Hello List I am a little confused (no change there some would say) I have the NEWBOLD family in 1891 as follows; Charles NEWBOLD head 37 Baker born Coventry. Elizabeth NEWBOLD wife 35 born Worcester Albert NEWBOLD son 14 born Birmingham Rose NEWBOLD dau 12 " " George NEWBOLD son 26 " " Thomas NEWBOLD son 8 " " Elizabeth NEWBOLD dau 5 " " Lucy NEWBOLD dau 1 " " Frank NEWBOLD son 1 month " " Where does George fit in as son age 26 that would mean Elizabeth would have had him aged 9. Why is he listed in the middle of the family? Also no occupation is recorded for him. If anyone has any suggestions or would like to view the census its RG12/ 2420. Many thanks Wendy

Perhaps it is a clerical error and he is 16? Michele On 6 Dec 2006, at 17:58, Wendy Partridge wrote: Hello List I am a little confused (no change there some would say) I have the NEWBOLD family in 1891 as follows; Charles NEWBOLD head 37 Baker born Coventry. Elizabeth NEWBOLD wife 35 born Worcester Albert NEWBOLD son 14 born Birmingham Rose NEWBOLD dau 12 " " George NEWBOLD son 26 " " Thomas NEWBOLD son 8 " " Elizabeth NEWBOLD dau 5 " " Lucy NEWBOLD dau 1 " " Frank NEWBOLD son 1 month " " Where does George fit in as son age 26 that would mean Elizabeth would have had him aged 9. Why is he listed in the middle of the family? Also no occupation is recorded for him. If anyone has any suggestions or would like to view the census its RG12/ 2420. Many thanks Wendy _____________________________________________ Tracing Ancestors in Birmingham: http://www.bham.de/ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: ENG-WARKS-BIRMINGHAM- admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WARKS- BIRMINGHAM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

hi, can't find anything further, just the 1881 details as sent. I can't find any details of his birth or death & there is no George child of Charles on 1881 or 1901. I suggest he lived with his brother and had no occupation due to his disability. J Wendy Partridge <wendy.partridge@ntlworld.com> wrote: Hello List I am a little confused (no change there some would say) I have the NEWBOLD family in 1891 as follows; Charles NEWBOLD head 37 Baker born Coventry. Elizabeth NEWBOLD wife 35 born Worcester Albert NEWBOLD son 14 born Birmingham Rose NEWBOLD dau 12 " " George NEWBOLD son 26 " " Thomas NEWBOLD son 8 " " Elizabeth NEWBOLD dau 5 " " Lucy NEWBOLD dau 1 " " Frank NEWBOLD son 1 month " " Where does George fit in as son age 26 that would mean Elizabeth would have had him aged 9. Why is he listed in the middle of the family? Also no occupation is recorded for him. If anyone has any suggestions or would like to view the census its RG12/ 2420. Many thanks Wendy _____________________________________________ Tracing Ancestors in Birmingham: http://www.bham.de/ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: ENG-WARKS-BIRMINGHAM-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WARKS-BIRMINGHAM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Wendy Always best to quote the full reference which is RG12 2420 26 46 (in fact its needed to comply with copyright when quoting from the census) I think your problem is, what is called in the trade "a cock up" by the enumerator <vbg>, the age reads 26 on the census page but I suspect that it should be 10 I thought it may be that George was a brother to Charles but no sign of him with Charles father in 1871, the lack of occupation and his place in the household makes me believe he is a 10 year old son of Charles and Elizabeth Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) Admin for OVINGTON - HAYLOCK - SEYMOUR Lists > I am a little confused (no change there some would say) I have the NEWBOLD > family in 1891 as follows; > > Charles NEWBOLD head 37 Baker born Coventry. > Elizabeth NEWBOLD wife 35 born Worcester > Albert NEWBOLD son 14 born Birmingham > Rose NEWBOLD dau 12 " " > George NEWBOLD son 26 " " > Thomas NEWBOLD son 8 " " > Elizabeth NEWBOLD dau 5 " " > Lucy NEWBOLD dau 1 " " > Frank NEWBOLD son 1 month " " > > Where does George fit in as son age 26 that would mean Elizabeth would > have had him aged 9. Why is he listed in the middle of the family? Also no > occupation is recorded for him. > > If anyone has any suggestions or would like to view the census its RG12/ > 2420. > > Many thanks > > Wendy