Who Was Joseph Jolly?

Preface

This story was written after "Joseph and Elizabeth Ann Jolly", in the light of new findings I made after the original story. I left that story on the blog because it contains some good information not included here, and I therefore recommend reading that original story first, before reading this one.

*    *    *    *    *

According to documentation I had uncovered so far, Joseph Jolly was my Great Grandfather, born in 1861 to Robert Jolly and Rachel Critchley, who were married on October 13th 1844 at St Peter's, Bolton. Joseph was their youngest child, and grew up in Chorley. He was recorded as living in Friday St, Chorley in the 1871 census, and was shown as the son of the Head of Household, Robert Jolly. He appears to have moved to Kirkdale, Liverpool by the age of 19 where he was boarding with his mother's brother, David Critchley, a coal merchant. Joseph was working as a clerk in the 1881 census in Liverpool, and by the 1891 census he was married to Elizabeth Ann Waddington and living in Horwich, along with their son Fred Jolly, my mother's father, then aged one. By 1901 the Jolly's had moved back to Chorley, at 210 Eaves Lane, and by the 1911 census Joseph and Elizabeth Ann were at 3 Granville Rd, Chorley, and in that census Fred was recorded at St Mark's College, Chelsea, London. Through all these censuses except 1871 (when he was 9), Joseph was working as a clerk: 1881, simply Clerk; 1891, Railway Clerk; 1901, Railway Accounts Clerk; 1911, L & Y [Lancashire & Yorkshire] Railway Clerk.

It was a relatively simple process to uncover these facts. All the documents were fairly easy to find, except the 1881 census where Joseph was recorded/transcribed as John. Helping me to connect this "John" Jolly to the Joseph I was looking for was Head of Household David's sister Lucy, who was also present. David and Lucy were both shown as being born in Heath Charnock, their ages matched earlier census reports I'd found when they were living in Heath Charnock with their parents and other siblings, including Rachel, in 1841 and 1851. It was all quite clear. Or so I thought.

Having established a good timeline framework for Joseph I wanted to find some evidence of his marriage to Elizabeth Ann Waddington. After all, the only "evidence" I had was the Waddington Bible which was eventually passed down to Fred Jolly and on to his wife, Alice Winifred Cooper, and then to my Sister-In-Law. While the Bible doesn't contain any record of their marriage, the census reports from 1891 and 1901 showed Joseph's wife as Elizabeth A Jolly, and 1911 shows Elizabeth Ann. The bible had, among other names, Elizabeth Ann Waddington, born February 8th, 1860. So it had to be her, but this didn't constitute proof. In the 1911 census Joseph and Elizabeth Ann recorded the "number of completed years of this marriage" as 25. That puts their wedding at around 1885. What I wanted was a marriage certificate.

Well, I couldn't find one. After many fruitless searches in various resources for the marriage of Joseph Jolly to Elizabeth Ann Waddington, I decided to try it the other way around, and searched for the marriage of Elizabeth Ann to Joseph. What I found raised a curious eyebrow, and what followed had the potential to shatter the history as I had understood it.

In the 1881 census Joseph Jolly was living at the home of his mother's brother, David Critchley, in Kirkdale, Liverpool, which fell under the Parish of West Derby. I found a Marriage Registry Index listing of an Elizabeth Ann Waddington marrying a Joseph Critchley in 1885, registered in West Derby. This was intriguing - if these were my Great Grandparents, why would Joseph be using his mother's maiden name, when everywhere else he was recorded as Jolly, both before and after this marriage? It warranted investigation. When I received the Marriage Certificate, it soon became evident that this couple was highly likely to be my Great Grandparents.

It was the right year, they were the right ages, Joseph Critchley was a clerk, and Elizabeth Ann lived in Chorley. Joseph gave Thomas Critchley, deceased, as his father's name, and Elizabeth Ann gave the name Thomas Waddington, deceased, as hers. Thomas Critchley was Joseph Jolly's maternal grandfather, who died in 1858. Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of single mother Ellen Waddington, and I have no knowledge of who her father was. She grew up in the home of her Grandfather, Thomas Waddington, who died in 1883.

This could all be a highly improbable string of coincidences, but the strongest pointer was one of the witnesses to the marriage - Robert Calderbank. Robert and Rachel Jolly had a daughter, Lucy Ann (who to this point I perceived as Joseph's sister). On October 9th, 1879, Lucy Ann married a Book Keeper from Sackville Street in Chorley, named Robert Calderbank. The witness was Joseph Jolly's brother-in-law.

It was all starting to add up, and I was pretty convinced these were my Great Grandparents. But I was still mystified as to why Joseph would use his mother's maiden name of Critchley and not his father's name of Jolly. Was it a secret marriage? Had Joseph fallen out with his father and not wanted to go by the name Jolly? Was Robert against the marriage of his son to a fatherless woman?

