Posted: 24 Sep 2013 | Author: Sue Adams | Filed under: Analysis, Genealogy issues, Sue's family research | Tags: 50 Marriage Mondays, bargee, Barton, Birmingham, canal, education, Spencer |
Family folklore from my paternal grandparents stated that we descend from Bargees, people who lived and worked on canal boats. It has often been said that Birmingham has more canals than Venice. To this day, Birmingham is a hub of Britain’s canal and navigable waterways network. In the early industrial revolution, canals were the transport backbone. As an early industrial centre, Birmingham developed an extensive canal network between the 1760s and 1830s, with connections to countrywide destinations. The Grand Junction Railway the first rail line to serve Birmingham, linking with Liverpool and Manchester, opened in 1837. By the time of this marriage in 1874, canals were still an important part of the goods transport network, but were challenged by the rise of rail.

Marriage Certificate – Samuel Barton & Caroline Spencer
Bride: Caroline Spencer, aged 18
Groom: Samuel Barton, aged 21, Carter
Date: 5 April 1874
Location: Bishop Ryder church, Birmingham
Father of Bride: Edward Barton, Boatman
Father of Groom: John Spencer, Wood turner
Witnesses: John Cartwright, Mary Ann Barton
The occupation of the groom’s father, Edward Barton as a boatman supports the family story. Census, marriage and birth records show both Edward and Samuel worked as boatmen, but also did other jobs.
Year |
Edward’s occupation |
Samuel’s occupation |
1841 |
Labourer |
|
1851 |
Boatman |
|
1861 |
Labourer |
|
1871 |
Boatman |
Boatman |
1874 |
Boatman |
Carter |
1875 |
|
Carter |
1881 |
|
Barge boatman |
1891 |
|
Labourer |
1901 |
|
Coal carter |
1902 |
|
Carter |
1911 |
|
Coal carter |
Notice that signatures of Caroline Spencer, Samuel Barton and witnesses Mary Ann Barton (Samuel’s sister) and John Cartwright are all recorded as his or her mark X, indicating that these people could not write. The 1911 census return for Samuel and Caroline contains indirect evidence of their illiteracy, as the schedule was signed by their 19 year old son, Henry, rather than head of the household Samuel.
Name |
Birth Year |
Year recorded as Scholar |
Edward Barton’s children |
Samuel |
1854 |
– |
Mary Ann |
1856 |
– |
Edward |
1858 |
– |
James |
1860 |
1871 |
Hannah |
1865 |
1871 |
Ellen |
1870 |
1881 |
Samuel Barton’s children |
Mary A |
1875 |
1881 |
John |
1877 |
– |
James |
1880 |
1891 |
Louisa |
1882 |
1891 |
Jane |
1885 |
1891 |
Samuel |
1887 |
– |
Caroline |
1890 |
– |
Henry |
1894 |
– |
Ellen |
1895 |
– |
Unlike the 1871 Scottish census, English censuses do not directly record attendance at school. However, ‘Scholar’ commonly recorded in the occupation column for children of school age, might be an indicator of some education. Some of the children of Edward and Samuel Barton appear to have attended school after 1870. As the absence of ‘scholar’ could be due to accidental omission or error, it is not strong evidence of a lack of education.
The Elementary Education Act 1870 established local school boards which could enforce byelaws requiring children to attend school between the ages of 5 and 13, where there was a school within 3 miles of the child’s home. The school boards could raise funds from the rate payers, but still required fees from the parents. Poor parents who could not afford fees or loss of the children’s income may have tried to avoid the compulsion to attend school. Although the Bartons lived in back-to-back houses they were part of the canal boat community that distrusted officialdom. In response to public health concerns two acts requiring the registration of canal boats were enacted in 1877 and 1884. The legislation proved unenforceable and ineffective as Benjamin Browning, a Medical Officer of Health noted in 1879 due to
“the reluctance of the boatmen themselves to have registration effected, since their children are at once brought under the ken and domination of the School Board.”
© Sue Adams 2013
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: 28 Aug 2013 | Author: Sue Adams | Filed under: Family Folklore, Sue's family research | Tags: 50 Marriage Mondays, Birmingham, electoral roll, Jones, school master, Turner |
Aunt Sis, as she was known to her grand-nieces, is remembered for her seed cake and her marriage to a schoolmaster at King Edward’s school. It isn’t clear how Lucy Charlotte Jones acquired her nickname, but the story of her marriage is true:

