Overall significance<\/h2>\n
These are not casual family letters. They are research letters from someone actively searching parish and related records on Mrs Abraham\u2019s behalf. Owen is reporting where he has looked, what he has and has not found, and why the search is proving difficult.<\/p>\n
The letters are valuable for three reasons:<\/p>\n
First, they show the exact lines of enquiry<\/strong> being pursued in 1898.<\/p>\n Second, they preserve evidence about the state of the records themselves<\/strong> \u2014 missing leaves, torn pages, erased entries, and registers that had disappeared and later resurfaced.<\/p>\n Third, they show Owen\u2019s developing theory<\/strong>: that John Abraham\u2019s marriage may not be in the obvious outlying parish registers, but instead may have taken place in Manchester<\/strong>, where record loss has created a gap exactly in the relevant period.<\/p>\n He says he went to Stockport<\/strong> and examined the register, with the clerk looking from 1654 to 1656<\/strong>.<\/p>\n That date range is important. It suggests he believed John Abraham\u2019s marriage likely fell somewhere close to those years. He and the clerk went through a \u201clong list of the parliamentary weddings\u201d but found nothing.<\/p>\n This indicates they were not just checking ordinary parish marriages. They were also considering marriages performed under the Commonwealth \/ Parliamentary system<\/strong>, which makes sense for the 1650s.<\/p>\n Owen is showing that he has already searched one of the most likely record groups for the target period and found no John Abraham.<\/p>\n This is an honest and important admission. It tells us:<\/p>\n This is the first sign that Manchester may still be central to the problem.<\/p>\n Owen reminds Mrs Abraham of a note from Joseph J. Green<\/strong>, who had sent him a list of his forefathers without dates.<\/p>\n That tells us there is probably some attempt to connect the Abraham line with a Green<\/strong> line, or at least to test whether Mrs Abraham\u2019s ancestry intersects with that family.<\/p>\n Owen then says that in looking over extracts from Ashton upon Mersey<\/strong>, he found a burial:<\/p>\n 1772 May 31 \u2013 Elizabeth Annan, widow, daughter to Thomas Green late of Barking in Essex.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is a side-line discovery, but Owen clearly thought it might matter. He is trying to identify whether the Green family in Essex<\/strong> might connect to the same wider family network Mrs Abraham is investigating.<\/p>\n It does not appear to solve the Abraham problem directly, but it shows how genealogical reconstruction was being built by linking scattered parish notices.<\/p>\n He also notes a burial of Thomas Wood<\/strong> in 1647.<\/p>\n This part is especially important. Owen is building, or perhaps testing, an Owen family reconstruction<\/strong>, probably because he believes the Owen line intersects with the Abraham problem through marriage or kinship.<\/p>\n The most notable entry is the 1640 marriage of Rachel Owen and Thomas Wood<\/strong>, followed by the burial of Thomas Wood in 1647. That sequence likely matters because in the second letter he refers to Rachel Owen\u2019s first husband dying in 1647<\/strong>. He is clearly tracking Rachel Owen as a woman who may have married again, and whose later marriage may connect into the family Mrs Abraham is researching.<\/p>\n So this is not random copying. He is assembling an evidential chain.<\/p>\n There was a leaf torn out of the Manchester Register leaving a blank between June 18 & August 9 1655.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is one of the most significant statements in the first letter.<\/p>\n If John Abraham\u2019s marriage fell in that period, the record may once have existed but is now physically lost.<\/p>\n This is not speculation. Owen is describing actual damage to the register.<\/p>\n For your purposes, this means the absence of a marriage entry is not strong negative evidence<\/strong>. It may simply be unrecordable now because the relevant page is gone.<\/p>\n This is a different kind of evidence: not parish-register evidence, but topographical and architectural reasoning<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Owen is trying to understand the Abraham property described in the will. He seems to conclude that although the visible building fabric was not earlier than about 1730, the terminology in John Abraham\u2019s will implies that there were already two related properties, a lower house<\/strong> and a higher house<\/strong>, by 1661.<\/p>\n That means the Abraham family\u2019s connection to High Greave may be older than the surviving building fabric suggests.<\/p>\n This is careful historical method for the time: using building evidence and wording in a will together.<\/p>\n He mentions:<\/p>\n This gives character to the letter, but it also shows how research was physically done: travel, inspection, direct examination, and note-taking. It also underscores that Owen was making a real effort on Mrs Abraham\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n He says that in the Hexton Register<\/strong>, after an entry for 26 1651<\/strong>, there is an erasure. He cannot tell what it originally was.<\/p>\n This again reinforces the same theme: the record base is incomplete not only because entries are absent, but because some have been deliberately or accidentally erased<\/strong>.