My cousin, Gillian, raised the question of whether Joseph might have used his mother's maiden name because he wasn't actually Robert Jolly's son, and asked if there was a gap in births compared to his siblings. Indeed there was: Maria was born in 1845, Daniel in 1848, Lucy Ann in 1851, then Joseph in 1861. But how likely was Robert Jolly to raise the child his wife bore from another man? But in revisiting the information I had on this family I now saw something else I was already aware of, but from a different perspective.

In the 1881 census I had confirmed that the "John" Jolly recorded in David Critchley's house was in fact Joseph Jolly by virtue of the fact that David's sister Lucy was also there. Lucy Critchley had helped me tie these Jolly's and Critchley's together a few times, seeming to move from one of her siblings to another at various censuses - almost as if they took turns at giving her somewhere to live. After her father died in 1858 Lucy lived, presumably, in her father's house where her older sister Mary was shown as HOH in the 1861 census. Then in 1871 she was with her sister Rachel in Friday Street Chorley, by 1881 she was with her brother David in Kirkdale, until eventually she appeared to have been "inherited" by Joseph in 1891 and 1901, who was now all grown up and married with a child (Fred). Lucy was a convenient link in establishing Mary, Rachel and David as being the right Critchley's. But following Gillian's question it occurred to me that in each of those census reports (except 1861) she may not have actually been living at a sibling's house at all - maybe she was living with Joseph! In the censuses of 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901 Lucy Critchley was wherever Joseph was. Could Lucy have been Joseph's mother?

Joseph was born in 1861 some time after Census Day which was Sunday, April 7th. In that census, Lucy was living in Eaves Lane, Chorley, with her sister Mary. She was recorded as unmarried, but would have been pregnant. Also in that house were two of Lucy's brothers, James and Peter. For whatever reason, it seems that between 1861 and 1871 Lucy may have taken herself and her child, Joseph, to her sister Rachel's house in Friday Street. In 1861 Robert and Rachel had three children, Maria aged 15, Daniel 13 and Lucy Ann, 9. Perhaps this was a better environment for a mother and baby than a house with an older sister around 50, a coal miner and a brick maker. And although single parents can be found everywhere in the 1800's, it wasn't socially considered to be the done thing, and a lot of stigma was attached to being a single mother or an illegitimate child. One possibility is that Lucy took Joseph to Rachel's home because there he could be perceived by the general public as being one of Robert and Rachel's children, and he became known as Joseph Jolly.

The theory was more than a little plausible - but now the challenge was to prove it, and that could be difficult. If I could obtain a Birth Certificate for Joseph Critchley showing his mother as Lucy and born in Eaves Lane, that would be good evidence. Similarly, a certificate for Joseph Jolly with parents Robert Jolly and Rachel Critchley would dismiss the theory - also a good result. Unfortunately I couldn't find a Birth Registry listing for any Joseph Critchley in 1861, and the only Joseph Jolly that year was registered in Bolton, whereas most census reports show him as being born in Preston. Birth Marriage and Death Registration by the Government was introduced in 1837, but it didn't become compulsory until 1875, so many parents didn't bother to register their children's births. And while Robert Jolly's children Maria, Daniel and Lucy Ann were all baptised at Rivington Church, I haven't been able to find any such record for Joseph - Jolly or Critchley.

So just who was Joseph Jolly? Being unable to find a record of an event doesn't prove that it didn't happen, so the fact that I couldn't find a record of Joseph's birth or baptism, nor his marriage to Elizabeth Ann didn't prove that Joseph wasn't Robert Jolly's son.

Investigating the birth of my Grandfather, Fred Jolly, yielded equally fruitless results. Fred was born in 1889, and going by the ages recorded in the 1891, 1901 and 1911 census reports, he was born after April 5th of that year. My search for births and baptisms of Fred Jolly turned up two registration index listings of  Fred Jolly's born in 1889 - one registered in Chorley and the other in Bolton. Bolton was a possibility, as in 1891 Joseph and Elizabeth Ann were living in Horwich, just six miles away. If they were already living in Horwich when Fred was born, they may well have registered him in Bolton. So from the index listings I ordered Birth Certificates for both of these Fred Jolly's to see which of them was my Grandfather. It turned out that neither of them was. Neither of them had parents Joseph or Elizabeth Ann, and this appeared to be another dead-end. I had found no baptism record for Fred anywhere, yet I felt quite sure he would have been baptised.

I broadened my search to include all three names - Joseph, Elizabeth Ann, and Fred Jolly. What I eventually came across added fuel to my newly lit fire. I found a record from St Laurence, Chorley, from October 6th, 1889, of the baptism of a Fred Critchley, whose father was recorded as Joseph, and whose mother was recorded as Elizabeth Ann, of 9 Buchanan Street, Chorley. Could it be? Could it possibly be??

