开云体育

I found Mary's burial on FMP by searching England & Wales, Society Of Friends (Quaker) Burials 1578-1841 for Mary WILSON buried 1825 +/- 2 years. This produced 10 results and it was easy to identify the 2 in Brighouse Monthly Meeting and one Yorkshire Quarterly Meeting entry that relate to her.

Searching for the burial of Josiah WILSON in 1824 produced a blank. I could have searched all WILSON burials in that year, but what in fact I did was look at the tabular register of Brighouse MM (RG6/888) where Jarvis WILSON is at the top of the same page that has Mary WILSON near the bottom. (There is a John FARRER on the page as well.) Alternatively, you could simply search for the burial of Jarvis WILSON . He is the only one, though he appears in three registers (the same three as Mary).

Both Jarvis and Mary are said to be "Not in Membership" on their burial notes. This means that one or both of Josias and Mary had some connection with Friends, and may have continued to attend Quaker meetings for worship, but were not members. A likely possibility (not the only one) is that one of them was a member of the society of friends before their marriage; a Quaker marrying a non Quaker would in those days have been "disowned", that is lost their membership, and would have had to marry in an Anglican church. The meetings of the monthly meeting where they had their membership - presumably either Knaresborough or Brighouse - would show a disownment in the months after the marriage, but this could only be checked in the original records in Leeds University Library.

I suppose the marriage in 1812 you refer to is that on 5 April 1812 in Leeds Parish Church between Josias WILSON , grocer, and Mary FARRER spinster, both of this parish. It was by licence. FMP has an image of the Bishop's Transcript in a collection it calls Yorkshire Marriages. The BT actually has "James" which has been deleted and "Josias" written above. It says the marriage was by licence. FMP also has an index entry of a licence for Josias WILSON , 34, of Leeds, to marry Jane (not Mary) FARRER, 26, of Leeds, in Leeds parish Church. It gives you a link to order the original documents from the Borthwick Institute in Leeds which would be worth doing to check if it actually says Mary rather than Jane - you may have done this already.

If the age in the marriage licence is accurate it fits precisely a Quaker birth in Knaresborough Monthly Meeting, of Josias, son of James WILSON , husbandman, and Elizabeth his wife born 8 12th month (December) 1777 at Rawden in the parish of Guiseley. As with the burials above, there are three register entries, in registers of Yorkshire Quarterly Meeting, Knaresborough Monthly Meeting and Rawdon Preparative Meeting.

There is a Josias WILSON at Fennell's Yard, Wakefield in the 1851 census (HO 107/2327 fo.262 p.34)? He is 73, described as retired grocer, born Rawdon, Yorkshire. He is living with his unmarried daughters Hannah, 28, born Rawdon and Sarah, 24, born Leeds, both confectioners.

There is a possible birth for Hannah in Knaresborough Monthly Meeting on 5th of 9th month (September) 1817 at Rawdon to Josias WILSON farmer there and Mary his wife. This would mean the 1851 census age is wrong though.

The Josias in the 1851 census died aged 81 on 4 dec 1858 at Wakefield leaving a will proved 22 January 1859. The entry in the England and Wales probate calendar states that the executor affirmed rather than swearing an oath in order to prove the will, very probably meaning he (the executor) was a Quaker.

It would be well worth ordering a copy of the will to see who the beneficiaries are. You can do this at You may need to put in the year of death as 1859 rather than 1858 to bring up the relevant page of the calendar which you need to do before ordering.

The key to all this was looking for Josias not Josiah. Of course they are fundamentally the same name, Josias being a Greek spelling (used in the New Testament at Matthew 1:10)? for the Hebrew Josiah. Whether Josias the grocer thought of them as the same is another matter.

I hope I have not repeated too much that you have already done, but it was an interesting puzzle.

Chris Pitt Lewis