<\/p>\n That matters because it weakens any argument based on \u201cif the marriage were there, we would have found it.\u201d<\/p>\n He ends by saying:<\/p>\n There is no saying where the Marriage of John Abraham may be found there is Eccles, Stratford & Bowdon at the latter an index is kept.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n At this stage, he is still keeping several parishes open as possibilities:<\/p>\n He has not yet settled on Manchester as the likeliest location, though he is beginning to suspect it.<\/p>\n Owen says that on Saturday he went to Bowdon<\/strong> and saw the registers, but found no marriage of John Abraham<\/strong>.<\/p>\n One of the alternative parishes named in the first letter has now been eliminated, at least on the surviving evidence.<\/p>\n I begin to think that it must have occurred in Manchester.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is the most important conclusion in the second letter.<\/p>\n Because he links that conclusion not simply to intuition, but to the condition of the Manchester records.<\/p>\n He explains that the relevant Manchester volume had been missing for some years<\/strong>, then eventually turned up in a lawyer\u2019s office<\/strong> and was restored. But when it came back, two leaves had been torn out<\/strong>.<\/p>\n He then specifies the gaps:<\/p>\n He also notes that there is no entry of a marriage in July 1653<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This is crucial. Owen is giving a near-forensic description of the surviving and missing record sequence.<\/p>\n For the Abraham search, the marriage gap in June\u2013August 1655<\/strong> is especially significant. If John Abraham married during that interval, the record could simply have been on one of the lost leaves.<\/p>\n His note about July 1653 is also interesting. It may mean he had been considering whether the marriage could have been earlier than 1655, but he found no evidence there either.<\/p>\n He adds that those in charge \u201cdid not seem to care for them\u201d and that as far as he can learn, these documents \u201ccontinue to disappear from time to time.\u201d<\/p>\n This is a striking comment on archival neglect in the late 19th century.<\/p>\n It implies:<\/p>\n Historically, this is important evidence about the state of record keeping. Genealogically, it means he tried an alternative repository and still did not recover the missing marriage.<\/p>\n He says he looked among the names of witnesses<\/strong> to the Parliamentary weddings for John Abraham, but did not find him.<\/p>\n This is quite a sophisticated move. Even if John Abraham was not one of the marrying parties in an accessible surviving entry, he might have appeared as a witness<\/strong> in allied family marriages. Owen checked this and found nothing useful.<\/p>\n That means he was testing not only direct but also indirect evidence.<\/p>\n He refers to Dr Heginbotham\u2019s history of Stockport<\/strong>, which gives particulars of the Friends<\/strong> there. He says the earliest wedding among the Friends was in 1655<\/strong>, and mentions Jeremiah Owen<\/strong> about 1668<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This seems to indicate Owen was also considering whether the family had a Quaker \/ Friends<\/strong> connection.<\/p>\n That matters because if John Abraham belonged to the Friends, his marriage might not appear in the expected Anglican parish register in the usual way.<\/p>\n However, Owen seems to suggest that the Friends evidence in Stockport begins too late, or at least does not clearly help with John Abraham.<\/p>\n He writes:<\/p>\n Rachel Owen\u2019s first husband died in 1647 I think when I go over to Stockport I will look over the weddings between that & 1650<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This directly links back to the first letter\u2019s notes:<\/p>\n Owen is now clearly considering whether Rachel Owen remarried between 1647 and 1650<\/strong>, and whether this may matter to the Abraham line.<\/p>\n He is pursuing a hypothesis that one branch of the Owen family may connect to John Abraham through a second marriage or associated kinship. This is still tentative, but it is clearly one of his active working theories.<\/p>\n Together, the letters document a live genealogical investigation moving from broad search to focused hypothesis.<\/p>\n He searched or checked:<\/p>\n and still had no direct hit.<\/p>\n By the second letter, Owen increasingly believed the marriage must have occurred in Manchester<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This is probably the single most important point in both letters.<\/p>\n The missing leaves create:<\/p>\n That means the failure to find John Abraham\u2019s marriage is entirely compatible with it having once been recorded there.<\/p>\n Owen was still checking:<\/p>\n So the search was not closed, only narrowed.<\/p>\n The recipient. Almost certainly the family researcher or family representative commissioning or corresponding with Owen.<\/p>\n The key ancestor being researched. The specific object is to locate his marriage and place him properly within the family and property history.<\/p>\n The researcher. He is methodical, mobile, honest about uncertainties, and evidently experienced in working with registers and local history.<\/p>\n A potentially important woman in the reconstruction. Her first marriage and widowhood may connect to the Abraham line Owen is exploring.<\/p>\n Rachel Owen\u2019s first husband, apparently buried in 1647.