General Chat

I am trying to trace one of my family's tree but have hit a block. I have a marriage certificate for Arthur Booth (aged 22) married to Marian England (aged 22) in 1902. The certificate shows Arthur's father as Fred Booth but have searched high and low but am unable to find from Arthur's birth to the date of his marriage any census returns that show a man of his name with a Father called Fred. I've tried everyhting but to no avail. One of the witnesses at the marriage was a Willie Booth and I've tried that also but still cannot find a Willie Booth connected to an Arthur Booth and a Fred Booth. Can anyone please advise what to try next? Thanks for any help/advice.

Where did the marriage take place & what were Arthur & Fred´s occupations?
Are there any addresses on the marriage cert?
If so, have you checked the addresses on the 1901 census?

Is it Arthur on the certificate....??

Marriages Jun 1902

Booth Albert .....Huddersfield 9a 653 <<<<<?????????
England Marian .....Huddersfield 9a 653

Arthur/Albert at aged 21 may not have been living at home on the 1901 census ,also Fred may have been down as Frederick in 1891 with Arthur/.Albert then aged 11/12/

Willie may also have been William.

I really think it must be Albert...not Arthur??

1901 census transcription details for: Upperfold West, Fulstone

RG number: RG13
Piece: 4097
Folio: 64
Page: 7
Reg. District: Huddersfield
Sub District: New Mill
Parish: Fulstone
Enum. District: 5
Ecclesiastical District: New Mill Christ Church
City/Municipal Borough:
Address: Upperfold West, Fulstone
County: Yorkshire (West riding)
BOOTH, Fred Head Married M 47 1854 Woollen Weaver
Fulstone, Yorkshire
BOOTH, Mary Wife Married F 48 1853
Holmfirth, Yorkshire
BOOTH, Abbert Son Single M 20 1881 Woollen Weaver
Holmfirth, Yorkshire
BOOTH, Willie Son Single M 17 1884 Woollen Piecer
Fulstone, Yorkshire
BOOTH, Frank Son M 10 1891
Fulstone, Yorkshire


Maureen

Virginia has him as Albert on her tree

Albert Booth 1881 New Mill, Holmfirth,...

Following Fred back on the census we have this in 1861:
All born Wooldale, except Henry, b Holmfirth:

Jonathan Booth 36 , woolweaver
Hannah Booth 34 wife
Henry Bramall 15 son
Ellen Bramall 12 daughter
Ann Booth 10 daughter
Fred Booth 7 Son
Sam Booth 7 Months son

So, it looks like Hannah had previously been married

Next door is a Nathaniel Booth, 75 and his wife, Mary, 73, Landed Proprietor

Edit: the following comment has been added to Jonathan :

Jonathan Booth rather than Jonathan Booth
Jonathan Brammal was buried on 12 Feb 1854 and his widow, Hannah married Jonathan Booth on 26 Sep 1858 so Booth is correct. Parish records support this!

1911 England, Wales & Scotland Census Transcription

First Name:ALBERT
Last Name:BOOTH
Birth Year:1881
Age:30
Where Born:NEWMILL YORKSHIRE
Relationship:HEAD
Gender:M
Condition:MARRIED
Year Of Marriage:
Years Of Marriage:
Occupation:ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY
Military Info:
Address:130 HUDDERSFIELD ROAD HOLMFIRTH

MARION BOOTH 31
GORDON VICTOR BOOTH 5
DOREEN BOOTH 2
KATHLEEN BOOTH 0

Thanks to everyone who has kindly responded. Will try to get my head round all the possible suggestions asap and double-check that I haven't mixed up the names Arthur & Albert. If I have I apologise - easily done when one has gone round in circles for a while! Will let you all know what I find and/or any other queries that arise. Grateful thanks.
Virginia

Thanks again to everyone who has offered suggestions especially as I am still getting used to using this facility. Someone has correctly noted that I inadvertently put Arthur Booth when in fact the name on the marriage certificate is Albert. Sorry everyone. The 1911 census that soneone has detailed is absolutely the correct family that I am trying to trace back. I had already taken up the suggestion someone has made to see if I could find an Alfred (re the Fred shown on the marriage certificate as Arthur's Father) but to no avail. What is also throwing me is that the Albert's I have found on earlier census returns didn't tie in with the employment details of Albert on the 1911 census as they were mill-workers and it seemed a strange jump from that occupation to an important role in an Insurance Company. Any other ideas welcomed as I continue to follow all your suggestions. Again grateful thanks to all who have been kind enough to respond.

Thanks everyone - found them! Cheers.