Marriage Certificate-James Turner & Lucy Charlotte Jones
Bride: Lucy Charlotte Jones, 34, spinster
Groom: James Turner, 61, widower, school master
Date: 26 August 1903
Location: St James church, Edgbaston, Birmingham
Witnesses: William Taylor Jones [bride’s father], Ronald Turner
The School Master’s career
James Turner was indeed a school master at King Edward VI School in Birmingham. Alison Wheatley, archivist for the school, kindly responded to my enquiry and provided details of James Turner’s career:
Year |
Position |
Age |
Annual Salary |
School |
1854 |
Pupil monitor |
12 |
|
Gem Street Elementary School |
1859 |
Assistant Master |
17 |
£25 |
1866 |
Writing Master |
24 |
£80 |
King Edward’s Classical School |
after 1866 |
Assistant English Master |
|
|
1875 |
Took drawing classes in addition to other duties |
33 |
£20 extra |
1911 |
resigned due to ill health |
69 |
£196 pension |
Throughout James’ time at King Edward VI School, it was based at New Street in the centre of Birmingham. The impressive school building was demolished in 1938 when the school moved to it current location in Edgbaston. The old school building features in two short films which explain its architectural importance and memories of past pupils.
The First Family
Prior to his marriage to Lucy, James had raised a family of 5 children, born between ca. 1871 and ca. 1891, with his first wife, Elizabeth Fanny Pursall. The family resided at Spooner Street, Aston (1871 & 1881 census), and Kingswood Road, Kings Norton (1891 & 1901 census). Elizabeth died in 1899.
At the time of James and Lucy’s marriage, James’ youngest child, Gladys Fanny was aged about 12. The older children may have left home prior to 1903, but Gladys resided with James and Lucy at 55 Church Road, Moseley in 1911.
The Marital Home
James was included in the electoral register in 1868 (Spooner Street) and 1912 (55 Church Road). Consequently, I can conclude the properties he occupied were rated above the minimum value, which suggests a comfortable economic position. 55 Church Road is a semi-detached house. The adjoining semi, no 57, was described as a spacious 5 bedroom property with 3 reception rooms, 2 bathrooms, kitchen and cellar when offered for rental in 2011. Both James and Lucy appear on the 1920 spring electoral register, published on 15 May, as occupiers of 55 Church Road. The death of James Turner, aged 78, was registered in the July-September quarter of 1920 (Kings Norton district, Vol. 6d, page 38).
A Long Widowhood
The degree to which Lucy was supported by James’ pension after his death is unknown. Having married a man 27 her senior, it is not surprising that she faced a long widowhood from the age of 41. According to family hearsay, Lucy became a lady’s companion after James’ death and later lived with her brother Charles Bertram Jones.
The 1930 electoral register shows her living the household of Ewart Vane Parsons, with 5 adult women sharing the Parsons surname, at 106 Woodlands Road, Sparkbrook. In 1911, Ewart Parsons and his sisters, aged between 22 and 38, lived with their mother Isabella Parsons, aged 64. Lucy’s residence in the Parson household is consistent with the lady’s companion story.
The 1950 electoral register confirms that Lucy C Turner and Charles B Jones resided at 4 Torquay Terrace, Sparkbrook. Charles had been widowed in 1946 and his children had all married and left home. Lucy’s death was registered in the July-September quarter of 1952 (Birmingham district, Vol 9c, page 420). Lucy’s grand-nieces, who sadly remember the seed cake she baked as dry and unpalatable, were no older than 12 or 14 when they last tasted the recipe on a visit to their ‘Grampy Jones’, Charles.
© Sue Adams 2013
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: 20 Aug 2013 | Author: Sue Adams | Filed under: Genealogy software and data, Photo software, Sue's family research | Tags: 50 Marriage Mondays, Adams, Birmingham, Canning, face recognition, family history, identity, metadata, Ward End |
When I first got my hands on this photograph it had no helpful annotation on the back to tell me who the people were. The photo is part of my grandmother’s collection, so I could recognise her and my grandfather. As they died many years ago, I could not ask them to identify the other people. Three people of the next generation, the baby in his mother’s arms, the toddler on her grandmother’s knee and the child bridesmaid are still alive and all recognise the groom as a favourite: Uncle Albert.