<\/p>\n A correspondent from Tunbridge Wells whose list of forefathers may connect with the family\u2019s broader kinship network.<\/p>\n Not quoted in full here, but clearly already known to Owen and central to the High Greave analysis.<\/p>\n These letters are valuable not only for genealogy but for archival history.<\/p>\n They preserve near-contemporary testimony that:<\/p>\n So even where Owen found nothing, his letters supply an explanation for why the evidence may no longer survive.<\/p>\n By October 1898, Owen seems to be saying, in effect:<\/p>\n I have searched the most likely alternative parish and associated records without success. I now suspect the marriage was in Manchester, but the relevant Manchester register is defective because leaves are missing. Therefore the marriage may once have been there, but the surviving books can no longer prove it directly.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is the central message of the correspondence.<\/p>\n If you are using these letters as evidence in a family reconstruction, the safest conclusion is:<\/p>\n So these letters are best treated as important negative-search evidence plus contextual archival evidence<\/strong>, rather than proof of the marriage itself.<\/p>\n 36 Warwick St. Hulme Manchester Dear Mrs Abraham,<\/p>\n I have been to Stockport to examine the Register & and the Clerk looked from 1654 to 1656.<\/p>\n We waded through a long list of the parliamentary weddings with no result. I have examined what I have of extracts from Register records Manchester but find no John Abraham. It would require a special search around. At the time I made the extracts I had no knowledge of your ancestor John Abraham, I might have overlooked it.<\/p>\n You will remember I had a note from Joseph J Green of Tunbridge Wells, he sent me a list of his forefathers but without any dates.<\/p>\n In looking over my extracts from Ashton super Mersey I found in the burials 1772 May 31 Elizabeth Annan Widow, daughter to Thomas Green late of Barking in Essex.<\/p>\n Manchester Registers<\/p>\n 1599 Elizabeth Owen & Arthur Gregory Nov. 29 I find in the baptisms 1617 Rachel Dau. of Thomas Owen bap. July 25th<\/p>\n 1575 Thomas ye sonne of William Owyne bap. January 25<\/p>\n X I find a burial of a Thomas Wood June 28 1647<\/p>\n There was a leaf torn out of the Manchester Register leaving a blank between June 18 & August 9 1655<\/p>\n 1774 March 30 The Reverend John Green L.L.B. Rector of this Church<\/p>\n As the Green family lived in Essex, it is possible there may be a connection.<\/p>\n I have been again to Higho Greave and noticed that the bonding of the brickwork of the front of the old house is what is called bond [sketch] while at the back it was one course of headers to four of stretchers.<\/p>\n The oldest bonding I have seen is at the Morehenn Hall near Charlton cum Hardy, it is one course of headers & one of stretchers. I went up the hill to look at the higher house but found nothing earlier than what I said before viz 1730. It seems to have been built or rebuilt about that time. I found nothing older even in the outbuildings & in the will of John Abraham he mentions his tenement called the lower house at the High Greave which seems to indicate the existence of the higher house in 1661.<\/p>\n Probably it may have been taken down & rebuilt as a residence with stables. I did not notice any shippon, the lower house was amply provided on that score.<\/p>\n How have you got through the hot weather, many people have been prostrated but I have been wonderfully well, but I recovered from the shock of the fall. Though it put me in despair at the time I intended to go to High Greave. After the 2nd time I had a walk round to survey the neighbourhood. I felt terribly tired the next morning which put me in mind of the years 1831 & 2 when I used to walk 36 & 40 miles to see an old church.<\/p>\n I find in the Hexton Register after an entry 26 1651 an erasure, what it was I don\u2019t know, if any portion of it had been visible I should have copied what could be made out.<\/p>\n There is no saying where the marriage of John Abraham may be found there is Eccles, Stratford & Bowdon at the latter an index is kept.<\/p>\n Yours truly 36 Warwick St. Hulme Manchester Dear Mrs Abraham.<\/p>\n On saturday I went to Bowdon and saw the Registers, but found no Marriage of John Abraham.<\/p>\n I begin to think that it must have occurred in Manchester. The Volume of that period was missing for some years, it eventually turned up in a lawyers office and was restored. When it came back I found two leaves had been torn out.<\/p>\n Baptisms leaf missing a blank between January 29 1653 & August 6 1654<\/p>\n Weddings leaving a blank between June 18 1655 to August 9 1655.<\/p>\n I see that in July 1653 there is no entry of a Marriage.<\/p>\n I went to Chester to discover these missing Links. They brought me two large bundles of parchment tied up with strings thickly covered with dust although I examined every one I did not find any near the dates I wanted. They did not seem to care for them. As far as I can learn these documents continue to disappear from time to time.<\/p>\n I looked among the names of witnesses to the Parliamentary weddings for John Abraham but not found.<\/p>\n In Dr Heginbothams history of Stockport gives some particulars of the friends there, the earliest wedding amongst the friends was in 1655 and Jeremiah Owen about 1668.