It didn't take me long to find the Birth Registry Index listing for this Fred Critchley, and I ordered his Birth Certificate. Fred Critchley was born on September 3rd, 1889 at 9 Buchanan Street, Chorley; Father: Joseph Critchley, Book-Keeper (Accounts Clerk?); Mother: Elizabeth Ann Critchley, Formerly Waddington.

The string of highly improbable coincidences just grew even more improbable. There are really only two options here: a) these Critchley's are my Grandfather and my Great Grandparents, or b) the now extremely improbable coincidences actually happened.

It's fairly safe to presume that this Joseph and Elizabeth Ann are the same couple that were married in Walton-On-The-Hill in 1885, though it is possible that there was a third Joseph and Elizabeth Ann getting around Chorley at that time. But if it is the same couple, then for the truth to be option b), here's what has to have happened:

• Two Josephs - one Jolly, one Critchley, both born in 1861, both clerks by 1885 ~ 1889
• Two Elizabeth Ann Waddington's in Chorley, both born in 1860
• Our two Josephs marry our two Elizabeth Anns in 1885
• Both of these couples have a connection with either one or two people by the name of Robert Calderbank, who is/are Joseph Jolly's brother-in-law and Joseph Critchley's witness to marriage
• Both of these couples, same ages, married in the same year, have a child in 1889 and name him Fred. 

Other than the very clear records of their marriage and the birth and baptism of their son Fred, the Critchley couple seem to have left no trace (that I've been able to find) of their existence prior to the 1885 marriage and after the 1889 birth of Fred. Conversely, the Jolly couple appear to have left no evidence of their marriage nor of the birth or baptism of their son Fred, yet there are lots of records of both their lives before 1885 and after 1889

The next step of my investigation was to get copies of some certificates from the Government Records Office. I had found a Birth Registration for only one Joseph Jolly in Lancashire in 1861, registered in Bolton. I figured it was a strong enough possibilty because Bolton isn't very far from Chorley. 

The Birth Certificate shows the names of both parents, unless the father is either unknown or simply not revealed, and if married, it shows the maiden name of the mother. So if this was the right Joseph Jolly whose parents were Robert Jolly and Rachel Jolly, formerly Critchley, the certificate would show that, and dismiss my theory about Lucy. Or it could show Joseph's mother as Lucy, and with or without a father it would prove my theory.

I wasn't surprised to find that this wasn't my Joseph Jolly. This Joseph's parents were Richard Jolly and Alice Hamer - no connection that I'm aware of. Another certificate I had ordered was based on a hunch, a longshot. Death Certificates show the name of the "Informant", that is, the person who registers the death, which is usually a close family member but could be anyone - a close friend or a doctor for example. I had already established that Lucy Critchley was admitted to Whittingham County Asylum in 1907, and that she died there on August 23rd, 1910. Whittingham Asylum was opened in 1873 and was the largest asylum in Lancashire at that time, and grew to be the largest in Britain, with its own church, farms, railway, telephone exchange, post office, reservoirs, gas works, brewery, orchestra, brass band, ballroom and butchers. Whittingham wasn't just a lunatic asylum, however: in 1884 a sanatorium was added for patients with infectious diseases. 

Because Lucy appeared to be living wherever Joseph was in all the censuses, I ordered Lucy's Death Certificate in the hope that it just might reveal something about Joseph:

And there it was: Jos Jolly, Son. What possible reason could Joseph have had for recording himself as Lucy's son other than it being the truth? Joseph Jolly was not the son of Robert and Rachel Jolly, but the illegitimate son of Rachel's sister, Lucy Critchley, and it appears he had spent most of his life pretending to be a Jolly and living in the Jolly household. Except, that is, for a brief period starting somewhere before his marriage to Elizabeth Ann in 1885 and ending sometime not long after the birth of their son Fred Critchley in 1889, who we have all known as Fred Jolly, my Grandfather. In every census of his life to this point, Lucy had been present wherever Joseph was, yet she was never recorded as his mother. According to the certificate, Joseph registered his mother's death the day after she died, which suggests to me that he was probably with her when she died, or immediately before. Was it a dying request from Lucy that Joseph not deny her?  Perhaps some sort of moment of absolute truth?

While this discovery pretty much closes the case and answers the question, "Who Was Joseph Jolly?", in doing so it raises new questions: how did they do it? Did Rachel and Lucy go away for nine months, leading everyone to believe that Rachel was pregnant, then come back with a baby? Or did they just keep a low profile until after Joseph was born, and then simply pretend he was Robert and Rachel's child? Perhaps everyone knew he was Lucy's, but he became known as one of the Jolly's anyway. Did he call Lucy 'Mum' or 'Aunty Lucy'? And why did he revert to Critchley for his marriage to Elizabeth Ann Waddington in 1885, name his son Fred Critchley in 1889, then go back to being Jolly in the 1891 census?

