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

Wendy Folio 26 page 45 the entry definitely shows George's age as 26 !! But possibly an error on enumerators part , when transcribing the information. Helen New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: eng-warks-birmingham-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-warks-birmingham-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Partridge Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2006 5:06 a.m. To: ENG-WARKS-BIRMINGHAM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [B'ham] George NEWBOLD 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.13/577 - Release Date: 6/12/2006 4:39 p.m. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.13/577 - Release Date: 6/12/2006 4:39 p.m.

Hello Helen, Yes I thought it did. I am puzzled as 26 being a strange number, if he was born between Rose and Thomas he would be 11, 10 or 9. The only other explanation is perhaps he was Charles brother. I will have to delve deeper into this one. Thanks for looking Helen. Best wishes Wendy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen Verrall" <hverrall@ihug.co.nz> To: <eng-warks-birmingham@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [B'ham] George NEWBOLD > Wendy > > Folio 26 page 45 the entry definitely shows George's age as 26 !! > But possibly an error on enumerators part , when transcribing the > information. > > Helen > New Zealand > > > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-warks-birmingham-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:eng-warks-birmingham-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy > Partridge > Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2006 5:06 a.m. > To: ENG-WARKS-BIRMINGHAM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [B'ham] George NEWBOLD > > 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 > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.13/577 - Release Date: 6/12/2006 > 4:39 p.m. > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.13/577 - Release Date: 6/12/2006 > 4:39 p.m. > > _____________________________________________ > 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, George was not on the 1881 Census , so yes a mistake in transcribing I say. 1881 Cen: Charles NEWBOLD Head M Male 26 Coventry, Warwick, England Journeyman Baker Elizabeth NEWBOLD Wife M Female 25 Worcester, England Albert NEWBOLD Son Male 4 Birmingham, Warwick, England Rose NEWBOLD Daughter Female 2 Birmingham, Warwick, England Chris P. NZ:-)

Hi Wendy, just had another look at 1881 and there are two George Newbold's who could fit in age 15yrs . One a puple who is at: Institution For Deaf & Dumb Church Rd Edgbaston, Warwick, England and another who is: Lodger Woolwich, Middlesex, England. Could he have been a brother to Charles or something like that? Just another line of thought. Chris P. NZ :-)