Untangling the Mystery of John Glover - Part 2

In a previous post, I talked about the mystery of John Glover and how his burial record has a date that is earlier than his death date:

As can be seen, the death record shows a date of death of 27 May 1874, while the burial record shows a burial date of 21 May 1874.

Since that post, I have looked for other records that might support one or the other date, such as cemetery records, newspaper records and monumental inscriptions and have not found anything helpful.

So, what likely happened? Well one possibility is that the records are for two different people. But given that the locations, names and ages all match, and that there are no other death/burial records for a John Glover around that time and location, it would seem that the records are both for the same person.

The next likely situation is that there was a transcription error with one of the records. Looking at the burial record, the burial record above has a date of 25 May 1874, so it's likely that the actual date of burial fell after that. Could that have been a 31 May burial date instead? It seems possible, but difficult to say for sure. I'm going to conclude that the date of death of 27 May is correct and the burial date of 21 May is incorrect.

X00402 Mary Woolley Birth Information

“Tracing the Woolleys: From Lancashire’s Cotton Mills to the Hills of Montgomeryshire”
Genealogy rarely unfolds in a straight line. More often, it’s a web of clues — census entries, baptisms, occupations, and migrations — that slowly reveal how families moved, married, and made their lives. The Woolley family is one such web, stretching across the cotton towns of Lancashire and reaching unexpectedly into the Non‑Conformist heartlands of Montgomeryshire, Wales.

This post brings together what we currently know about several key Woolley individuals — Edward, Thomas, Joseph, Catherine, and John — and explores how they may connect to Mary Woolley, born about 1809 in Heapey, Lancashire.

Edward Woolley (born c.1791, Lancashire?)
Edward appears in the 1841 census in Walton‑le‑Dale, working as a waste gatherer in the cotton industry. He married Isabella Knowles in 1816 and raised a family of five children, including Jeremiah (b. c.1832). His life is firmly rooted in the mill economy of south‑central Lancashire.

What makes Edward important is his age and location. Born around 1791, he is old enough to be a brother or cousin of the generation into which Mary Woolley (b. 1809) fits. His residence in Walton‑le‑Dale places him only a few miles from Heapey, where Mary was born.

Thomas Woolley (born c.1800–1802, possibly Montgomeryshire, Wales)
Thomas is one of the most intriguing figures in this research. Though he spent most of his adult life in Lancashire — marrying Jane Metcalfe in Blackburn in 1823 and working as a cotton spinner in Chorley, Blackburn, and Oswaldtwistle — his origins appear to lie elsewhere.

Conflicting records suggest he was born either:

• “abt 1800 in North Wales”
• “c.1802 in Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire”

This Welsh connection becomes even more compelling when we consider the baptism of Catherine Wooley in 1805 in Llanbrynmair, Montgomeryshire — a Non‑Conformist record naming parents Jeremiah and Ann Wooley.

If Thomas was indeed born in Montgomeryshire, he may be part of a Welsh Woolley family that migrated into Lancashire’s cotton districts during the early industrial boom.

Could Mary (b. 1809 Heapey) be connected to this Welsh line? It remains possible — especially if her parents were migrants.

Joseph Woolley (born c.1841, Blackburn)
Joseph represents the next generation of Lancashire Woolleys. Born around 1841 in Blackburn, he worked as an overlooker in the cotton mills — a supervisory role that suggests long-term mill employment and skill.

He raised three children — Maggie, Annie, and Walter — all born in Blackburn. No spouse is listed in the surviving documents, leaving his early family life somewhat opaque.

Joseph is too young to be Mary’s sibling, but he may be a grandson or nephew of her generation. His presence in Blackburn strengthens the case that the Woolleys were well‑established in the region by the mid‑19th century.

Catherine Wooley (baptized 1805, Llanbrynmair, Montgomeryshire)
Catherine’s baptism is a rare and valuable find. Recorded in a Congregational (Non‑Conformist) register, it lists her parents as Jeremiah and Ann Wooley.