<\/p>\n Rachel Owen\u2019s first husband died in 1647 I think when I go over to Stockport I will look over the weddings between that & 1650<\/p>\n yours truly Two letters, written in September and October 1898 by J. Owen to Mrs E. C. Abraham, document a careful search for the marriage of John Abraham and related family links in the Manchester area. Their importance lies not only in the genealogical enquiry itself, but in the evidence they preserve about the records consulted, including […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8829,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8824","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","czr-hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8824"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8838,"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8824\/revisions\/8838"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8829"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Letter 1: 19 September 1898<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-1-letter-1898.1.jpg\")
This first letter is exploratory and wide-ranging. Owen is still testing possibilities.<\/p>\n1. Stockport search<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
2. Manchester extracts already held by Owen<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-1-letter-1898.3.jpg\")
He says he examined his own extracts from Manchester register records<\/strong>, but found no John Abraham. However, he adds a qualification: when he originally made those extracts, he did not yet know<\/strong> about Mrs Abraham\u2019s ancestor John Abraham, so he might have overlooked something.<\/p>\nMeaning<\/h3>\n
\n
3. Joseph J. Green of Tunbridge Wells<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
4. Manchester register notes: Owen \/ Owyne \/ Owen marriages and baptisms<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-1-letter-1898.4.jpg\")
He then copies out a number of Manchester register<\/strong> entries involving Owen \/ Owyne<\/strong>. These include:<\/p>\n\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
5. Missing leaf in Manchester register<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-1-letter-1898.5.jpg\")
Owen says:<\/p>\n\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
6. High Greave \/ Higho Greave and the physical landscape<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-1-letter-1898.6.jpg\")
Owen then turns to High Greave<\/strong>. He discusses:<\/p>\n\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
7. Personal remarks and physical effort<\/h2>\n
\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
8. Hexton Register erasure<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
9. Final conclusion of letter 1<\/h2>\n
\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
\n
Letter 2: 24 October 1898<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-2-letter-1898.1.jpg\")
This second letter is more focused and more decisive. It follows on from the earlier enquiries and sharpens the conclusion.<\/p>\n1. Bowdon search completed<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
2. Stronger suspicion that the marriage occurred in Manchester<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-2-letter-1898.3.jpg\")
He now says plainly:<\/p>\n\n
Why?<\/h3>\n
3. History of the missing Manchester volume<\/h2>\n
\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
4. Chester search for missing links<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ianwaugh.com\/archive\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Abraham-2-letter-1898.4.jpg\")
He says he went to Chester<\/strong> to discover the missing links. He was shown two large bundles of parchment<\/strong>, thickly covered with dust, which he examined one by one, but he found nothing near the dates he wanted.<\/p>\nMeaning<\/h3>\n
\n
5. Witnesses to parliamentary weddings<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
6. Dr Heginbotham\u2019s history of Stockport and the Friends<\/h2>\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
7. Rachel Owen again<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Meaning<\/h3>\n
What the two letters show when read together<\/h1>\n
Main conclusions Owen had reached<\/h2>\n
1. The marriage of John Abraham had not been found in the obvious places<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Manchester had become the leading candidate<\/h3>\n
3. The missing Manchester register leaves are central<\/h3>\n
\n
4. Other lines remained under review<\/h3>\n
\n
People and subjects mentioned<\/h1>\n
Mrs E. C. Abraham<\/h2>\n
John Abraham<\/h2>\n
J. Owen<\/h2>\n
Rachel Owen<\/h2>\n
Thomas Wood<\/h2>\n
Joseph J. Green<\/h2>\n
John Abraham\u2019s will<\/h2>\n
Archival value of the letters<\/h1>\n
\n
Best historical reading of Owen\u2019s position<\/h1>\n
\n
Practical evidential takeaway<\/h1>\n
\n
Transcriptions<\/h2>\n
Letter 1 (full transcription):<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Sept 19th 1898<\/p>\n
1661 Thomas Owyne & Elizabeth Shelmerdyne May 2
1640 Rachel Owen & Thomas Wood Hayes per l. Jan. 29 X
Samuel Owen & Ales Travers Oct. 24
1651 Lawrence Owen & Esther Trafford Dec. 15
1654 Peter Owen of Manchester Chapman son of Lawrence Owen of Heaton Norris Yeoman & Susan Burgess of Salford Dau. of William Burgess late of the same deceased Witness John Locke, Ales Locke, Samuel Owen, John Owen July 26.<\/p>\n
J. Owen<\/p>\nLetter 2 (full transcription):<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Oct. 24 98<\/p>\n
J. Owen<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"