Thomas was born in 1825 in Durham, he married Esther Luke in 1851 , their son James was born on 4th July 1852 . However on 1861 census Thomas’s wife is now Jane. By 1891 Jane was dead and Thomas moved in with his youngest daughter Jane ledger, he died in November 1908 we recently found his grave at Roprey Lane Cemetery in Chester Le Street .
1841 Census
There are two possible Thomas Wrights on the 1841 (completed on the 6th June) census.
Thomas (1)
Location Piercebridge (Near Darlington) Co. Durham. Notice that Thomas has a twin sister.
| Name | Age | Profession |
| Hugh Wright | 45 | Agricultural Labourer |
| Elizabeth | 40 | |
| Thomas | 15 | Blacksmiths apprentice |
| Ann | 15 | |
| Hugh | 10 | |
| Elizabeth Arnell | 80 | Independent |
The Elizabeth Arnell is surely Elizabeth Wrights mother and is either living in the house or visiting. Looking at the census page all the men seem to be employed as agricultural labourers and Thomas is not the only blacksmiths apprentice.
Next door interestingly is this family
| Name | Age | Profession |
| Thomas Wright | 75 | Agricultural labourer |
| Ann | 75 | |
| Mary | 35 |
Notice that not only does the head of the house share the same name, he is easily old enough to be Hugh’s father (and Thomas’s grandfather) and is married to an Ann Wright. Thomas and Ann are the names of Hugh’s twins AND they live next door in a small place like Piercebridge…. surely this is NOT a coincidence. Next door to this older Thomas lives a licensed victualler (of an Inn), then a postmistress, a butcher and a saddler so it seems they were living very close to some shops. I can’t find a spinster called Mary Wright on the 1851 census if indeed she was a spinster in 1841, she may have been visiting her parents on the night of the 1841 census of course and the census taker simply put her down as a Wright and you can see he had started writing Wr…
Notice everyone’s ages are rounded up or down to the nearest 5 years which is quite important when it comes to getting an accurate birth date.
Thomas (2)
This Thomas appears in Westoe, South Shields/Jarrow
| Name | Age | Profession |
| William Wright | 20 | Pitman |
| Catherine/Catheran | 45 | |
| Benjamin | 20 | Pitman |
| Jane | 15 | |
| Thomas | 15 | Mason |
| John | 6 |
again this Thomas is a twin and it looks like the head of the house, William, also is a twin to Benjamin Wright.
Theories
How do you figure out who is the correct ancestor? Thomas(2) comes from a mining family and we know James was a miner however, this Thomas(2) is in South Shields whereas James was born nearer to Durham than Jarrow. We know that the Thomas we definitely know is James father claims to have been born in Chester-Le-Street on the 1861 census. The Westoe Thomas(2) is still alive on the 1871 census and you just can’t be two people at the same time. Thomas (1) is happily (hopefully) living in Chowdean. I think that conclusively proves that Thomas(1) is our Thomas.
The 1851 census
Hugh and Elizabeth are still together but now on their own in 1851 in Piercebridge. It states that Hugh was born in Staindrop Co.Durham and Elizabeth in Denton (also Co. Durham). It also seems to state that both Hugh and Elizabeth are Agricultural labourers. Notice they are now 8 years apart in age whereas in 1841 they were 5 years apart. Curious. Staindrop is very close to Cockfield and not far from Piercebridge either. Denton is also closer to Staindrop than Piercebridge.
Thomas would have been aged c25 in 1851. There is a Thomas (listed as being born in Old Durham) of the correct age listed as an Agricultural Labourer living as a Farmers servant (the farmer is called William Gibson) in Pollards Lands in Auckland St Andrew in Durham.
There is another of the same age living as a lodger in Bishopwearmouth but he is listed as being born in Nettleston which is in Northumberland. No one else seems to fit the correct profile in 1851 so I’ll have to assume he missed the census that year. This isn’t uncommon. Bear in mind he was a father to his son also Thomas by 1854 and his wife was from Scotland (as we will discover), perhaps he wandered over the border?
The 1861 Census
Hugh and Elizabeth are still alive in 1861. Here he is listed as a Roadman (labourer) aged 71 and Elizabeth is now 65.
The 1871 Census
Elizabeth is still alive and living on her own so I assume Hugh had died between 1861 and 1871. Does it say she’s ‘farming acres grassland’ as is the woman living next door aged 67, so whatever it is they are doing they are both doing it. It also looks like Piercebridge is a collection of houses in a small village.
I have found a Hugh Wright aged 36 born in Piercebridge. He is working as a Cutter/Grinder in an engineering factory and living as a Lodger in Hartlepool with a family called Anderson. Perhaps he is a relative, Hugh Wright isn’t that common a name in a small place like Piercebridge. That would make him being born in 1835. Our Hugh has a son Hugh born c1831 in the 1841 census which is so close to make it tantalising. If you look back at the 1841 census you will see that all their ages have been rounded to the nearest 5 years. In a small place like Piercebridge in 1841 what is the chance of there being THREE Hugh Wrights and two of them very close in age?
