (Leicestershire), Banns of Marriage, p.25, no.97, Jesson-Gent banns, 15 Jun 1790; "Leicestershire banns", database with images, Findmypast (www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE933/5; Record Office for Leicestershire ; banns is not proof of a marriage by itself, but the subsequent children are proof enough in this case. Thomas married a Mary Bentley on 11 Mar 1822, Sapcote marriage of Thomas Jesson to Mary Bentley 21 62 DE933/6 1822-03-11 2017-01-19 Sapcote Parish (Leicestershire), Marriage Register, p.21, no. 62, marriage of Thomas Jesson to Mary Bentley, 11 Mar 1822; "Leicestershire marriages", database with images, Findmypast (www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE933/6; Record Office for Leicestershire. and they had two sons: William (b. c1822) Sapcote baptism of William Jesson 26 206 DE933/4 1822-09-17 2017-01-19 Sapcote Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.26, no. 206, baptism of William Jesson, 17 Sep 1822; "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE933/4. and James (b. c1824) Sapcote baptism of James Jesson 30 235 DE933/4 1824-07-28 2017-01-19 Sapcote Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.30, no. 235, baptism of James Jesson, 28 Jul 1824; "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE933/4. ; in both baptism registrations the "Quality, Trade or Profession" column reads "Frame knitters" — the plural indicating that this applied to both parents. The trail then goes cold for a long time.

The next appearance of the family is in Nottingham, about 40 miles north of Sapcote, in the 1841 census.

There was now a problem because his wife was named Rebecca (not Mary), and there was no sign of William.

The 1851 census confirmed that James (the eventual father of the Mary mentioned in my pervious article) and Thomas were both from Sapcote, and were both framework knitters. There were no alternative identifications possible, given their combined details, but where was William, and who was Rebecca?

There was no obvious death registration for the son, William. Also, there was no preceding marriage visible for Thomas and Rebecca, and no obvious death registration for Mary. So was Rebecca a new wife or a pseudonym for the same one (Mary)?

Thomas died on 8 Jul 1855, aged 64, of dropsyabnormal accumulation of fluid beneath the skin and in the cavities of the body at Castle Court, Howard Street. His occupation was "Stocking framework knitter", and the informant was Ann Herod of nearby Milk Square, who was present at the death. Thomas Jesson 1855-07-08 7b/99/389 1855 Sep [Q3] England, death certificate for Thomas Jesson, died 8 Jul 1855; citing 7b/99/389, registered Nottingham 1855/Sep [Q3]; General Register Office (GRO), Southport. To make things worse, I could see no subsequent death or remarriage for his Rebecca.

This is the sort of problem you leave until a (very long) rainy day.

Well, that rainy day arrived — we get a lot of them here — and it began with finding when Rebecca died. Although she did not show up in the civil registration index, she did show up in the burial register of Nottingham's privately-run General Cemetery, along with her husband, Thomas.

The other two deceased are not relations that I am aware of.

By that time, civil registration of deaths was well-established, so where was Rebecca? The dates from the burial register eventually allowed me to identify her GRO index entry as "Rebecca Lesson" (as in my title), Rebecca Lesson 2017-01-20 vol. 7b:180 1869 Mar [Q1] Transcribed GRO Index for England and Wales (1837–1983), database, FreeBMD (freebmd.rootsweb.com/cgi/seach.pl : accessed 20 Jan 2017), death entry for Rebecca Lesson; citing Nottingham, 1869, Mar [Q1], vol. 7b:180. and this was how it was recorded in the original index (i.e. not a subsequent transcription error). Interestingly, the new GRO index of civil registrations The UK General Register Office (GRO) is responsible for civil registrations of births, marriages, and deaths (BMD) in England and Wales. It maintained quarterly paper-based indexes of registrations from 1837 to 1983, and several databases of their transcriptions exist, such as the popular FreeBMD. During 2016, the GRO published wholly new indexes of births and deaths based on the previous work of the abandoned DoVE project. These newer indexes are formed from the registrations themselves rather than being derivatives of the previous indexes. has the same error, and this suggests that the original registration had some horrible error.

The newspapers came to the rescue in finding their marriage.

