Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beemerchez

Manor Castle Remains 28Th Sept 2010

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know ... Sounds like a ridiculous question, but there is a good genealogical reason for it. I read somewhere that somebody, (a source I don't now recall), referred to Attercliffe as Sheffield's "east-enders," and I've read other snippets that allude to that same sort of comic take on persons east of Sheffield.

I don't think that was a put down or comic take on the people of Attercliffe.

"Sheffield's Eastenders" is the title of a 1987 book by Keith Farnsworth about the history of Attercliffe and Sheffield's east end. It was published by Sheffield City Libraries. Keith Farnsworth is a well known writer of local history popular books.

Given the date the book was published (1987) I think it's title is attempting to draw attention by comparison with what was at that time a 2 year old TV soap (EastEnders) which had grown in popularity so quickly it was already gaining more viewers than Coronation Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but getting back to the Manor, circa 1841........

Per the Census record, it appears that the people living at, around, among and against the Manor ruins in 1841 were recorded in two groups as: "Castle Yard Manor" and "Manor Castle Yard."

The enumerated "Castle Yard Manor" group was comprised of 26 persons, involving 4 households. The enumerated "Manor Castle Yard" group was comprised of 101 persons, involving 16 households; the total population being 127 persons in 20 households, and the average household numbering 6.35 persons.

Is it reasonable to expect 20 households numbering 127 persons crammed in, around, among and against the Manor ruins? ... And why would the 1841 Census enumerator have made a distinction between the two groups (Caste Yard Manor vs Manor Castle Yard) since they were presumptively living at the more or less the same place? Was it a matter of which side of the Manor ruin complex they lived on, or maybe the angle of approach, i.e., from the North or from the South?

Check out the attached photo... shot circa 1865, from the North.

picturesheffield

Mike

Edited by SteveHB
links only to picturesheffield images please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very fine photo Mike, Thanks for posting. (One for next years calendar, maybe).

Regarding the families do you have any names ? Were the averages per household "altered" by any particularly large families ?

It might be nice to see them listed one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very fine photo Mike, Thanks for posting. (One for next years calendar, maybe).

Regarding the families do you have any names ? Were the averages per household "altered" by any particularly large families ?

It might be nice to see them listed one day.

I found the photo at PictureSheffield.com, and I think the year the photo was shot was 1865. Later photos show the progression of slow collapse and unltimate removal of these cottages plastered in and around what is has been rendered today the original Manor ruin itself.... or at least that's my take on it (I'm in the US).

I have all of the families that lived there in 1841; their names, ages and occupations. I also have the entire 1841 Census Enumeration District, (ED 18), which included the Manor; again -- names, ages, occupations and addresses, i.e., Deep Pit, Manor Lane, Cricket Inn Row, a couple Farms, etc etc. etc. ... In all, ED18 numberd 585 individuals, of which 127 were those recorded as residing simultaneously at "Castle Yard Manor" and "Manor Castle Yard" respectively.

The smallest households at the Manor ruins in 1841 numbered 3 persons, and there were only 3 of them. The single largest household numbered 11 individuals. There were a couple 10's, and the rest were basically more or less evenly distributed between 4 and 9 individuals. I have the whole Enumeration District layed-out in an Excel spreadsheet, seperated by address, and complete with calculated fields that return the demographics of the area, including occupation totals, age averages, age groups and gender-by-age-groups, etc. If you're interested, I would be happy to send you the spreadsheet.... I originally created it using Excel 2003, but recently imported and saved it as an Excel 2010 file. I think I have the 2003 version on a CD though if version is critical.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as a simple list of individuals goes, here are the two 1841 census groups living at the Manor, ("Castle Yard Manor" and "Manor Castle Yard"):

