FreeBMD Marriages Mar 1848   
per MC#WMXZ247467 6 Feb 1848
Fry Charles Abergavenny 26 4
WERAT Jane Abergavenny  26 4
Parish Church of Aberystruth in the County of Monmouth
according to the R&C of the Established Church after Banns
Charles Fry (made mark); Full age; colllier; Ebbw-Vale; father Thomas Fry, labourer
Jane Werat (made mark); minor; Ebbw-Vale; father Thomas Werat, collier
witnesses Thomas Werat and Margaret Williams

IMM George Fry and son; New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 > 1860 > July > 25 > Chancellor; image 8 of 11 @ancestry.com; Source Citation: Year: 1860; Arrival: New York , United States; Microfilm serial: M237; Microfilm roll: M237_203; Line: 33; List number: 658.
Charles Fry age 38
Thomas Fry age 7



????1851 Wales Census > Glamorgan > Aberdare > District 2j; image 39 of 64 @ancestry.com; Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 2460; Folio: 328; Page: 39; GSU roll: 104204-104205.
Charles Fry 26 b 1825 Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales
Jane Fry 22 abt 1829 Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales
Thomas Fry 6 Mo Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales



From email correspondance with Lloyd Wright
Fri Apr 20 10:29:34 2007
HaHaHa
I was looking for Elizabeth Reynolds, and found this

?1870 United States Federal Census > Pennsylvania > Northumberland > Shamokin; image 66 of 168 @ancestry.com;
Thomas Reynolds b abt 1826 in Wales
Margaret Reynolds b abt 1827 in Wales
Mary Reynolds b abt 1847 in Wales
Benjamin Reynolds b abt 1849 in Wales
William Reynolds b abt 1854 in Pennsylvania
Lewis Reynolds b abt 1858 inPennsylvania
James Reynolds b abt 1860 in Pennsylvania
Elisabeth Reynolds b abt 1863 in Pennsylvania

so I took a look at the 1880

1880 United States Federal Census > Pennsylvania > Northumberland > Shamokin > District 148; image 16 of 49 @ancestry.com; Source Citation: Year: 1880; Census Place: Shamokin, Northumberland, Pennsylvania; Roll: T9_1164; Family History Film: 1255164; Page: 159.4000; Enumeration District: 148; Image: 0064.
Thomas Reynolds 54
Margeret Reynolds 53
Benjamin Reynolds 30
William Reynolds 25
James Reynolds 19
Elizabeth Reynolds 16
Henry Walters 39

Look at the neighbors!! George Frye 2 doors down!!! I already sent you this image! Hmmmm do you think these are the right peeps!?! That is magical
Gwen
*
Fri Apr 20 09:46:14 2007
Hello again!

I found a couple more things for you to look at. I don't know if they are right or not, but I thought I'd share them. I wasn't having much luck at all with the Fryes in Northumberland County, so I just took a peek at Wales for Charles and found this.

1851 Wales Census > Glamorgan > Aberdare > District 2j; image 39 of 64 @ancestry.com; Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 2460; Folio: 328; Page: 39; GSU roll: 104204-104205.
Charles Fry 26 b 1825 Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales
Jane Fry 22 abt 1829 Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales
Thomas Fry 6 Mo Aberdare, Glamorgan, Wales

1860 seemed so early to immigrate I thought for sure I'd find more records on the US censes but no go. I gave immigration a shot but it's really weak. The mainfest lists them from Ireland, but lists everyone from Ireland even tho the boat also came from Liverpool. The dates all fit, but I couldn't tell what the middle child was named, those are my trascription, sorry, can't blame ancestry this time!