This is significant for two reasons:

1. Non‑Conformist families often migrated for work, especially into industrial Lancashire.
2. The name Jeremiah appears in other Lancashire Woolley research — suggesting a possible naming pattern or family link.

Catherine’s family may represent the Welsh root from which Thomas (and possibly Mary) descend.

John Woolley (born c.1822–1826, Lancashire)
John appears in the 1841 census in Mitton Dale, living not with family but in a lodging house headed by Peter Allcock. At age 15, he was already working as a cotton spinner, born in Lancashire (“Y” in the birthplace column).

His presence in Mitton — only a few miles from Heapey — places him squarely in the geographic zone where Mary was born. He may be:

• A younger brother
• A cousin
• Or an unrelated Woolley from a nearby parish

Further research is needed to place him in the correct family.

How Do These Woolleys Connect to Mary (b. c.1809 Heapey)?
Mary’s birth in Heapey, a small village near Chorley, places her in the heart of early Lancashire cotton country. Several possibilities emerge:

1. She may be part of the Lancashire Woolley cluster
   Edward (b. 1791) and his family lived only a few miles away. If Edward had siblings, one could be Mary’s parent.


2. She may belong to the Welsh Woolley line
   If Thomas (b. c.1800–1802) and Catherine (b. 1805) are siblings, and their parents were Jeremiah & Ann, then Mary could be:
• A younger sister
• A cousin
• Or part of the same migration wave from Montgomeryshire to Lancashire


3. She may be from a third, as‑yet‑unidentified Woolley family
   The 1841 census shows multiple Woolleys scattered across the Ribble Valley and Blackburn districts.

Conclusion
The Woolley family story is one of movement — from Welsh Non‑Conformist chapels to Lancashire’s cotton mills. The challenge now is to determine where Mary Woolley, born about 1809 in Heapey, fits into this tapestry.

The clues are there. The next step is a systematic search.

X00402 Mary Woolley Birth Information

I have written previously about X00402 - trying to find birth information about my 4x great grandmother, Mary Woolley who was born about 1809 in Heapey, Lancashire, England.

The only known information that I have about her parents is that her father's name was Jeremy.

I have posted previously about Edward Woolley and family (X00042). Mary Woolley is living with that family in the 1841 census. As well, I have posted about Thomas Woolley and family (X00399). Thomas' granddaughter, Martha is listed as a neice of Mary Woolley in the 1871 census.

Since, then, I have also come across a baptism record for a Catharine Wooley who was born about 1805 in Montgomeryshire, Wales, and is the daughter of a Jeremiah Woolley.

Other possible connections that I have found - a John Woolley and family that appear on the on the same page as Edward Woolley on the 1841 census and a Joseph Woolley who appears on the same page as Mary Hannah Woolley on the 1901 census.

So, here is the current list of possible connections to investigate:

Individual	Birth Year	Birth Location	Connection to Mary Woolley
Mary Wooley	ca. 1809	Heapey, Lancashire, England
Edward Woolley	ca. 1791	Lancashire, England	Mary Woolley living in same household in 1841
Thomas Woolley	ca. 1801	Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire, Wales	Granddauther Martha listed as niece to Mary Woolley in 1871 census
Catherine Woolley	ca. 1805	Montgomeryshire, Wales	Has a father named Jeremiah Woolley
John Woolley	ca. 1806	Lancashire, England	Appears on same page as Edward Woolley in 1841 census
Joseph Woolley	ca. 1841	Blackburn, Lancashire, England	Appears on same page as Mary Hannah Woolley in 1901 census

Joseph Wooley is not from the same generation, but the others could all be siblings to Mary Woolley. Edward Woolley is the only one old enough to possibly be from the generation before, perhaps a brother to Jeremiah Woolley?

So, there are a lot of potential connections to investigate further

X00399 Who is Martha Woolley in the 1871 census? Part 2

Last week I posted about finding a Martha Woolley in the 1871 census, listed as a neice to Mary Woolley. I had found that her parents were Jeremiah and Mary Woolley and that she was baptised at the same time as a Mary Hannah Woolley.

Then through searching some census records, and eventually a baptism record, I found that Jeremiah Woolley was born about 1828 to a Thomas and Jane Woolley.

So, if Martha Woolley is truly a niece to Mary Woolley, born about 1809, that would make Mary Woolley the sister of this Jeremiah Woolley and the daughter of this Thomas Woolley. But this Thomas Woolley was born about 1801, which makes him being the father of Mary Woolley, born 1809, unlikely. So, if the connection is a true connection, it is more likely that Martha Woolley is a great niece to Mary Woolley

The search continues

X00399 Who is Martha Woolley in the 1871 census? Part 1

As I look for clues as to who might be the parents of Mary Woolley (X00402) I found the family in the 1871 census:

Listed with the family is a Martha Woolley, aged 4, who is listed as being a neice of John Glover. So, she is connected to the family somehow. Could this be a clue to finding Mary's parents?

I tried to find Martha in later records with the family and couldn't find her in anything. I also did not find her in other records after 1871. But I did have some luck in finding a baptism record. From being age 4 in the 1871 census, it would suggest a birth year of about 1867. I did manage to find a baptism record for a Martha Woolley born 27 February 1867 to a Jeremiah and Mary Woolley. In the 1871 census, Martha's birth location is given as Church, Lancashire. The baptism took place in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, right next to Church. So, it looks like a good fit.

Right above the baptism record, however, was another record for the baptism of a Mary Hannah Woolley, also a daughter of Jeremiah and Mary Woolley. Mary Hannah was born 10 May 1865, but baptised on the same day as Martha. So, if I can't find out much with Martha Woolley, perhaps I'll have better luck with tracing Mary Hannah Woolley.

Pentecost Family Profile

A concise, source‑grounded portrait of the Pentecost family — immigrants, professionals, and the next generation who made their lives in Toronto and beyond.

Family Overview

The Pentecost family traces roots from England and the United States to Toronto, Ontario. Key family members include Ashton Spencer Pentecost and his wife Agnes Elizabeth D'Eye Pentecost, and their children Norman, Hazel, Agnes Ruth, and Marjorie. Several family events — births, marriages, occupations, and burials — are documented in archival records and contemporary newspapers.

Quick timeline

Ashton born 1863 Agnes D'Eye born 1864 Marriage 1884 (Chicago) Children 1884–1896 Norman died 1917 (France) Ashton died 1936 (Toronto) Agnes died 1946 (Toronto)

---

Ashton Spencer Pentecost

Born: 25 Feb 1863 — Died: 10 Dec 1936 — Occupation: Architect

Ashton emigrated from England and worked as an architect in Toronto. He is recorded in the 1911 census as residing at 93 Charles St. East and later at 39 Wheeler Avenue. His obituary appeared in the Toronto Star following his death in December 1936.

"Pentecost - On Thursday, December 10th, Spencer Ashton, dearly beloved husband of Agnes E. Pentecost, 39 Wheeler avenue, and father of Mrs. A.H. Wilson; Mrs. E.D. Shaw: in his 74th year."

Notes: Worked as an architect for many years; burial at St. John's Cemetery is recorded.

Agnes Elizabeth D'Eye Pentecost

Born: 13 Oct 1864 (Watton, Norfolk, England) — Died: 4 Feb 1946 (Toronto)

Agnes was born in Watton, Norfolk, and immigrated to Canada in 1882. Census records show her living in Toronto by 1911; her obituary and burial are documented in Toronto newspapers and cemetery records.

"On Monday, Feb. 4, 1946, at Toronto, Agnes E. D'Eye, wife of the late Ashton Pentecost, and mother of Mrs. E.D. Shaw (Marjorie), of Philadelphia, U.S.A."

Notes: Buried at St. John's Norway, Toronto.

---

Children and Next Generation

Norman Ashton Pentecost

Born: 4 Dec 1884 (Chicago) — Died: 9 Apr 1917 (France)

Norman served and died during World War I; military burial records place him in Pas‑de‑Calais.

"He was buried at the Nine Elms Military Cemetery in Pas de Calais, France in 1917."

Hazel Madge Pentecost (Mrs. Arthur H. Wilson)

Born: 1 Jul 1887 (Chicago) — Died: 1 Jun 1945 (Toronto)

Hazel worked professionally as an accountant and later settled in Toronto; she married Arthur Harold Wilson in 1915 and had one daughter, Vivienne Louise Wilson.

"She worked as an accountant on 21 Jun 1911 in Toronto, York, Ontario, Canada."

Buried at Mount Pleasant Cemetery.

Agnes Ruth Pentecost

Born: circa 1890 (Chicago) — Died: 24 Jun 1903 (Toronto)

Agnes Ruth died young; death records list diabetes and heart disease as causes and show burial at St. John's Norway in Toronto.

"Cause of Death: diabetes/heart disease."

Marjorie Pentecost (Mrs. E.D. Shaw)

Born: Oct 1896 (USA)

Marjorie appears in the 1911 Toronto census with the family and later is referenced in Agnes's obituary as living in Philadelphia (Mrs. E.D. Shaw).

"She was Anglican on 21 Jun 1911 in Toronto, York, Ontario, Canada."

---

Granddaughter: Vivienne Louise Wilson

Vivienne Louise Wilson

Born: 6 Aug 1919 — Died: 5 Mar 1940 (Toronto)

Vivienne, daughter of Hazel and Arthur Wilson, worked as a stenographer in Toronto. Her death in 1940 was reported in contemporary newspapers and the coroner's report concluded drowning, possibly following electric shock.

"Vivienne Wilson, pretty 20-year-old stenographer, was electrocuted or drowned while taking a bath at her home today."

Buried at Mount Pleasant Cemetery.

X00402 Mary Woolley's Birth Information

Searching for Mary Woolley: A Lancashire Birth That Refuses to Be Found

Every genealogist eventually meets an ancestor who seems determined to stay hidden. For me, that ancestor is Mary Woolley, my 4× great‑grandmother, who spent her long life in Lancashire but left behind a surprisingly elusive trail when it comes to her birth.

On paper, Mary should be easy to place. Across multiple records, she presents a remarkably consistent story: she was born in Heapey, Lancashire, sometime between 1807 and 1811, and her father was named Jeremy (or Jeremiah) Woolley. Those are the kind of details genealogists dream of— a small place, a narrow time frame, and a distinctive father’s name.

The Evidence We Do Have

Mary first steps into clear view in the 1841 census, already an adult, with an age that points roughly to the late 1800s. Later censuses sharpen the picture. In 1851, 1861, 1871, and 1881, she consistently reports her birthplace as Heapey. Her age in those returns implies a birth year hovering between 1807 and 1811.

Her 1839 marriage certificate adds another crucial piece: it names her father as Jeremy Woolley. Jeremy is not a common given name in this time and place, which should make him easier to track than, say, a John or a William. In theory, we now have three solid anchors: a place (Heapey), a time frame (1807–1811), and a father (Jeremy).

And yet, when I go looking for her baptism, the trail goes cold.

The Baptism That Isn’t There

My first approach was the obvious one: search the parish registers. Heapey was a township associated with the parish of Chorley, so I began with the Anglican registers for Chorley and then widened the circle to neighbouring parishes—Withnell, Brindle, Rivington, Wheelton, Hoghton, Blackburn, and others in the area.

I tried every spelling variation I could think of: Woolley, Wooley, Wolley, Woolly, Wolly. I searched for Marys with a father named Jeremy or Jeremiah, and I searched for children of a Jeremy Woolley regardless of the child’s name. I checked both Ancestry and FamilySearch, and I revisited the images where possible to guard against indexing errors.

