Thomas Sinegar
A labourer from Berkeley living a mile from Hannah Wakefield, with a daughter named Lydia — and Hannah's mother, on the tree, was Lydia.
An earlier pass of this archive found a Thomas Sinegar living a mile from Hannah Wakefield and called him “the best lead this archive has”, because he was one of only two Sanigers in Bristol who gave their birthplace as Berkley. Then I decided Hannah was not born in Gloucestershire, and spent three days in Somerset. She was born at Berkeley. He is worth going back to.
Five entries, sixty-three years
Baptised at Berkeley St Mary the Virgin, father JOHN SANIGER
England Births & Baptisms
The brother the register gives Hannah.
THOMAS SANIGAR — indexed SANIGRE — married MARTHA GOLDING at St James, Bristol, BY BANNS
Bristol Archives, read from the register 22 September 2026 · indexed in England Marriages 1538-1973
The index reads SANIGRE and the archivist reading the register reads SANIGAR. The register gives no father: entries of 1828 do not carry them.
THOMAS SINEGAR, 30, with Martha 31, James 11, LYDIA 9, Thomas 7 and Martha 2 — all born Gloucestershire
Sion Road, Johns Place, St Philip & Jacob Without · HO107/378 bk 5 f.40 p.26 sch.1633
1841 rounded adult ages down to five, so “30” means 30–34.
THOMAS SINEGAR, 42, labourer, BORN BERKLEY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE · his wife Martha, 42, cordwainer, born BERKLEY too
7 Oxford Road, St Philip and Jacob Out
Of 28 Saniger-variant people in Bristol that year, he and his wife are the only two from Berkeley.
LYDIA SINEGAR baptised · father JAMES SINEGAR, mother Laura
Bristol, St Philip and Jacob · Bristol Archives P/St P&J/R/2/24
James is the eldest son of 1841. He named a daughter Lydia.
THOMAS SINEGAR married JULIA MARSH · father THOMAS SINEGAR
Bristol, St Matthias · Bristol Archives P/St.Mat/R/2/b
The seven-year-old of 1841, grown up, and the entry names his father.
JAMES SANIGAR married at BRISTOL — almost certainly LAURA SAYER
GRO index of marriages, Bristol district, volume 6a page 155 · FreeBMD, read 27 September 2026
The record Bristol Archives mentioned unasked. Spelt SANIGAR, the form they read off the 1828 register. The bride is an inference from the page, not from the entry.
Bristol Archives read the register, and the question this archive had been asking cannot be answered from it
An enquiry went to Bristol Archives on 13 September asking the 1828 marriage entry for the fathers' names, the abodes, ages, conditions and occupations, the witnesses, and whether it was by banns or licence. Holly Aylward viewed the record and answered all of it, and the most useful part of the answer is that one of those questions was never answerable.
| Asked | Answered |
|---|---|
| The fathers' names | There are none. «Records from this time do not list fathers' names, nor abodes, ages, conditions or occupations.» |
| Banns or licence | By banns. |
| The witnesses | James Hall and Thomas Davey — and «these witnesses appear to witness multiple marriages in this church so are probably church officials.» |
| The spelling | The register reads SANIGAR, not SANIGRE. |
Three errands rested on a line that does not exist
English marriage registers did not record fathers until 1837. Between Hardwicke's Act and civil registration an entry gives the two names, the parish, banns or licence, the signatures and the witnesses, and nothing else. This archive spent nine days waiting on a fact that the record class has never carried, and it is worth separating that from a null: nobody failed to find anything. The question was addressed to the wrong century.
So the identification of Thomas Sinegar of Oxford Road with Thomas Saniger baptised at Berkeley in 1808 stays exactly where it was — an inference from an exact age, an unusual birthplace spelling and a mile of distance, and not a document. What would settle it is a record that names his father, and the marriage was never going to be one.
And «by banns» is not a formality — on this archive's own identification it is why no father was written
A minor marrying by licence needed a parent's or guardian's consent, and the consent was written down. Under Hardwicke's Act a marriage by banns did not: it stood unless a parent publicly dissented while the banns were being read, and a dissent that never came leaves no ink. So the single route by which an entry of 1828 could have named this man's father existed, and the choice of banns closed it.
That is an inference resting on an identification this archive has not proved, and it cuts both ways: if the groom was not the Berkeley boy, he may simply have been of age. It is set down because it is the only reading under which the missing father is a fact about this marriage rather than about every marriage of its century.
And the spelling this archive made a story of is the index's, not the register's
Both index sites say SANIGRE because they are one index. England Marriages 1538-1973 is the FamilySearch transcription, and FindMyPast serves the same transcription — so «confirmed on FindMyPast», which this page used to say, was two windows onto one reading rather than two readings.