Back to Thomas Wright
James was the eldest son, of 4 children, of Thomas Wright according to the 1861 census and barring any further evidence appearing to dispute this then this is what I will go with.
| Name | Position | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| Thomas | Head | M | 35 | Coal Miner | Chester-Le-Street |
| Jane | Wife | M | 35 | Lamesley | |
| James | Son | 8 | Scholar | Durham | |
| John | Son | 3 | Lamesley | ||
| Margaret | Daughter | 1 | Lamesley | ||
| William | Son | 0 (1 month) | Lamesley |
RG number:RG09 Piece: 3763 Folio:52 Page:7
Registration District: Chester-le-street Sub District:2 Harraton
Enumeration District:10 Ecclesiastical District:
Parish: Lamesley City/Municipal Borough:
Address: Chowdean, Chowdean
I am fairly convinced this is the correct family. James’ brother Thomas would have been 6 on this census yet he doesn’t appear, remember you have to actually be in the house at the time when the census is collected. He may well have been recorded but not at this address.
John Wright 1857-
The only John Wright born in Chester-Le-Street between 1857 and 1858 is this one from Oct-Nov-Dec 1857. Lamesley is just as close to Gateshead as Chester-Le-Street but there are no John Wrights registered at Gateshead in that period. Chester-Le-Street is also the registration area for Lamesley on the 1861 census so that surely indicates that this is where births, marriages and deaths would have had to be registered.
Margaret Wright 1859-1920
Here is the birth registration for Margaret dated APR-MAY-JUN 1859 with the place of registration listed as Chester-Le-Street.
William Wright 1861-1944
William was born the same year as the census and here is the entry for Jan-Feb-Mar 1861 which is indisputably the baby Williams registration. The census was taken in April so William must have been born in March or perhaps February.
In 1871 they were easy to find (living in Chowdean, Lamesley) even if the enumerator did call the family ‘Write’ and not Wright. Note also that Thomas Jnr is missing from the 1861 census but pops up here but with a different place of birth to the others. James also has Durham not Lamesley as his birthplace so perhaps they lived in Durham, then Urpeth and then settled in Lamesley in between the births of Thomas and John. Urpeth and Lamesley are not far from each other anyway (in fact Lamesley, Urpeth and Birtley are all very close). Urpeth has a brickworks so had a pit to go with it. The collieries on this map are marked in Red. Note also the iron works and forges in this heavily industrialised area facilitated by the proximity of plentiful coal from the Durham coalfield.
ery close). Urpeth has a brickworks so presumably had a pit to go with it.
William had two wives, the first called Mary Jane (b. 1862) and with her produced 5 children
Jane Anne b.1880
William b.1883
John b.1887
Daisy b.1889
Albert 1891-1952
With his second wife Jane (b.1895) there were 3 more
Charles 1918
Alan 1920
Sydney 1932
The 1871 Census
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| Thomas | Head | M | 46 | Coal Miner | Chester-Le-Street |
| Jane | Wife | M | 45 | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| Thomas | Son | 16 | Coal Miner | Urpeth | |
| John | Son | 13 | Coal Miner | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| Margaret | Daughter | 11 | Scholar | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| William | Son | 10 | Scholar | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| Mary | Daughter | 7 | Scholar | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| George | Son | 5 | Scholar | Chowdean, Lamesley | |
| Jane | Daughter | 2 | Scholar | Chowdean, Lamesley |
Mary 1864 –
There are two Marys registered in Gateshead in Jan-Feb-Mar 1864. There are no others between 1863 and 1865 registered in Gateshead or Chester-Le-Street. As one of them is Mary Ann and there are instances of Ann’s back up the family line is it a coincidence? This would surely be our Mary.
The 1881 Census
By 1881 Thomas and Jane had moved on to Chester Moor, Chester-Le-Street. Note that there is no sign of Jane on this record (she would have been 12) and surely young William Cooper is the son of Margaret (who would have been aged 21 by then and must have lived nearby). Note also that everyone has changed their birthplaces to Chester-Le-Street, apart from Thomas who we know was born there. Perhaps the census taker was in a rush and wrote this down later.
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| Thomas | Head | M | 56 | Coal Miner | Chester-Le-St |
| Jane | Wife | M | 56 | Chester-Le-St | |
| Mary | Daughter | U | 17 | Chester-Le-St | |
| George | Son | U | 16 | Coal Miner | Chester-Le-St |
| William Cooper | Grandson | U | 2 | Chester-Le-St |
As yet I can find no sign of Thomas or Jane on the 1891 census. They’d both be 66.
Thomas Wright Jnr 1854-1904
The 1891 Census
In 1891 Thomas was living in the parish of St Helens, Gateshead. Note that Thomas states he was born in LOW Urpeth rather than the larger nearby village of Urpeth.
