Wouldhaves in North Shields Part 2

Richard Wouldhave (RI051), a mariner who settled in the area after returning from the ship HMS Pandora (see blog October 2015) married Anne and then Eleanor Whately.  His first wife Anne died soon after their second son, Mason, died in infancy.  There is an inscription in Christchurch (see modern photo below) that reads “Sacred to the memory of Anne, the wife of Richard Wouldhave of North Shields, mariner, who departed this life Nov 17^th 1796 aged 21 years. Also one of their children who died in infancy”.

Richard had the following children who survived into adulthood

v  Richard b 1794 from the first marriage

v  John b 1805, Jane b 1808 and Mary b 1810 from the second marriage.

Richard (RI101)

Richard was born on 30^th November 1794 and christened at Christchurch on 4^th October 1795.  He married Isabella Arkle in 1819.  In the 1841 census he is living in Milburn St and his occupation is Shoemaker.  Four of his children are living in the same dwelling, Jane, Richard, George and Eleanor. Richard’s 80 year old widowed mother-in-law, Hannah Arkell nee Hallowell, was also living in Milburn Place at this time with two of his daughters, Ann and Isabella, living with her. Milburn Place was a complex of streets in the west of the North Shields which formed one of the earliest expansions of the town. The larger houses had views of the harbour and the south. 

Richard died in 1844 and is buried in Tynemouth General Cemetery. His death certificate states that he died of Dropsy of the Heart which we would now probably describe as Congestive Heart Failure.  His address at the time of his death was given as Dotwick St.  Dotwick Street was named after the Durtwick Sand.  It connected to the Bull Ring and Milburn Place.  There were a chain of Temperance cafes in this area.  Richard’s wife, Isabella (IS102), was a Chapel keeper, although there is no evidence that Richard was a Methodist or ‘took the pledge’.

Jane (JA051)

Jane was born on 18^th October 1807 and christened at Christchurch on 8^th May 1808.  She married Robert Richardson on 15^th August 1830.  There are two Robert Richardsons with wife Jane in the 1841 census for North Shields;  since one of these families is in the same dwelling as  Eleanor Wouldhave (mother of Jane) and her granddaughter, Elizabeth (daughter of John), it would seem likely that this is the correct family.  They are living Behind Collingwood St with their children William, Eleanor and Jane.  Robert’s occupation is given as Custom House Officer.

John (JO104)

John was born on 16^th November 1805 and christened at Christchurch on 26^th January 1806. He married Isabella Heslop on September 19^th 1824 in St Hilda’s, South Shields.  Witnesses were his sister Jane and Thomas Heslop. They had the following children who survived childhood.

Elizabeth 1825, Richard 1826 and Eleanor 1830

From the census information:

In 1841 he was living in Church Street and occupation was Common Tiler.

In 1851 and 1861 he was living in 64 Clive Street, occupation was Violin Maker and he was reported as being deaf.  Isabella’s occupation was Straw Bonnet maker.

In 1871 John and Isabella were living in 115 Bedford Street with William Oliver, their grandson, aged 15, occupation labourer.(We haven’t found the connection between William Oliver and the Wouldhaves at this point.)  John is still listed as a violin maker and Isabella as a straw bonnet maker.

His death was recorded in 1877 in Tynemouth District. Isabella is in the 1881 census, she is an inmate of the Tynemouth Workhouse with her occupation given as Charwoman. Her death was recorded in Tynemouth district in 1888 aged 78 years.

There appear to be some of John’s creations as a violin maker still in existence.  Some have been offered for sale on various websites and date from around 1868.

Mary (MA052)

Mary was born 13^th October 1809 and christened at Christchurch on 8^th July 1810.  The only other information recorded in the registers is a Mary Wouldhave marrying William Murray, a Blacksmith, in Christchurch in 1837.  The census information is inconclusive as to this being the correct Mary.