Carrington was a hamlet about 1.5 miles north of the town centre. As well as showing that their marriage occurred some time after they were living under the same surname (see 1841 census, Table 1), and not in any church, this notice is interesting because it referred to Rebecca as "Mrs". If she was a widow then it is very likely that Thomas was also widower, and that his first marriage had ended. His son by that marriage, James, married Keziah Chandler only the following year, in 1846. Parish Registers Marriage Index database version 3.0 2013 Nottinghamshire Family History Society (NottsFHS) http://www.nottsfhs.org.uk/ James Jesson and Kessiah Chandler 1846-08-15 Nottingham St Paul Nottinghamshire Family History Society (NottsFHS), Parish Registers Marriage Index, CD-ROM, database (Nottingham, 1 Jan 2013), database version 3.0, entry for James Jesson and Kessiah Chandler, 15 Aug 1846, Nottingham St Paul Parish . James Jesson Kessiah Chandler 2017-01-20 vol. 15:822 1846 Sep [Q3] FreeBMD (accessed 20 Jan 2017), marriage entry for James Jesson and Kessiah Chandler; citing Nottingham, 1846, Sep [Q3], vol. 15:822 .

In many cases of a deferred second marriage, it was because the participants in the first marriage had simply separated, and they had to wait for a period of seven years to elapse with no contact before legally remarrying. However, this option wasn't available until the offence of bigamy in England & Wales was redefined in section 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 — it didn't apply in this instance, and so the first wife of Thomas (Mary) must have died.

The marriage certificate for Thomas and Rebecca confirmed that she was a widow, and that her father, John Quaile, was a frame-smith. One of the witnesses was the Keziah Chandler that Thomas's son (James) would soon marry; the other being a Jeremiah Butler. Thomas Jesson Rebecca Burdett 1845-07-26 20/834/104 1845 Sep [Q3] England, marriage certificate for Thomas Jesson and Rebecca Burdett, 26 Jul 1845; citing 20/834/104, registered Nottingham 1845/Sep [Q3]; GRO. It was then possible to show that Rebecca had previously married a Thomas Burdett while still living in Hinckley, in 1818. Hinckley St Mary marriage of Thomas Burdett to Rebecca Quail 108 324 DE1135/17 1818-07-04 2017-01-30 Hinckley St Mary Parish (Leicestershire), Marriage Register, p.108, no.324, marriage of Thomas Burdett to Rebecca Quail, 4 Jul 1818; "Leicestershire marriages" (accessed 30 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE1135/17.

Hinckley (the birthplace and marriage-place of Rebecca) was a village only 5 miles to the west of Sapcote. Not only was it associated with framework knitters, it is reputed to have been the first location where textile employees started destroying the machines that were taking their jobs — actions that were later to become the Luddite movement during 1811–1816. Their common origin and widowed status would easily explain how they met, but Thomas's younger sister, Maria (see below), was baptised in Hinckley so their families must have known of each other.

In order to locate candidate deaths, I used the National Burial Index (NBI) National Burial Index for England & Wales third ed., viewer 1.21 2010 Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS) http://www.ffhs.org.uk Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS), National Burial Index for England & Wales, CD-ROM, database (www.ffhs.org.uk, 2010), third ed., viewer 1.21 ; hereinafter cited as NBI. . This provides a comprehensive list of known burials in England and Wales, and it allows searches by birth date when a burial date is unknown.

Searching for "W* Jesson", born 1822±1, there was only one candidate showed up in the whole database: Wm Jesson, buried 12 Jul 1835 at Loughborough All Saints parish, Leicestershire. Loughborough is a small town about 20 miles north of Sapcote, and was well-established in the domestic knitting industry that this Jesson family worked in. Dr Denise Amos Framework Knitters The Nottingham Heritage Gateway http://www.nottsheritagegateway.org.uk/people/frameworkknitters.htm 2017-01-20 2010-12-18 Dr Denise Amos, "Framework Knitters", The Nottingham Heritage Gateway (www.nottsheritagegateway.org.uk/people/frameworkknitters.htm : created 18 Dec 2010, accessed 20 Jan 2017).

Performing a wider NBI search for all Jessons who were buried in the same Loughborough All Saints parish revealed only four entries:

Mary is a very strong candidate for Thomas's first wife because of her age, but could Henry and Maria have been twins belonging to the same family; it would have been a tragedy indeed to have so many losses in just 18 months. Could an infectious disease have ravaged the family?

The death of William was reported in the newspapers, and confirmed that the father was a Thomas Jesson.

So could the parish registers shed any further light on these deaths? Mary's entry confirmed that she was the wife of a Thos. Jesson, Loughborough All Saints Mary Jesson 87 694 DE667/22 1834-09-04 2017-01-21 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Burial Register, p.87, no.694, Mary Jesson, 4 Sep 1834; "Leicestershire burials", database with images, Findmypast (www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 21 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/22; Record Office for Leicestershire. and presumably the same one as William's father.