Castle Yard Manor

William FISHER

Sarah FISHER

Hannah FISHER

William JACKSON

Martha JACKSON

Thomas JACKSON

Charles JACKSON

Mary JACKSON

William JACKSON

Henry JACKSON

Joseph HOULT

Ann HOULT

James HOULT

George HOULT

Ann HOULT

Harriot ELLISON

William SMITH

William COWLISHAW

Mary COWLISHAW

James COWLISHAW

Titus COWLISHAW

Hannah COWLISHAW

John COWLISHAW

George COWLISHAW

Elizabeth COWLISHAW

Titus COWLISHAW

Manor Castle Yard

Samuel HARROP

Ann HARROP

Joseph HARROP

Elizabeth HARROP

Eliza HARROP

William HARROP

John HARROP

Sarah HARROP

Samuel HARROP

Thomas HARROP

James CARDWELL

Mary CARDWELL

James CARDWELL

Sarah CARDWELL

William CARDWELL

Mary CARDWELL

Elizabeth CARDWELL

Sarah CARDWELL

Samuel HOBSON

Barbara HOBSON

Harriott HOBSON

Sarah HOBSON

John HOBSON

Eliza HOBSON

William HOBSON

Ann HOBSON

Joseph HOBSON

George HOBSON

Edward BARNES

Martha BARNES

Samuel BARNES

Alfred BARNES

Ann BARNES

Mathew CUTT

Sarah CUTT

John CUTT

William CUTT

Helen CUTT

Godfrey COWLISHAW

Caroline COWLISHAW

William COWLISHAW

John MARROT

Easter MARROT

Joseph MARROT

Benjamin MARROT

Sarah MARROT

Thomas WRAGG

Sarah WRAGG

Thomas WRAGG

Jonathan WRAGG

Ann WRAGG

Mary LUNDY

Joseph LUNDY

Sarah LUNDY

William WRAGG

Samuel WRAGG

Thomas WRAGG

David LEDGER

Julia LEDGER

James LEDGER

Julia LEDGER

William LEDGER

Sarah HUDSON

Jane HUDSON

Samuel COWLEY

Elizabeth BINGLEY

Richard BINGLEY

George BINGLEY

William NORTON

Joseph BAILEY

Elizabeth BAILEY

Joseph BAILEY

Moses BAILEY

William BAILEY

Aron BAILEY

Bridget BARNES

Elizabeth BARNES

William BARNES

George BARNES

Rebecca BARNES

George BARNES

Eliza BARNES

Joseph BARNES

Issac BARNES

Ezacariah BARNES

Eve BARNES

William MORTON

Harriot MORTON

Joseph BARNES

Hannah MYCOCK

Emma MYCOCK

John MYCOCK

Elizabeth MYCOCK

Benjamin MYCOCK

John HUTCHINSON

Ailo ? HUTCHINSON

George HUTCHINSON

Joseph HUTCHINSON

Ellen HUTCHINSON

Benjamin CUTTS

Henry CUTTS

I have read about instances of rather large families, like 8 - 10 people, living in single, comman back-to-backs, and I suppose one could deduce from that that many persons might have squeezed into one or more of these cottages that were plastered up against and among the Manor ruins. The question is this: Based on, or using the photo I posted as an aide, and maybe perhaps having an intimate knowledge of the Manor ruin today, is it possible ( as it seems to actually have been by default ) that 127 persons occupied those houses and others unseen in the photo I posted .... and .... What could have been the 1841 census enumerator's purpose for "splitting up" the population by designating one group ( the smaller of the two ) "Castle Yard Manor" and the larger other group "Manor Castle Yard?"

Mike

Incidentally.... the Jacksons at Castle Yard Manor are mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reconstruction picture of Sheffield Manor as it was in 1580?

Thanks Sando. Another file added to the digital archive!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more or less (and tentatively) concluded that technically, there were in fact two populations living at, around and among the Manor ruins in 1841, and that these two populations were visually differentiated by the ruins themselves.

After studying numerous old photos and illustrations either shot or drawn from a variety of angles and directions, it appears to me that there may have been (or probably was) a group, (the smaller "Castle Yard Manor" group), occupying what is known familiarly as the Long Gallery, which runs perpendicular to Manor Lane; at the far end of which may have then yet existed "Wolsey's Tower," and its own adjoining building fragment which together turned the back left corner of the complex, to the right, (North), assuming the observer is standing on Manor Lane.

