TUNALEY vs. TUNLEY (all research carried out by Paul W. Tunaley)

The census of 1841 shows Godfrey Tunaley, his wife Anne and child Samuel living in Dalbury with Lees, Derbyshire. Godfrey’s occupation was agricultural labourer, and from the census details, he was 33 years old (therefore born c. 1808). Anne was 25, and son Samuel was 1. No records of the birth of Godfrey in or around 1808 could be found on LDS, but the marriage of Godfrey Tunley was registered at Burton on Trent in Q4 1839 (ref: vol 17 page 13).

Birth records for Samuel are available both on LDS website, which show him as Samuel Tunley christened 05 December 1839, and the BMD register, which shows him as Samuel Tunnaley registered Burton on Trent Q4 1839 (ref. vol 18 page 19). These dates concur with each other and with the age of the child on the 1841 census. This begs the question – was Godfrey’s name Tunaley or Tunley?

The BMD register was hand written in 1839, and it is conceivable that Godfrey or Anne, when registering the birth, would not have been able to write or spell, and thus the entry on the register would have been made based on the way that the name was pronounced.

None of the family appear on the 1851 census, but in 1861, Anna (or Anne) Tunley, widow aged 44, was living in the parish of St. Werburgh in Derby (Ponsonby Terrace) with her son Samuel, confectioner/baker, aged 21, birthplace Dalbury Lees. The death of a Godfrey Tunaley is recorded on the BMD register in Q2 1859 (ref 6b 208, Burton on Trent); this may have been Samuel’s father OR Godfrey Tunley born 1794 OR they may be one and the same person.

No record could be found for a Godfrey Tunley on the BMD index for that period.

No record of Samuel Tunley could be found on the 1871 census, but in 1881, he was living in at the Prospect Hotel, Bilton cum Harrogate, aged 41, unmarried, occupation – baker, birthplace Dalbury Lees.

In 1891, Samuel was living at 4 Parliament Street, Bilton cum Harrogate, with his wafe Sarah, aged 51. The marriage was registered in Knaresborough in Q2 1883 (ref 9a 141).

It is evident from the LDS website that there was a large number of Tunleys in the Burton on Trent area and other parts of Staffordshire from the 1600s onwards. There were also Tunley families in Gloucester and in Wolverhampton.

[Census records for 1841 for Horninglow, Burton on Trent, show the existence of Richard Tunley, aged 60, farmer, and his wife Ellen aged 65 and Richard aged 22 who may or may not have been their son, since that census did not record relationships. However, in 1851, Richard, farmer aged 34 is shown living with Ellen aged 76 and she is shown as has Aunt.]

Census records for 1851 for Burton on Trent show a Godfrey Tunaley, reaper, lodging with Ann Yeomans, widow. This Godfrey was born in Wolverhampton in 1817. This Godfrey was the one who married Catherine Gough in 1858 at Burton on Trent (record shown on LDS). The census for 1861 shows Godfrey, a cooper aged 44, birthplace Wolverhampton, and Catherine, and their two sons Godfrey born 1847 and William born 1859.

There was a Godfrey Tunley born in 1794, christened 14 February 1794. He was the son of John Tunley (born 1749, christened 20 June 1749) and Sarah (nee White), who married on 30 October 1785. This may be the Godfrey whose death is registered in Q2 1859 (ref 6b 208, Burton on Trent), as it corresponds to information regarding his age at death, i.e. 65. John Tunley was the son of Godfrey Tunley and Mary (nee Unknown).

Furthermore, another Godfrey Tunley was born in 1752, son of Godfrey and Mary – hence brother of John above. This Godfrey married Ann Hamilton on 20 April 1778, and it is probable that, despite the anomalies in the spelling of the surname, he could have been the one mentioned in the Samuel White affair of 1811. No record for his death has yet been found. Godfrey and Ann had a child, also named Godfrey, who was born in 1785 and died in 1786.

Since no records of a birth of Godfrey Tunley or Tunaley could be found in or around 1808, it is not inconceivable that Godfrey born 1794 was the one who appeared on the 1841 census living in Dalbury with Lees, and his age was misrepresented on that census.