As expected, William's entry confirmed his father as a Thomas Jesson, Loughborough All Saints Wm [William] Jesson 118 937 DE667/22 1835-07-12 2017-01-21 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Burial Register, p.118, no.937, Wm [William] Jesson, 12 Jul 1835; "Leicestershire burials" (accessed 21 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/22. but it didn't mention any mother; with other entries involving children, the register indicated "son/daughter of father & mother". This strongly suggested that Thomas was widowed, and so was the same Thomas as the husband of Mary in the earlier entry — remember that we are dealing with only four Jesson deaths in this parish.

Both of the entries for Henry and Maria similarly identified the father as Thomas, and with no mother. Loughborough All Saints Henry Jesson 125 991 DE667/22 1835-10-18 2017-01-21 Loughborough All Saints Maria Jesson 133 1058 DE667/22 1836-02-28 2017-01-21 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Burial Register, entries: p.125, no.991, Henry Jesson, 18 Oct 1835 and p.133, no.1058, Maria Jesson, 28 Feb 1836; "Leicestershire burials" (accessed 21 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/22. Thomas had a younger sister named Maria, Hinckley St Mary Maria Jesson 6 4th entry on page DE1135/9 1796-05-28 1796-05-25 2017-01-19 Hinckley St Mary Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.6, 4th entry on page, baptism of Maria Jesson, 28 May 1796 (b. 25 May 1796); "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 19 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE1135/9. so Henry might have been named after a relative of Mary's.

Part of this deduction rests on there being just one Jesson family in Loughborough at that time. Findmypast's Leicestershire databases confirmed that there were only these four Jesson burials in Loughborough between 1805 and the end of that century. The situation was similar with baptisms, where there was just one in 1844, and with marriages, where there was one in 1828 and one in 1848, but we'll come back to these in a later section.

The following vital-event yearly data for the associated Leicestershire hundreds illustrates how small these communities were.

This was a very poor, and much-abused, profession; labour costs were deliberately kept low as the masters could easily employ new labour. The knitters toiled 16–18 hours a day, and had to pay for their own yarn, replacement needles, and the rent on their frames — irrespective of whether they were using them. Worse still, they were paid by the article rather than by the yard. Living on the bread-line, in near poverty, it is hardly surprising that the Luddites reacted, as they did, to mechanisation taking away their work and making their plight all the worse.

Around the time that Thomas may have moved to Loughborough, 1833, framework knitters were petitioning the government for controls to protect their livelihood, including a minimum wage.

Nothing came of this, and a subsequent petition in 1843 additionally made mention of the bad practices they were subjected to. Wanda Fraiken Neff Victorian Working Women: An Historical and Literary Study of Women in British Industries and Professions, 1832-1850 1966, first published in 1929 Taylor & Francis 90 Wanda Fraiken Neff, Victorian Working Women: An Historical and Literary Study of Women in British Industries and Professions, 1832-1850 (Taylor & Francis, 1966, first published in 1929), p.90. Eventually, a Royal Commission enquired into the conditions of framework knitters in 1845.

The following article appeared just the month after that first petition, and nicely summed up the mood in Loughborough.

The "knotted branch" appears to have been a sick society: a sort of friendly society where a group of people shared a percentage of their earnings to ensure their mutual welfare in cases of sickness or unemployment. To The General Public Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the Midland Counties 2 1823-06-04 4 the table of sick societies contributing loans and donation "To The General Public", Leicester Chronicle (4 Jun 1825): p.2, col.4, the table of sick societies contributing loans and donations. This particular one was Leicestershire-based and was mentioned in the newspapers as early as 1825, but there were others around the country, and related to several professions.

The way these societies also controlled their combined labour paints them as prototype trade unions, which were technically illegal at that time; it wouldn't be until the Trade Union Act 1871 that unions would be legalised. For instance, "...a great number of workmen in the Silk Knotted Branch still continue out of employ, in consequence of refusing to work at an abatement of sixpence per pair. They hold out principally because of the very high price of provisions, and every other necessary of life", Derby Mercury 3 1823-06-08 3 reprinted from Nottingham Journal Derby Mercury (8 Jun 1825): p.3, col.3; reprinted from Nottingham Journal. and "The journeymen belonging to the Silk Knotted Branch in Nottingham, Mansfield, and Ilkeston, still continue out, in consequence of the hosiers not complying with what the hands think a just and reasonable request". The Town News Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the Midland Counties 3 1836-02-19 1 "The Town News", Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the Midland Counties (19 Feb 1836): p.3, col.1.

Interestingly, poor law unions only came about the year after the above Loughborough article as a result of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. Before that time, individual parishes had to administer poor relief rather than through unions of parishes.