New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 > 1861 > August > 22 > Dreadnought; image 3 of 3 @ancestry.com; from Liverpool; Irish
line 119 Jane Fry age 35 abt 1826
120 Shadiank?? age 6 male son
121 George age 2 abt 1859

By the way the name Frye seemed rare in Wales... I had to do a soundex search to get any hits at all in any Wales census, and then the entries came up without the e. No matches on the FreeBMD with the e in Glamorgan. This could work to your advantage if they did actually come from Glamorgam, especially if you can narrow it down to a district, virtually anyone with the same last name in the area is sure to be related. I ran into this with my Oakeys in Shropshire and my Buckinghams in Caernarvonshire, Wales.

Don't know if you saw this one on family search, it was the combination of George frye and mother Jane which caught my eye... do you know when Charles died? Are you certain of Jane and Charles as George's parents? I thought this stands the most possiblilty of being right.

??1880 United States Federal Census > Pennsylvania > Northumberland > Shamokin > District 148; image 16 of 49 @ancesrty.com; Source Citation: Year: 1880; Census Place: Shamokin, Northumberland, Pennsylvania; Roll: T9_1164; Family History Film: 1255164; Page: 159.4000; Enumeration District: 148; Image: 0064.
David Morgan 45
Jane Morgan 49 Wales abt 1831
Mary Morgan 9 PA
Rachael Morgan 7 PA
George Fry 21Wales stepson abt 1859

If only there were some way to double check. Looks like Northumberland County came very late to the records game.
http://www.mahantongo.org/nccourt.htm
If Charles died before 1880 they would have no record, unless he had a will. If he owned land you might also get some records there, but marriage records don't start til 1885 so I don't know how you could verify this. Maybe it's worth contacting the local historical society, maybe they have other records? I looked to see if there was some kind of local paper but Shamokin seemed kind of dinky. The seat of the county is some other town.

FYI I have 2 email accounts, and I sent you some certificates from my gmail account. I just got that one becasue Excite wouldn't accept email from my certificate guy cause it looks like spam.... they however let a lot of real spam thru so I don't know what their problem is! I might end up migrating to that one completely, eventually but for now I'm using both, with excite as my main. Anyway if you see a strange Gmail address it's still me!

Yes, there is a way on Ancestry you can submit corrections, and what is submitted shows up for other people, so it helps correct the index! I didn't do it in this case... I was going kind of fast and it was hard to read anyway, so I wasn't 100% certain I was right.

Gwen
*
Fri Apr 20 21:07:59 2007
Hi Gwen,

This is going to have to be quick. I'll see if I can cover everything.

I'll say this: you are batting awfully close to 1000 as far as I can tell!

Regarding the 1851 Charles Fry. It certainly could be them. Seems like the right area, and they did have a son Thomas, according to the family. But I don't have any dates for them or for Thomas, so I don't have anything to verify against except the names and general dates.

Regarding the Fry/Frye spelling. A couple of ideas: The family apparently spells it "Frye" today, but that could have become "the
correct spelling" after they immigrated. Probably an even chance the parents were illiterate, so they wouldn't have known one way or the other. At the same time, it looks like census-takers didn't go to any great lengths to make sure they had the name spelled correctly, either. If the name sounded like "fry", they probably just wrote "Fry".

Secondly, I noticed that the 1900 census you sent indicates that George Frye's parents were from England, not Wales. I realize you can't rely on that too heavily, but since the census lists him as being from Wales, but his parents from England, it seems like a distinction that a lazy census taker wouldn't have messed with. I note, though, that the 1880 does not agree with this, and lists his parents as being from Wales (but that's where I'm inclined to think it's like your "all immigrants are from Ireland" thing). I bring all this up to suggest that perhaps the "Frye" spelling is English and that could explain why you don't find that spelling in Wales. Not anything I've tried to research--just an idea.

The 1861 passenger list is almost certainly the right peeps. The family records indicate that there was a son named "Shadrick", which comes very close to what is in the passenger list. (The passenger list may have the name spelled like the Bible, "Shadrach", but it's impossible to say for sure.) In any case, the match is very close, and the name is so rare that I'm ready to say this has to be the right people. Thomas is missing, and I infer from this that he must have come over earlier with his father. If the 1851 is the right family, Thomas would have been approaching 10 years old, so could have been regarded as old enough to fend for himself to the degree that going over with the father would have meant that.

