In the papers of Helga Tyldesley 1910-1995 was a photocopy of a newspaper article from 1889 which gives a rather confused history of the Tyldesley family:
THE TYLDESLEY FAMILYOn Monday afternoon the remains of James Tyldesley, of Alexandra Street, Tyldesley were consigned to their last resting place in Tyldesley Chapel Yard. Deceased, who was in his 82nd year, is a descendant of the once mighty Tyldesley family, whose history dates back to the twelfth century. From the twelfth century there are records showing that the Tyldesley were Lords of the Manor of Tyldesley, and not only of Tyldesley, but the greater part of Lancashire. The names of some of the old historic buildings which the Tyldesley's possessed still remain with us, amongst them being Morleys Hall, Bedford, Garrett Hall, Grave Oaks, Light Oaks, Cleworth Hall, Culcheth Hall, Hurst Hall and the Dam House, Astley, but the original buildings have long ago become victims to the hand of the demolisher, so that little or nothing of them is left as a monument of that family's greatness. The Tyldesleys have also been noted for their gallantry, and the later generation embrace with great pride, the name of the Thomas Tyldesley who died fighting in 1651, for the King's cause, at Wigan under James Seventh, the Earl of Derby. At that period the civil rebellion was going on, in the time of Oliver Cromwell, and of the Commonwealth. At Wigan the Royalists were defeated; and in Wigan Lane, there stands a monument perpetuating the memory of Sir Thomas, where he fell. His body was interred at Leigh Parish Church, at the east end, under the heating chamber. The following inscription on brass is placed in the vicinity of the grave "At the east end of the north aisle, formerly the Tyldesley Chantry of St Nicholas within this ancient Parish Church, resteth the body of Sir Thomas Tyldesley, of Tyldesley, Morley Hall and Myerscough in this county, Knight and Major in his Majesty's Army, and Gov ernor of Lichfield, who was slain fighting gallantly for his Royal Master under James, Seventh Earl of Derby, in the Battle of Wigan, near this place, on the twenty-fifth of August 1651." Of the next link of the Tyldesley family, there can be found no record at all, though time after time diligent searches have been made through the registers of Parish Churches—Leigh for one—but those searches reveal nothing as to Sir Thomas's offspring, but in the latter part of the seventeenth, and the early part of the eighteenth century, Thomas Tyldesley, grandson of Sir Thomas, comes to light. His “personal records” for the years 17-12-13-14 were published in the Preston Chronicle of 1872. In the grave where James Tyldesley was interred on Monday afternoon, the body of one Thomas Tyldesley was interred, and the inscription on the tomb stone sheweth that "Thomas Tyldesley departed this life October 24th, 1800, in the 99th year of his age. It is believed that this person is the son of Thomas Tyldesley, the grandson of Sir Thomas, but there is a lack of documentary evidence to this effect. He, however, was the grandfather of James Tyldesley, whose death we record this week, James Tyldesley the father of the latter also being one whose life existed about threescore and ten years. There are also, in the same grave the remains of Ralph Tyldesley who died in the year 1820, aged 75 years, he being a brother to James Tyldesley, the elder. The present generations are descendants mostly of Thos Tyldesley a brother of James Tyldesley the younger, just deceased, James’s two sons having died while young. There are also several children of George Tyldesley, another venerable liver, and then lastly the children's children. There were over 60 at the funeral on Monday, who claim a descendancy from Sir Thomas, the Royalist, and that number only represent those who are of mature years; the younger ones being almost innumerable.
The newspaper in which this report appeared has not yet been identified. In the past it has been suggested that the report provides support for the notion that Ralph Tyldesley 1737-1820 is the son of James Tyldesley 1702-1800. This is crucial as the baptism record of Ralph Tyldesley 1737-1820 has not been located.
However, not only does the report not suggest that James/Ralph are father/son, but in addition it contains four major errors in its short description of the latter history of the Tyldesleys:
In short, it seems unwise to rely on this report for details of the family relationships.
The two brothers of James Tyldesley 1808-1889 were Thomas Tyldesley 1801-1877 who married Esther Lythgoe 1806-1875 and George Tyldesley 1804-1871 who married Alice Blackly 1802-1881.
However, not only does the report not suggest that James/Ralph are father/son, but in addition it contains four major errors in its short description of the latter history of the Tyldesleys:
- It is James Tyldesley not Thomas Tyldesley who died on 24 October 1800.
- James Tyldesley 1702-1800 could not have been the grandfather of James Tyldesley who died in 1889. His grandfather is undoubtedly Ralph Tyldesley 1737-1820. James Tyldesley 1702-1800 may be his great-grandfather—but this assumes the unproven father/son relationship between James Tyldesley 1702-1800 and Ralph Tyldesley 1737-1820.
- Ralph Tyldesley who died in 1820 was 83 not 75 (this error may have arisen because the gravestone records the death of another Ralph Tyldesley at the age of 75—but that was in 1870 not 1820).
- Ralph Tyldesley who died in 1820 is also unlikely to have been "brother to James , the elder". We know that their respective years of birth are approximately 1737 and 1702, and the 35 year gap makes it highly improbable that they share a mother. They could be step-brothers but there is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest this—it seems more likely that the report is simply a muddle.
In short, it seems unwise to rely on this report for details of the family relationships.
The two brothers of James Tyldesley 1808-1889 were Thomas Tyldesley 1801-1877 who married Esther Lythgoe 1806-1875 and George Tyldesley 1804-1871 who married Alice Blackly 1802-1881.