The presence of so few Jesson events in Loughborough should make it easier to identify relationships; however, there were a small number of other references that required explanation. None of these were in the same decade as the four burials, but they were in neighbouring decades and so it was necessary to establish whether they were related, and whether there might have been more than one Thomas Jesson. The following table enumerates a range references derived from various Ancestry vital-event databases (not images) on 26 Jan 2017.

Harriet's baptismal surname is transcribed as "Jepson" on Findmypast, but the image confirms her as "a bastard of Ann Jesson". Loughborough All Saints Harriet Jepson [Jesson] 116 entries unnumbered DE667/5 1807-07-25 2017-01-26 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.116, entries unnumbered, Harriet Jepson [Jesson], 25 Jul 1807; "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/5. On her marriage entry, the witnesses were Mary Jesson and Thos. Linaker. Harriet signed her surname as "Geson", but Mary signed correctly. Loughborough All Saints marriage of Ann Jesson to John Plowright 55 164 DE667/15 1849-07-03 2017-01-26 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Marriage Register, p.55, no.164, marriage of Ann Jesson to John Plowright, 3 Jul 1849; "Leicestershire marriages" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/15. There's no further sign of Ann in this parish. The Mary could have been the one who died in 1834, and that would suggest a connection between Ann and Thomas, but I didn't manage to prove to disprove this.

Abraham was 90 years old, and buried on 10 Mar 1840 in the parish of Whitwick, St John the Baptist, about 7.5 miles west of Loughborough. Ann was also 90 years old, and buried 3 Jul 1849 in the same parish. Whitwick St John The Baptist Abraham Jesson 157 1256 DE1760/15 1840-03-10 2017-01-26 Whitwick St John The Baptist Ann Jesson 9 70 DE1760/20 1849-07-03 2017-01-26 Whitwick St John The Baptist Parish (Leicestershire), Burial Register, entries: p.157, no.1256, Abraham Jesson, 10 Mar 1840, and p.9, no.70, Ann Jesson, 3 Jul 1849; "Leicestershire burials" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive refs. DE1760/15 and DE1760/20. Hence, neither was associated with the Loughborough All Saints parish. Oddly, Whitwick St John is in the registration district of Ashby de la Zouch rather than Loughborough. The answer is that their abodes were both given as Grace Dieu, famous for its priory, which is an extra-parochial tract included in the Belton parish for statistical and civil registration purposes; Belton does fall within the Loughborough district.

The younger Maria-i was baptised to George and Sarah Jesson, residing on the Nottingham Road. George was a butcher. Loughborough All Saints baptism of Maria Jesson 135 1075 DE667/9 1844-06-17 2017-01-26 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.135, no.1075, Maria Jesson, 17 Jun 1844; "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/9. When the older Maria-ii married Thomas Smith, she was also living on the Nottingham Road. Although her father was also a Thomas Jesson, he was a publican rather than a framework knitter. Witnesses were a James and Mary Twain. Loughborough All Saints marriage of Maria Jesson to Thomas Smith 50 99 DE667/18 1848-12-05 2017-01-26 Loughborough All Saints Parish (Leicestershire), Marriage Register, p.50, no.99, marriage of Maria Jesson to Thomas Smith, 5 Dec 1848; "Leicestershire marriages" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE667/18. The fact they were living on the same road strongly suggests that these Marias were related.

Phoebe was baptised at 40 years old. Findmypast records her name as "Phobe Jepson" (rather than "Phoebe Jesson", as on Ancestry) and in this case the image confirms this to be correct; the surname clearly contains a "ps" rather than a long-s, and can be contrasted with the subsequent entry, for "Wesson", which does show a long-s. Loughborough Emmanuel baptism of Phobe Jepson 75 599 DE2594/1 1846-01-19 2017-01-26 Loughborough Emmanuel Parish (Leicestershire), Baptism Register, p.75, no.599, Phobe Jepson, 19 Jan 1846; "Leicestershire baptisms" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE2594/1. Hence, Phobe/Phoebe is a red herring.

Jane (a "minor") married William Norman Bramley junior on 24 Oct 1848 in the parish of Sheepshed (now spelled Shepshed), Sheepshed marriage of Jane Jesson to William Norman Bramley junior 154 307 DE610/20 1848-10-24 2017-01-26 Sheepshed Parish (Leicestershire), Marriage Register, p.154, no.307, marriage of Jane Jesson to William Norman Bramley junior, 24 Oct 1848; "Leicestershire marriages" (accessed 26 Jan 2017); citing archive ref. DE610/20. about 5 miles west of Loughborough. She is not associated with Loughborough All Saints.

