Christine I have checked the baptism date for John Bullock from my original notes and 1830 is what I recorded. I have cross-checked with Val Neal's transcription and she has the same year as does the IGI record. May be the age is wrong on the 1841 census. Given ages on the census, especially the 1841 need treating with some caution. My favourite is from my own tree where triplets (called Faith, Hope & Charity) over a three census period managed between them to have a ten year difference! Peter On 2 Apr 2013, at 19:31, Christine Simpson wrote: > Hi Sue > > Thanks for looking. I'm beginning to think that there may be a mistake in > the baptism records as there is a John Bullock, aged 9, living with his > parents Thomas and Elizabeth Bullock, on the 1841 Census at Crich. This > probably explains why no marriage can be found for a John Bullock. > > Regards > Christine > > -----Original Message----- > From: derbysgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:derbysgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Sue Brown > Sent: 02 April 2013 18:03 > To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DBY] Marriage of John Bullock to Elizabeth Unknown > > Hi Christine, > > Afraid that there isn't a likely marriage in the Derbys Marriage Index > 1538-1837, including the as yet uncomputerised part. > Sorry about that. > > Sue > > >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:55:27 +0100 >> From: "Christine Simpson" <c.a.simpson@btinternet.com> >> Subject: [DBY] Marriage of John Bullock to Elizabeth Unknown >> To: <derbysgen@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <000c01ce2f0a$79bd7180$6d385480$@btinternet.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Hello Everyone >> >> >> >> I am looking for a marriage for John Bullock to Elizabeth Unknown >> around >> 1830 in Derbyshire. I have found the baptism on the Crich website, >> thanks to Peter Patilla's good work, of their son, John, baptised 14 >> November 1830. Their abode is given as Crich Carr. I have had a look >> on the Derbyshire Marriage Index 1537-1837 website but couldn't find >> any marriage that might fit. Any help would be appreciated. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Christine >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To contact the DERBYSGEN list administrator, send an email to >> DERBYSGEN-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the DERBYSGEN mailing list, send an email to > DERBYSGEN@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. >> >> >> End of DERBYSGEN Digest, Vol 8, Issue 80 >> **************************************** >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It wasn't the age we (Christine & me) were worried about Peter, it was the father's name. In the Crich baptisms his father is listed as 'John' but there is no John & Elizabeth Bullock in the area in 1841, John & Elizabeth didn't have any other children baptised at Crich (or anywhere that we can find) and there is no marriage to be found either, or a death for a John, there is one for Elizabeth & Thomas' is at Wirksworth. As there is a child John of the right age living with Thomas & Elizabeth in 1841 we think the wrong name for the father was recorded. It's something we'll never be able to prove unfortunately. Cheers....Dawn ©¿©¬ Peter Patilla wrote: > Christine > I have checked the baptism date for John Bullock from my original notes and 1830 is what I recorded. I have cross-checked with Val Neal's transcription and she has the same year as does the IGI record. > May be the age is wrong on the 1841 census. > Given ages on the census, especially the 1841 need treating with some caution. My favourite is from my own tree where triplets (called Faith, Hope & Charity) over a three census period managed between them to have a ten year difference! > Peter