From: john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr   
      
   On 22/04/2018 13:21, Richard Smith wrote:   
   > On 20/04/18 17:10, john wrote:   
   >> On 20/04/2018 17:16, Richard Smith wrote:   
   >    
   >>> I would consider the 1901 census entry to be circumstantial evidence   
   >>> that one of the parents was still alive.  Do you have any reason to   
   >>> think the death registrations you have found are the right people beyond   
   >>> the fact that their names (and presumably ages) match the census?  Purdy   
   >>> seems to have been a common enough surname in the area that I can easily   
   >>> believe one of those death registrations may be for someone else.   
   >>   
   >> I'll leave it up to you to find the mother in 1891, 1901, or later, the   
   >> father in 1901 or later, or different the deaths of either, if you think   
   >> otherwise.   
   >    
   > I've no intention of doing anything of the sort as I have no interest in    
   > this family.  However the census provides strong circumstantial evidence    
   > that at least one parent (or possibly step-parent) was alive in 1901 and    
   > normally resident with the children.  It may not be true, but I'd    
   > certainly want more evidence than a vaguely plausible match in the GRO   
   > death index to disprove it.   
   >    
   > Richard   
      
   Well that was an interesting bit of snipping.   
      
   Why did you ignore:   
   Most of the owners of the 10+ public trees on Ancestry mentioning George   
   Craggs Purdy all seem to have come to a similar conclusion concerning    
   the parents and their deaths (or one of them did and the others copied).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)