Neither spelling is asserted here as the register's. Bristol's is a reading of the original and the index's is a reading of the original, and this archive has seen neither: the image is on Ancestry, which wants an account. What is documented is that they disagree, and that the one made from the register says SANIGAR. [Own error 43](/corrections/).
And one new record, offered unasked
This archive does not hold that marriage. It has James as the eleven-year-old of 1841 and as the father of Lydia Sinegar baptised in 1866, and nothing between. A marriage of 1852 is after civil registration, so unlike his father's it does name a father — and Holly has already read Thomas's occupation off it, which matches the labourer of the 1851 census taken the year before.
The marriage Bristol Archives offered, found for nothing in the index they did not mention
Holly Aylward ended her reply with a record nobody had asked for: a marriage of 1852 for «what looks like Thomas's son, James». It is in the GRO index, and it is free. Registered in the December quarter of 1852 in the Bristol district, volume 6a, page 155, under the spelling SANIGAR.
| Surname | Forename | District | Vol | Page |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANIGAR | James | Bristol | 6a | 155 |
And the bride is on the same page, and her name is the one this archive was hoping for
Lydia Sinegar, baptised 28 January 1866, is the daughter of JAMES SINEGAR and LAURA. This archive has had that mother's name for weeks with no surname attached to it. A Laura marrying a James on one page of the Bristol index in 1852 is not a coincidence worth arguing with.
It is still an inference. The other reading — James to Sarah Godfrey, Henry Small to Laura Sayer — is not excluded by anything on the page, and the index is the only thing read. The certificate would settle it in one line, and would also name James's father.
The pairing method, tested against a marriage this archive already holds
The method is sound and it does not disambiguate on its own. In 1871 the register told us which pair was which. In 1852 nothing has.
Four things that line up
- The age is exact. Thomas Saniger was baptised at Berkeley on 3 July 1808. At the 1851 census, taken on 30 March, a man born in July 1808 is FORTY-TWO. The enumerator wrote forty-two.
- The birthplace is exact, and it is unusual. He gives BERKLEY — the same idiosyncratic spelling the family tree uses for Hannah's birthplace, and the parish the 1851 census independently gives her.
- The place is right. St Philip and Jacob is the parish adjoining St Paul, where Hannah lived. A mile apart.
- And the name Lydia runs through it. The tree says Hannah's mother was LYDIA. In 1841 a LYDDYA SINEGAR aged seventy is living in Hannah's house at Drivers Fields. In the same census Thomas Sinegar has a daughter LYDIA aged nine. In 1866 his son James christens a daughter LYDIA. Three generations of a name that is not common, in two households a mile apart.
- And he named his children after them. Thomas and Martha had eleven children. Two sons were called JOHN, both dying as infants — his father's name. A daughter was LYDIA — his mother's name on the tree. A daughter, christened at St Philip and Jacob on 4 February 1849, was HANNAH.
What is missing
- The marriage is a record rather than a tree assertion — but no marriage of 1828 names a father, and Bristol Archives have now read this one and confirmed it: the entry that would put John Saniger's name beside his son's marriage does not exist and never did. What is still unseen is any document tying this Thomas to the one baptised at Berkeley in 1808.
- Their mother's surname — JONES on the FamilySearch tree — remains unsourced.
- The sibling link itself no longer rests on inference: Hannah and Thomas are both baptised at Berkeley to John Saniger, she in August 1804 and he in July 1808.
SANIGRE then went missing from this archive's own table for eight days, because the table was recounted from the baptism set and SANIGRE returns nought there. It is in the table now, at nought, with the reason beside it. [Own error 38](/corrections/).
And then it turned out not to be the register's spelling. Bristol Archives, reading the book, read SANIGAR — a form this table has held from the start, 56 entries. SANIGRE is what one transcriber wrote, served by two sites, which is why it looked confirmed. [Own error 43](/corrections/).
The other vowel →And the marriage is a record now too. Re-checked on 21 September in England Marriages 1538-1973: Thomas Sanigre, 1828, spouse Martha, Bristol — one result in the whole set, asked nationally with no filters. Bristol Archives read the register itself on 22 September: by banns, witnesses James Hall and Thomas Davey, the name written SANIGAR, and no fathers — because entries of that date carry none. So what the marriage cannot do is join the Thomas of Oxford Road to the Thomas of Berkeley. That join is still an inference from an age, a birthplace and a mile.
a strong inference, not a documentAnd an apology to an earlier pass
This was written up once already, weeks ago, and called the best lead the archive had. It was then overtaken by my own conclusion that Hannah could not have been born in Gloucestershire — a conclusion built on one tick in the 1841 census, which turned out to be wrong. Three days of work went to a Somerset parish instead.