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| Thomas | Head | M | 36 | Low Urpeth | |
| Kate | Wife | M | 31 | Carluke, Scotland | |
| Ellen | Daughter | U | 12 | Lamesley | |
| William | Son | U | 3 | Chester Moor?, Durham. |
The 1901 Census
In 1901 Thomas Jnr is still living in the St Helens district of Gateshead and still has just the two children Ellen and William, as they are now 46 and 42 respectively we can surmise that Thomas and Kate didn’t have any more children.
John Wright 1858 –
The 1881 Census shows John and Family are in Allendale Cottages, Medomsley, Co. Durham. He seems to have taken in some lodgers who may or may not be related, how did the two Coulson children end up here?
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| John | Head | M | 24 | Coal Miner | Gateshead |
| Catherine | Wife | M | 21 | Throckley, Nthbld | |
| Mary Jane | Daughter | U | 1 | Elswick, Ncle upon Tyne | |
| Thomas Bainbridge | Boarder | U | 19 | Coal Miner | Prudhoe, Nthbld |
| James Bainbridge | Boarder | U | 16 | Coal Miner | Walbottle |
| Ann Bainbridge | Boarder | U | 12 | Scotswood | |
| Isabella Coulson | Boarder | U | 7 | Medomsley | |
| William Coulson | Boarder | U | 5 | Medomsley | |
| George Bainbridge | Boarder | U | 8 | Medomsley |
It does seem very odd that 24 year old John and 21 year old Catherine have 2 boarders not much younger than themselves, their own infant daughter and 4 children under 12! Is this a 1 or 2 bedroom house? I can’t see this as anything other than the Coulsons and Bainbridges being relatives of Catherine (a surname for her would be useful) or possibly from Johns 3 sisters Margaret, Mary and Jane or even a combination of the two sources and this becomes abundantly clear in the next census…..
1891 they were still in Medomsley (145 Allendale Gdns?), Catherine’s place of birth has changed to Prudhoe and there are now two sons John and William.
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| John | Head | M | 35 | Coal Miner | Gateshead |
| Catherine | Wife | M | 31 | Prudhoe, Northumberland | |
| Mary Jane | Daughter | U | 11 | Scholar | Elswick, Newcastle Upon Tyne |
| John | Son | U | 6 | Scholar | Medomsley, Co. Durham |
| William | Son | U | 2 | Scholar | Medomsley, Co. Durham |
| George Bainbridge | Wife’s Brother | U | 19 | Coal Miner | Medomsley, Co. Durham |
| Isabella Coulson | Neice | U | 16 | Medomsley, Co. Durham | |
| William Coulson | Nephew | U | 15 | Coal Miner | Medomsley Co. Durham |
So Catherine is Catherine Bainbridge. As the record starts with George being ‘the wife’s brother’ the census taker must have proceeded to write that Isabella and William were her Neice and Nephew, which to be fair they would be if they were from John’s side too but it’s pretty certain they are from her side. So here’s some theories:
1. A single child named Coulson or Bainbridge could point to illegitimacy. Very few would have a succession of illegitimate children. 4 Bainbridges (plus Catherine makes 5) doesn’t shout illegitimacy to me. 2 Coulsons says the same.
2. A sister died in childbirth or died young. Mr Coulson, for whatever reason, couldn’t or wouldn’t support the 2 children.
3. Poverty? Could a mother or father and mother end up in the workhouse and Catherine took the kids in to save them from there? This wasn’t uncommon.
4. Early death through disease or bad health, Catherine takes the kids in
5. Imprisonment, father not available to support the children, mother contributes financially when she can
6. Father killed in mining accident and romantically mother dies of a broken heart.
Well for whatever reason or reasons fair play to them or taking in these children.
Note that Catherine and her brother Thomas were born in Prudhoe, her brother James in Walbottle and her sister Ann in Scotswood. All within a few short years.
William Wright 1861 -1944
The 1881 census
William was living in Park Road, Gateshead. There are several other William Wrights born around the same time but this is the best match.
| Name | Relation to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| William | Head | M | 21 | Chemical Labourer | Gateshead |
| Mary Jane | Wife | M | 21 | Gateshead | |
| Jane Ann | Daughter | U | 3 months | Gateshead |
George Wright 1866 – 1942
For the 1881 census George was still living with his parents. I have found two possible Georges on the 1891 census:
Possibility A:
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| George | Head | M | 25 | Gateshead Fell | |
| Elizabeth | Wife | M | 26 | Bishop Auckland | |
| Sarah-Jane | Daughter | 3 | Chester-Le Street | ||
| Thomas | Son | 1 | West Pelham |
Possibility B:
| Name | Position to Head | Marital Status | Age | Occupation | Birthplace |
| George | Head | M | 25 | Gateshead | |
| Elizabeth | Wife | M | 26 | Newcastle | |
| John T. | Son | 3 | Gateshead | ||
| George | Son | 5 months | Gateshead | ||
| Mary A. Lamb | Mother-in-law | W | 66 | Gateshead |
I’ll go with George (1) as he has named his firstborn son Thomas, after his father AND the Bishop Auckland/Chester-Le-St connections.
The Wrights Family History 