There was a gap in the ruin complex that acted as the differentiator, and which seperated the Long Gallery from that portion of the ruin that runs along Manor Lane (to the North), which ran for some distance and then itself turns, or turned, a corner and ran West, along what at that time was a lane that ran toward Manor Castle Colliery, allegedly. Both the portion of the ruin that is parallel to Manor Lane, and that portion at the North end that ran along the lane toward the Colliery were sizable, complicated, deep, multi-storied and relatively lengthy, and I am again tentatively taking the position that that portion or more correctly, those portions, of the ruin were what was enumerated as the larger "Manor Castle Yard" group.

In the center of the complex, between the two groups, was and may still have been at that time, a large stone courtyard, and I believe the old Wesleyan chapel that was once there, was more technically close to and South of the Long Gallery.

For record keeping purposes, the 1841 census enumerator logically differentiated between the two groups by naming them differently, although the same, by creatively rearranging the words, i.e.: "Castle Yard Manor" and "Manor Caslte Yard" respectively.

As they most often are, my fingers are crossed that this take on the circa 1841 situation, 1.) makes sense, and 2.) is correct.

Mike

Incidentally, Martha Jackson (my GGGG-GM), (the Castle Yard Manor group), died 01 Jan 1842. Cause of death: "Consumption" (or TB). Her place of death on her death certificate was recorded simply as: "Manor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with many artists impressions they have a trend of either going over the top or underplaying the actual structure. In the Martin Davenport of the Star version, it's very much undersized. As there was more buildings to the back of the Towers. I belive that the front section was a three stories high, with the section on Manor Lane two stories high. Incidently I've seen an archaeological report on the cruck barn. Which is fenced in and the one with the wooden beam still in place. Despite it's appreance it wasn't there when Mary Stuart was there. It seems it the bits that look older where salvaged from the main site when it was constructed well after 1600.

Also I should mention that Manor Lane itself wasn't there during the Elizabethan period. Instead the private path went up to the Turret house. At the back of the main building a second "tradesman" entrance formed a lane to Attercliffe. V.I.P's in the front, rif-rafe out the back lol

Another largely unkown fact is that an inventory of 1582 shows that the Towers had a good number of beds in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from t'Star 4/2/11

http://www.thestar.co.uk/community/the-diary/cannonball_question_1_3037074

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from t'Star 4/2/11

http://www.thestar.co.uk/community/the-diary/cannonball_question_1_3037074

Could the bible found with the canon ball in 1905 be the bible which was found by my great grandfather Charles Edward Lee?

The story of this I have told previously in a topic about Manor Lodge on this site.

So as a link fairy you can read about the Manor Lodge bible here

Manor Lodge Topic

In post#4 by me there is a pdf adobe file to the article taken out of The Star.

It is in this form because it was sent to me over the Internet by mysecond cousin Hazel Wheatley who now lives in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queen of Scots hath been sore vexed with pain of her side, which engendereth continual vomits. The cause thereof as considered by the doctors, is only suffocacio matricis, quia desinit esse mater, which they affirm to be a common disease to virgins and young widows. She fears that her sickness shall cause the Duke of Norfolk displeasure, and therefore hath bidden him to write to the Duke her most hearty and loving commendations. The Duke's letter, token, and credit, sent with him, was her only comfort; she regarded little the Queen of England's letter, for it was no better worth, as may be seen by the double of it.

Sheffield, December 11 1571.