Still, no baptism for Mary appears in the expected time frame, in the expected place, with the expected father. For a while, it felt as though she had simply slipped through a crack in the records.

Looking Beyond the Parish Registers

When the “usual” records fail, the question shifts from Where is the record? to What assumptions am I making? In Mary’s case, I had been assuming three things:

• That she was baptised in the Church of England.
• That she was baptised as an infant.
• That the surname Woolley appears exactly as I expect it.

Heapey and the surrounding area had a strong nonconformist presence in the early 19th century. Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and Baptists all maintained their own registers, many of which survive in scattered collections or under archival series that don’t always surface in a simple online search.

If Mary’s family worshipped outside the established church, her baptism might be hiding in a Methodist or other nonconformist register—perhaps one that has not been fully indexed, or that is catalogued under a circuit name rather than a place name like Heapey.

Another possibility is that Mary was not baptised as an infant at all. Some families delayed baptism until a child was older, or until they joined a new congregation. Others baptised some children and not others. It is entirely possible that Mary’s siblings appear in the registers while she does not—or that she appears under a different surname, perhaps her mother’s, if she was born outside of marriage.

Clues in the Woolley Cluster

One of the more intriguing threads in Mary’s story is her connection to other Woolleys in the area. In the 1841 census, she appears in the household of Edward and Isabella Woolley. Their relationship to Mary is not stated, but their shared surname and proximity suggest that they are not strangers.

Are Edward and Isabella her uncle and aunt? Cousins? Or perhaps kin through her father Jeremy? By reconstructing their family—tracing their marriage, their children, and their own baptisms—it may be possible to place Mary within a wider Woolley network and identify her parents indirectly, even if her own baptism remains missing.

This is where cluster research becomes powerful: instead of focusing solely on Mary, I follow everyone who shares her surname, her address, or her associates. If I can find a Jeremy or Jeremiah Woolley in the same orbit—on a land tax list, in a settlement examination, or in a will that names a daughter Mary—the pieces may finally come together.

What Comes Next

My current plan for Mary Woolley’s mystery involves several parallel lines of attack:

• Nonconformist registers: Systematically searching Methodist and other dissenting records for Heapey, Chorley, and nearby townships.
• Bishop’s Transcripts: Checking for a baptism that appears in the transcripts but not in the surviving parish register.
• Poor law and settlement records: Looking for Woolley families examined about their place of legal settlement, which often names birthplace and family members.
• Wills and probate: Hunting for any Jeremy or Jeremiah Woolley whose will might mention a daughter Mary.
• Cluster research: Fully reconstructing the households of Edward and Isabella Woolley and any other Woolleys in Heapey and Chorley.
• DNA evidence (if available): Using shared matches to identify which Woolley line Mary most likely belongs to.

None of these avenues guarantees a neat, single record that says, “Mary, daughter of Jeremy, baptised in Heapey, 1809.” But together, they may build a body of evidence strong enough to stand in place of that missing entry.

Why This One Ancestor Matters

It’s tempting to think of a missing baptism as a minor inconvenience, but for me, Mary’s elusive birth is more than that. It’s a reminder of how fragile the documentary record can be—and how much of our family history depends on the survival of a few lines of ink on aging paper.

Mary lived long enough to appear in multiple censuses. She married, raised a family, and died in 1886 at a reported age of 79. Her life is not entirely hidden. But the circumstances of her arrival into the world— the church where she was (or wasn’t) baptised, the faith her parents practiced, the exact year she was born— remain just out of reach.

Sometimes, the most compelling ancestors are not the ones whose stories are neatly documented, but the ones who leave us with questions we can’t quite answer.

Mary Woolley is one of those ancestors. She may be hiding in a nonconformist register, a Bishop’s Transcript, a settlement examination, or a will that I haven’t yet opened. Somewhere, I suspect, her name is waiting.

And that, in the end, is the quiet thrill of genealogy: the belief that the next record, the next page, or the next creative search might finally reveal the missing piece of her story.