The marriage certificate provides the date, location and names three people present at the wedding in addition to the couple:
Bride: Margaret Canning
Groom: Albert Adams
Date: 12 April 1941
Location: St Margaret’s Church, Ward End, Birmingham
Father of Bride: Arthur Solomon Canning
Father of Groom: Thomas Henry Adams (deceased)
Witnesses: A S Canning, J Adams
Although some of the people in this picture have been identified, others have not. First, I want to do the electronic equivalent of writing on the back, and second, I want to share the photo with relatives and let them add to the annotation.
Annotating Digital Images – Metadata
It is important that my annotations are embedded in the image file and that they are not lost when the file is copied or edited. Two commonly used file types that support embedded text are jpeg and tiff, which also support information like camera settings, date and time of creation, and copyright. Rather than describe the positions of people, which can get cumbersome, I want to point to a face and label it with the person’s name.
Digital cameras, social media and image processing software now commonly boast ‘face recognition’ capabilities. Two processes are often conflated when people talk about face recognition. The first is the ability to determine that a face is part of the picture, rather than some other object with similar dimensions (e.g. a ball, balloon). This problem has been solved and successfully implemented in many cameras and software, which identify the part of the picture containing a face and highlight the region in a rectangle.
The second problem, the ability to compare two faces and determine whether the same person is depicted, is much more complex and difficult. Automatic comparison and identification requires multiple images to train the software to recognise a person. The training is done by a person. People are talented at recognising other people, computers aren’t.
All the embedded information, the file’s metadata, is the needed for the person labelling functions I want to work.
Picasa and Photoshop Elements – Metadata compatibility
Two image processing programs, Picasa 3.9 (free) and Photoshop Elements 8 (came bundled with some hardware) installed on my computer, are both capable of identifying face regions and labelling them. However, faces labelled in one program are not recognised by the other.

Screen shots of face tagging in Picasa (top) and Photoshop Elements (bottom)
There are many ways labels, tags and definition of face regions can be implemented by software, so programs have developed a variety of different solutions. Incompatibility between programs is a consequence. Consumer dissatisfaction prompted a consortium of digital media companies, The Metadata Working Group, to publish technical guidelines in November 2010, aimed at overcoming the incompatibilities.
Photoshop Elements 8, released in 2009, does not seem to store face regions in the image file. Photoshop Elements is now on version 11, so it might have implemented the metadata guidelines. Picasa 3.9, the current version, does store face regions in the file metadata, but they are not recognised by Photoshop 8.
Face regions are stored separately from tags. Tags are widely used to facilitate searching files containing tag labels. For example, photos depicting Albert tagged as ‘Albert Adams’, can be found from my operating system or image software. Photoshop created tags as I labelled face regions, but Picasa did not. It turns out I want both.
For now, I prefer using Picasa for naming people as it is more user-friendly, but use Photoshop for other image editing tasks.
Sharing and online collaboration
I would like to share this photo online in a way that allows fellow genealogists or relatives to tag the unidentified people.
Social media sites such as Facebook and Google+ have face region and tagging capabilities. However, only people with whom you are associated on the website can be tagged for reasons of online privacy and social etiquette. Most of the people in this photo are long dead and certainly not on social media!
Picasa has a facility to upload photos, which is in transition from the old ‘Picasa Web Albums’ to ‘Google + Photos’. I uploaded the photo and viewed it online, but am not sure which service was in operation when I could see this in my browser:

So, dear relatives, can you identify any of the people not yet tagged?
© Sue Adams 2013
Like this:
Like Loading...