From: 'Cecil Papers: October-December 1571', Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 1: 1306-1571 (1883), pp. 531-579. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=111995 Date accessed: 14 March 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be interested to know Richard that it's possible to work out that Mary Suart suffered from an over active thyroid. This made her ill a lot, such as sweats and sickness and caused her to fall from her horse once. It also sent her hair white! It also explains why she was tall, suffered a miscarriage, very active when younger and very weak when older. It has symptoms like the madness of King George illness - though it's now known that he did NOT have porphyria, nor did Mary Stuart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be interested to know Richard that it's possible to work out that Mary Suart suffered from an over active thyroid. This made her ill a lot, such as sweats and sickness and caused her to fall from her horse once. It also sent her hair white! It also explains why she was tall, suffered a miscarriage, very active when younger and very weak when older. It has symptoms like the madness of King George illness - though it's now known that he did NOT have porphyria, nor did Mary Stuart.

I'd be most interested to know more - my wife has thyroid-problems and is as mad as King George - possibly moreso - she is however, an underactive thyroid person and is known here as my Tinywifelette.

She's been ill, sweaty, though never fallen from a horse the one time she was on one. Tinywifelettes hair is heading for a nice shade of pepper/white though I believe that has more to do with her year of birth than an actual illness ....

I have "Mad Professor" hair, bald on top, pepper at the temples and generally best decsribed as a Yorkshire-afro from the 70's gone - bad crossed with 30+ years of assorted regression ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth checking out the Manor Lodge site on Google Earth. For you can see the traces of missing buildings and evidence of ploughing on the green bit between the Turret House and the standing remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth checking out the Manor Lodge site on Google Earth. For you can see the traces of missing buildings and evidence of ploughing on the green bit between the Turret House and the standing remains.

You mean like this History Dude,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth checking out the Manor Lodge site on Google Earth. For you can see the traces of missing buildings and evidence of ploughing on the green bit between the Turret House and the standing remains.

My personal preference being Flash Earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some archeological trenches dug in that area between the Long Gallery and the Turret House in more or less recent times. I'm thinking that what looks like plowed rows is actually evidence of those trenches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some archeological trenches dug in that area between the Long Gallery and the Turret House in more or less recent times. I'm thinking that what looks like plowed rows is actually evidence of those trenches.

No they are ploughing. Below are the plan of the archaelogy on the site and also the geo phys done.

Thanks for uploading the Google image guys :) I hoped one of you would do it as I would have messed it up ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are ploughing. Below are the plan of the archaelogy on the site and also the geo phys done.

Thanks for uploading the Google image guys :) I hoped one of you would do it as I would have messed it up ;-)

OK, perhaps, but from the height the aerial was shot, the furrows appear to be a tad .... oversize, and there are more or less recent on-the-ground photos of archealogical-student-types digging rectangular pits in that same area, which one would assume would have disrupted 100+ year-old farming or gardening furrows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, perhaps, but from the height the aerial was shot, the furrows appear to be a tad .... oversize, and there are more or less recent on-the-ground photos of archealogical-student-types digging rectangular pits in that same area, which one would assume would have disrupted 100+ year-old farming or gardening furrows.

Untill last year a great deal of the site was not touched by the diggers, but even last year's dig wasn't that extensive. I was told by those in the know that ploughing had occurred, after the site fell into neglect. And you can see it from the top of the Turret house roof, which I did back in the 90's.

Pauline Beswick in charge of the digs, never dug around the chimney shown in the picture at the start of this thread, as you can see by the plan, that is why it's all just white space! However they did go into the celler section, where she and her team found traces of highly decorative plaster ceiling (like the one in the Turret house) and pieces of ornamental castellation stonework that can be seen on the chimney still standing. Which proves that it's allways looked like that!

Don't forget too the diggers are not meant to add anything to the look of the site! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked out the Manor website yesterday and it seems there are going to do some more digs this summer. Last time they did one they had a blog on it. Hope they do the same. They have also got another sum of money from the lottery! :)

http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/field-schools-index/manor-reports.html

The above link should take you to report PDF's of the previous digs there

[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Link, because the site doesn't allow two in one post :blink:

http://manor-lodge.dept.shef.ac.uk/

This time for Archaeology @ Manor Lodge which contains lots of images of the Manor and some of the finds. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a great post HistoryDude, bit late in the day for these eyes, but Thank you - one to follow tomorrow/later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×