So, we have two Marias to check further, one of whom had a father named Thomas Jesson. Looking at the 1841 and 1851 censuses, we find them both in the same family. The older Maria-ii being the daughter of Thomas and Dorothy, and the younger Maria-i being the daughter of George (son of Thomas and Dorothy) and Sarah.

A scan for all the Leicestershire baptisms for a Thomas and Dorothy confirmed the above relationships — although no baptism could be found for the older Maria-ii — and revealed that all the children were baptised in Long Clawson, about 14 miles east of Loughborough, contrary to the 1851 census information for George, but matching the birthplace of their mother, Dorothy. Also, it revealed that Walter was probably baptised Arthur, and this would explain why there was no subsequent mention of Arthur and no baptism for Walter. These conclusions were also in broad agreement with Peter Lucas's ONS (p.F4).

Hence, this Thomas Jesson was not present in Loughborough before 1835. He clearly could not have been the husband of Mary, and the burial entries for William, Henry, and Maria (Table 5) indicated that their father was a widower.

There were no other Jesson vital events recorded in Loughborough during the 1830s decade, other than the four burials, and it would appear that there was just the one family there. There were Jessons there during the 1820s, and Jessons who migrated there from Long Clawson just before 1841. What this analysis shows, though, is that the Thomas Jesson identified in each of those 1830s burial register entries must have been the same one.

There are few records that might directly identify this Jesson family because their short residence in Loughborough was pre-civil registration and pre-census. Trade directories, military records, and (online) criminal records shed no light on the subject. There was a census on 30 May 1831 but it consisted of numbers derived from church records and registers, and used for population statistics. Census records The National Archives of the UK http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/census-records/ 2017-01-24 "Census records", The National Archives of the UK (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/census-records/ : accessed 24 Jan 2017).

Given the tragic family situation, Thomas may have been struggling, and may have received relief from the parish or a poor law union. Loughborough's poor law union came into existence on 9 Sep 1838, Peter Higginbotham Loughborough, Leicestershire The Workhouse: The Story of an Institution http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Loughborough/ 2017-01-24 Peter Higginbotham, "Loughborough, Leicestershire", The Workhouse: The Story of an Institution (www.workhouses.org.uk/Loughborough/ : accessed 24 Jan 2017). and the Leicestershire Records Office online catalogue suggests records from 1837 (their ref. G/7); however, they confirmed that there are few surviving poor law records from this period, and that they could find no mention of a Thomas Jesson. Their workhouse records only begin in 1913.

Although they appear to have been the only Jesson family in Loughborough during those years, it is possible that a married female relative of Thomas may have moved there with them. The FAN Principle could be applied to family members of both Mary Bentley (origin currently unknown) and Thomas in order to determine if they were in Loughborough too.

Thomas and Mary were framework knitters back in the village of Sapcote. When Thomas came to Nottingham, he remained a framework knitter in 1841 and 1851. On his death in 1855, he was a "stocking framework knitter". His son, James, also had the same profession, and many of James's children were associated with lace and general hosiery. This work was clearly an important part of their life for several generations.

The village of Sapcote was not generally associated with knitting, but the small town of Loughborough certainly was. I believe that Mary had twins, Henry and Maria, in 1832, and that this forced the need to find more productive work. Loughborough had organised support for this profession in terms of sick societies, and possibly unions. Whether the twins were born just before or just after their move is less important than the fact that extra mouths would need to be fed. The absence of any baptisms for these children supports a move from one parish to another having taken place around the same time.

It would then seem that tragedy hit the family within a couple of years with four members, beginning with Mary, dying in only 18 months. It is highly possible that some infectious agent took hold of their household but I could find no mention of epidemics in the town. During the period 1813–1830, 21% of Leicestershire deaths occurred in infants less than one year old, and 34% in children less than four years old. Calculated from county statistics in the "England and Wales, Parish Register Abstract, 1831" database, p.167, image 180, table of burials by age.

Sometime between 1836 and 1841, Thomas and his surviving son, James, moved a further 20 miles north to Nottingham, an industrialised town that was renowned for knitting, hosiery, and the lace industry — it would have been hard to remain in Loughborough after those events, and Nottingham was booming. In Nottingham, he met Rebecca Burdett, a widow who was born and married in Hinckley, just 5 miles from Sapcote, and where his own sister was baptised.

The names Mary and Rebecca both recur in later generations, and James's eldest daughter was named Mary, after his mother (see A Rich French Actor).

An interesting aspect of this research is that it's more about history than lineage. Thomas and Rebecca were too old to have children; William, Henry, and Maria all died as youngsters; and the family was only in Loughborough for a relatively short period of time. No tree can capture this type of history, or distinguish the known from the inferred. And DNA is of no help.