The D'Arcy Archive
556 records · 81 families · searched 13 September 2026

The Sanigers, reconstituted

Every Saniger record in Gloucestershire, read individually and assembled into households — to answer one question: is Hannah in any of them? She is not.

This archive's oldest claim is a Gloucestershire family. Its only link to that family is one line in a Queensland death register naming Miriam Wakefield's mother as Hannah Saniger. Searching for Hannah by name had failed. Repeatedly →

So instead of searching for her, the county was reconstituted: all 556 Saniger records opened one by one, the father and mother read off each baptism, and the children assembled back into the households they came from. 81 families. Then ask which of them could be hers.

None of them. Not one family in Gloucestershire has a mother called Lydia — the name the tree gives Hannah's mother. Not one is a John and Lydia. There is exactly one Hannah baptised in the whole dataset, at Stinchcombe in 1730, and only three families are having children at all between 1795 and 1815, when Hannah should have been born. searched and empty, comprehensively
Method

What was actually done

Records opened556 205 baptisms, 200 marriages, 151 burials
Baptisms naming a father196 of 205 — the rest give the child only
Households assembled81 38 with two or more children; 43 with one

Grouped by parish, father's forename and mother's forename, and split wherever more than twenty-five years separates one baptism from the next — otherwise a grandfather and a grandson of the same name merge into one impossible household spanning a century. Duplicate transcriptions of the same event, which are everywhere in this county because several parishes are transcribed twice, are counted once.

The answer to the question

Three tests, three negatives

Asked of all 81 householdsFound
A mother called Lydia
the tree names Hannah's mother Lydia Jones
None. Not one household in the county empty
A father John with a wife Lydia
the tree names her father John Saniger
None. empty
A Hannah baptised anywhere One, at Stinchcombe on 2 July 1730 — daughter of Benjamin and Sarah, seventy-five years too early not hers
Any household bearing children 1795–1815 Three. Daniel and Elizabeth at Cam, George and Harriet at Dursley, William and Mary at Falfield — no John, no Lydia none of them hers
And this is where it stops being a puzzle and starts being an answer. The 1841 census entered Hannah Wakefield as born Out of County — not born in Gloucestershire. She is not in these eighty-one households because she is not from here. A week of failed searches was not bad luck; it was looking in the wrong county. The census that says so →
Eight counties, and a simpler explanation

Where else she is not

Gloucestershire was the obvious county and it is now exhausted. So were the others within reach of Bristol: Somerset, Wiltshire, Monmouthshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Oxfordshire. No Hannah Saniger born about 1805 in any of them — and the searches were control-tested, with more than five hundred Smiths returned for the same twenty years in each county group, and 358 Saniger-variant records in Wiltshire alone. eight counties, searched and empty

Which points at the least exotic answer available. Bristol straddled a county boundary. The parishes north of the Avon were in Gloucestershire; those south of it — Bedminster, Temple, St Mary Redcliffe — were in Somerset. An enumerator in St Paul's, returning his book under Gloucestershire, would enter a woman born half a mile away across the river as “Out of County” and be perfectly correct.

Hannah may simply have been born in Bristol, on the wrong side of the river — and that is precisely the ground where FreeREG holds four registers and 1,551 records. a hypothesis, and the cheapest one What would test it →
Who they actually were

A cloth-trade family of the Stroud valleys

Since the records were all opened anyway, they describe a family this archive had never looked at properly. The occupations are unmistakable:

Trades recorded
Blacksmith7
Weaver6
Labourer5
Shoemaker5
Plaisterer5
Coachman4
Yeoman3
Farmer3
Currier3
Clerk in Holy Orders2
Tucker2
Where they lived
Cam32
Dursley14
Lower Cam8
Painswick6
Berkeley5
Woodmancote5
Hallmer4
Oldbury4
Piddington3
Rectory Cottage3

Weavers, tuckers, curriers, blacksmiths and shoemakers, living at Cam, Lower Cam and Dursley. A tucker finishes woollen cloth; a currier dresses leather. These are the trades of the Stroudwater cloth district in its working century, and they are what this family did. Two Clerks in Holy Orders and three yeomen are the whole of the gentility.