You're right on the money with the David Morgan family as well. I didn't catch it at first, but family records indicate that Jane remarried to a David Morgan. So the fact that George is there and listed as a stepson just about seals it.

I have never researched this family at all, so hadn't had occasion to come across even the stuff that is on familysearch.org.

Thanks for the explanation of your email addresses. No problem. Also it is reassuring to hear that ancestry.com has a mechanism for submitting corrections to the indexes.

Regarding the Reynolds, I think you've hit the target there, too. I have absolutely nothing to go on there, because the family records are silent regarding her family, except for Elizabeth's name and birthdate. But that matches, and the fact that they were practically neighbors of the Morgans and George--well, I can't say it better than you did: magical!

Gotta run for now,
Lloyd

*
Hi Gwen,
>
> Well, I found a bit of a surprise myself, in the wake of your latest discoveries (for which, thank you once again).
>
> I wondered where in the world "Cleveland, Iowa" was--and for that matter, where in Iowa there had ever been coal mining. This web page explains: http://iagenweb.org/lucas/Post-Offices.htm
>
> But the surprise was this paragraph:
>
> "Fry Hill Cemetery, on the heights due north of old Cleveland and with sweeping views of the surrounding countryside, served (and still does) Lucas, Cleveland and other small communities in the immediate vicinity. ... The Lucas County Genealogical Society reports that Fry Hill was established on land owned by the Whitebreast Fuel Co. about 1880 and that the first burial there may have been the victim of a mining accident named Shadrack Fry, whose tombstone inscription states that he died 30 November 1880, age 24."
>
> So there you go. I guess you won't be finding any more of Shadrick/Shadrack Fry after 1880!
>
> Great that you were able to confirm that Thomas came over with his father as we suspected. What you found certainly appears to be them!
>
> The 1861 with Jane and sons living with her sister's (?) family is interesting in several respects. I assume that "sister-in-law" means that Jane was Margaret Rogers' sister. Is that how you read it? If so, have you had occasion to try finding a Weret family with daughters Jane and Margaret, in Monmouthsire, Glamorganshire, or maybe Somerset, maybe in 1841? ("Weret" is how the name is spelled in the Frye family records I have, but a web search shows the name seems to be spelled a dizzying number of ways--Werat, Wereatt, Werret, Werrot, Wharrit, Wirat, even Wyrriatt, to name just a tiny number.) I ran across a web site that lists a very large number of people with surnames like this, and while I didn't find anyone that seemed to be our Jane or Margaret, I did find people from Somerset, England and Monmouthsire, Wales, and even people that were born in one of those and died in the other. Also promising, I found a surprising number of them with the given name "Shadrack" or some variant of that! So it sounds like the right family, anyway. (I mention Somerset because that's where Margaret's husband was from, of course.)
>
> Also interesting is that the Rogers' youngest was born in Merthyr Tydfil, which is where we seem to find Charles and Jane in 1851, and from which general area family records indicate that they emmigrated. So the Fry(e)s and Rogers may have been moving around sort of together.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of the 1851 you sent earlier, with respect to birthplaces. It indicates that both Charles and Jane were born in
> Aberdare, Glamorganshire. At least in Jane's case, that is at odds with the 1861. On the other hand, the 1851 has a generous amount of "dittoing" even across household boundaries, so one wonders how carefully birthplaces were collected. But the 1851 may yet prove to be the wrong family. Everything is temptingly close, but the ages for Charles and Thomas on the 1851 don't quite match up with the 1860 immigration record. I guess it all depends on how careful the various collectors of data were...
>
> All in all, I'm inclined to believe that all of these are the right family though, despite the inconsistencies.
>
> Thanks once again for all of this,
>
> Lloyd