And what about Fred, and the impact on him? To answer that, we'd have to know whether or not he knew, and if he did know, when he found out. Short of a tell-all diary turning up somewhere, we'll probably never know the answers to these and other questions, and with only 18 living descendants of Joseph, that's not very likely.

Then there is the question of the impact of this revelation on the 18 living descendants. For most, there is probably no impact at all. For me, apart from now having to re-write a few of the stories in this blog, there's a mix. I never knew Joseph or Fred, as Fred died seven years before I was born. But I grew up knowing my Grandfather to have been Fred Jolly, and my Mother to be have been Hilda Jolly. Around Chorley as a child, it became evident quite early in my life that the name Fred Jolly was synonymous with all that is good and righteous. Fred was the Headmaster of St Peter's Primary School in Chorley, an Anglican school, and was well liked and respected by all who knew him, even the priests and staff at St Mary's Catholic Primary School. When I started this research, I believed I was a Jolly, which carried with it a certain amount of pride. It now appears that I am not (unless of course the best kept secret in Chorley of the 19th century was that Robert Jolly had a fling with his younger sister-in-law which went....well...pear-shaped!), but does that matter? The pride in our names doesn't come from the name itself, but rather from what we know about the people who went by that name, and the name itself is simply a thread which attaches us to them. Whatever the reasons behind the name switching in the 1880's, Joseph ultimately chose to go by the name Jolly, and that his wife and son be known as Jolly also. We are free to call ourselves whatever we want, and Joseph evidently wanted to be known by the name of the only man he had known as his father, Robert Jolly, the man who had raised Joseph, educated him and guided him to adulthood, along with Maria, Daniel and Lucy Ann, who Joseph perceived as his brother and sisters. He must have felt he was a Jolly, regardless of the biology. It's hard to imagine Fred not knowing the story: Lucy lived in Joseph's home from Fred's birth till he was 18, when Lucy was admitted to Whittingham. And there seems to have been a close connection with Lucy's brother David, as his son Richard Hiram Critchley, who was Joseph's cousin but the same age as Fred, was Fred's Best Man at his marriage to Alice Winifred Cooper. It doesn't seem likely that Fred didn't know Lucy was his Grandmother. But he was still Fred Jolly, his wife became Alice Winifred Jolly, and his children were Hilda and Keith Jolly. So yes, I am a Jolly. My siblings, and all our children and grandchildren are Jolly's, because three generations before me were Jolly's.   

Beyond that, what has become important to me in this research is accuracy. All historians, professional and amateur alike, "fill in the blanks" with speculation and supposition when they run out of documented, provable facts. I sometimes do that myself, but I believe that accuracy as far as possible is vital in Family History because without it, everything is meaningless. Nobody can guarantee 100% accuracy in their Family Tree, but we must strive for it if we're going to get as real a picture as possible. And that is why we investigate, check, and double check, re-read, and keep searching. This began with a missing marriage record, that of Joseph Jolly and Elizabeth Ann Waddington. I could have left it at that, as another blank among many in the records I have discovered so far. But in my Introduction I wrote this paragraph:

"So for those of us who enjoy being alive, who have loved their parents and grandparents, their kids and their grandkids, and cherish the love and joy they've given us over our lifetime, there exists a certain debt of appreciation and acknowledgement of those people before our time whose lives came together over many centuries and entwined into complex threads of history to form the warp and weft of the very fabric of which we are composed. And that debt is the purpose of this work - to tell their story, our story. To find the people who came together, each with a tiny fragment, and joined those tiny fragments to bring about our very existence, and to acknowledge them and make them known."

To deny Joseph and Fred the Jolly name would be a failure to respect their choices and honour them as our Ancestors. Yet to not pursue this trail of clues and ultimately find the truth would be to fail in that other major purpose - "to acknowledge them and make them known" 

This is for Lucy Critchley, born in Heath Charnock in July 1829, my Great, Great, Grandmother.   

********

Footnote:

That period around 1910 was pretty tough for these Jolly's and Critchleys. Elizabeth Ann's mother, Ellen Waddington, had married William Gregson in 1882. William died on September 11th 1909, aged 74. Ellen then appears to have moved to Joseph and Elizabeth Ann's house at 33 Stump Lane, Chorley, where she subsequently died in March 1910, just 6 months later, aged 68. Also in March 1910, on the 22nd, Lucy's brother David Critchley, the coal merchant in Liverpool, died aged 70. And as we've just seen, Lucy died of pneumonia in August that same year, aged 79. On May 13th, 1911, Joseph died at the tender age of just 51. Regardless of the causes of these deaths, it must have been quite a battering for the family over just 20 months.

This Story Was Written By

The Geneagrapher - Ancestral Story Writing Service.  Visit my website to see if I can be of service to you