The households

Every family of three children or more

ParishFather and motherChildrenSpanBaptised
Dursley Abraham & Jane 10 1698–1721 John 1698, William 1701, Susannah 1704, Jane 1707, Thomas 1711, Thomas 1712, Jane 1715, Tho. 1720, Thomas 1721
Cam Daniel & Elizabeth 8 1729–1763 Daniel 1729, Mary 1733, Mary 1735, Mary 1755, Henry 1757, Sarah 1760, Sarah 1762, Sarah 1763
Cam Daniell & Betty 8 1741–1752 William 1741, William 1742, Solomon 1745, Solomon 1746, Solomon 1747, Betty 1749, Ann 1751, Ann 1752
Cam Thomas & Sarah 8 1770–1791 Betty 1770, Thomas 1773, Daniel 1775, Mary 1778, Deborah 1780, Thomas 1782, Deborah 1788, George 1791
Dursley William & Elizabeth 6 1731–1761 Margaret 1731, Ann 1732, William 1733, Samuell 1752, Mary 1757, Elizabeth 1761
Cam John & Prudence 5 1677–1682 Richard 1677, John 1677, Daniel 1679, John 1680, Mary 1682
Dursley William & Mary 5 1704–1710 Mary 1704, William 1705, William 1707, John 1708, Martha 1710
Cam Daniel & Elizabeth 5 1813–1826 John 1813, Daniel 1815, Elizabeth 1820, Eliza 1823, Caroline 1826
Painswick Thomas & Eleanor 5 1844–1849 Joseph Thomas 1844, Helen 1846, John 1846, Jane 1848, Emily 1849
Dursley William & Ann 5 1846–1848 George 1846, Charles 1846, Henry 1846, Prudence 1846, William Sydney 1848
Dursley James & Emma 5 1887–1895 Ethel Louisa 1887, Francis Henry 1888, Charles James 1890, John Sidney 1894, Arthur George 1895
Thornbury Thomas & Jane 4 1750–1760 William 1750, John 1755, Isaac 1760, Jacob 1760
Berkeley James & — 3 1671–1675 James 1671, Elizabeth 1673, Edward 1675
Stinchcombe Benjamin & Sarah 3 1723–1730 Sarah 1723, Mary 1726, Hannah 1730
Thornbury William & Elizabeth 3 1779–1784 Edward 1779, Jane 1784, Elizabeth 1784
The largest household in the county is Abraham and Jane of Dursley — ten children between 1698 and 1721. Their Thomas, baptised 17 March 1711/12, is the one this archive briefly took for its own ancestor before reading the father's name. How that failed →

Where the families are

ParishHouseholds
Dursley33
Cam20
Thornbury8
Berkeley5
Stinchcombe4
Painswick2
Falfield2
Marshfield2
King's Stanley1
Tetbury1
North Nibley1
Bromsberrow1
Boxwell1

Dursley and Cam hold fifty-three of the eighty-one. Berkeley — the parish this archive has named in every account of itself since it was built — holds five, and cannot hold more, because its transcript stops in 1677.

Seventeen, not eleven

How this name is actually spelled

The Berkeley page lists eleven spellings. Reading all 556 records gives seventeen with three or more occurrences, and the commonest is not the one the family uses.

SpellingOccurrences
SINNEGAR92 the commonest in the registers
SANIGAR74
SINEGAR60
SANIGER58 the form this archive uses
SINIGAR23
SAINGER19
SANNIGAR19
SANEGAR18
SINIGER16
SINGER16
SANIGEAR15
SANNIGER12
SANNEGAR12
SANGER10
SINAGER8
SANEGER7
SINEGER7

All seventeen are now folded together by this site's own search, so any one of them finds the rest. Try it →

And where they went

Twenty-nine Sanigers in Bristol, 1841

The Vale families did not stay in the Vale. On census night in 1841 there are 29 of them in Bristol alone, under five spellings — and one of them is Lyddya Sinegar, aged 70, living in the Wakefield house.

Name as enumeratedBorn about
Rachael SANGER 1766
Lyddya SINEGAR 1771
Rachael SANGAR 1781
Hannah SENGEIR 1801
William SENGEIR 1801
Martha SINEGAR 1810
Mary SUNIGAR 1811
Thomas SINEGAR 1811
Charles SUNIGAR 1816
John SINGER 1816
John SANGER 1816
Caroline SANGER 1821
Ann SINGER 1821
William SANGER 1821
Susan SANGER 1821
James SANGER 1826
John SENGEIR 1826
George SENGEIR 1827
James SINEGAR 1830
Hannah SENGEIR 1831
Lydia SINEGAR 1832
Thomas SINEGAR 1834
Ann SENGEIR 1836
Emma SUNIGAR 1836
Martha SINEGAR 1839
Sarah SENGEIR 1839
John SANGER 1840
Elizabeth SUNIGAR 1840
Stephen SINGER 1840
This is the migration that makes the family findable and unfindable at once. A cloth-trade family leaves a collapsing rural industry for a city, and in doing so passes out of the parish registers that recorded it for two hundred years and into a city whose registers are almost entirely untranscribed — four registers and 1,551 records for the whole of Bristol. They are visible in 1841 because a census caught them, and invisible on either side of it. What each database holds →

The chain that failed → · The household, 1841 → · The certificate that would settle it →