Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    soc.genealogy.britain    |    Genealogy in Great Britain and the islan    |    130,039 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 129,307 of 130,039    |
|    Graeme Wall to Jenny M Benson    |
|    Re: Name anomaly    |
|    17 Apr 20 17:08:58    |
      From: rail@greywall.demon.co.uk              On 17/04/2020 16:12, Jenny M Benson wrote:       > Can anyone suggest what is going on in this scenario.       >       > In the 1881 Census (RG11-3529-94-38) John Weedall, who married an       > Elizabeth Fletcher in 1876, and his wife Elizabeth are shown with a       > daughter, Lily, aged 1 year and an unspecified child of unknown name       > with the age of 8 days in the "Female" column.       >       > In the 1891 Census (RG12-2841-111-32) the John is absent and Ann's name       > is partly obscured, but is readable as Annie. Her children are shown as       > Florence, Lilly, Ruth, John H, Mary Jane and Sarah Annie. As Ruth is 10       > years old, she will be the unnamed child in 1881.              Anne, what happened to Elizabeth?              >       > Before finding the Census entries, I had located the birth registrations       > of Florence, Mary Jane, Ruth and Sarah Annie in the GRO index, all with       > the maiden name Fletcher. (Plus 2 boys who do not appear on the       > Censuses so probably died.) After seeing the 1881 Census, I searched       > for, but could not find, an entry for Lilly or Lily Weedall with MMN of       > Fletcher. After viewing the 1891 Census, I did a less specific search       > and found John Holford Weedale with mother's maiden name Holford. I       > then searched for other Weedalls with MMN Holford and found Leonora in       > June Q 1880, the right age to be Lil(l)y.       >       > I wondered if Ann(ie) had been previously married and had confused her       > former married name with her maiden name, but can't find any       > Holford/Fletcher marriage. The Holford children cannot be the product       > of either parent from an earlier relationship because they are both       > between other children of the marriage. They could be the product of       > one of John's relations and adopted by John & Ann, but it's unlikely as       > that would mean 2 convenient gaps in the sequence of their birth children.       >       > I am at a loss to explain it myself.                     --       Graeme Wall       This account not read.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca