PLEASE stop bombarding my mail box with individual Worcs. emails. If you cannot send a Digest, then unsubscribe me. Thank you, John Duffield --- Joan Cowdell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Viv > > Your suggestion is very possible - in fact I had > wondered whether Edwin > might have been the son of his elder "sister" Emily > who would have been > about 17 when he was born, I know that illegitimate > children were > sometimes disguised in that way. It looks as though > he may be one of > those little snags that crop up in family history > and can't be resolved > - he grew up to be a nasty piece of work too! > > Joan > > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:44:17 -0000 > From: "Mike Palmer" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WOR] Pound of Rochford > To: "Joan Cowdell" <[email protected]>, > "Mailing List Worcs." > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" > > Hello Joan, > > I am wondering if all these children really were > George and Elizabeth's. > > George and Maria's baptisms are also missing from > the IGI extracted > records, > and if Maria was 17 in 1891 then she would be the > same age as her sister > Elizabeth, and Elizabeth's baptism is on IGI. > > Maria's age is not clear so maybe she was 7 as she's > at the end of the > list, > but her mother was then 54, making her 47 at the > time of birth. That's > not > impossible, but they could have been taking in the > children of an older > son > or daughter (their eldest, Henry, was born in 1864). > > The younger children could have been born elsewhere > and possibly with a > different name! > > I don't want to make you feel pessimistic, but it's > a good idea to keep > all > the options open! > > Viv > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:53:36 -0000 > From: "Mike Palmer" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WOR] Pound of Rochford > To: "WorcsList rootsweb" > <[email protected]>, "Joan > Cowdell" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" > > Hi Joan, > > I did find Maria baptised in 1882, which makes her > at least 9 in 1891, > not 7 > or 17! > > That still leaves George and Edwin to find. Maybe it > was mix and match, > some > of their children and some extra ones. Maria was the > same age as George > if > he was really 9 in 1891 so maybe they juggled the > ages to make it look > believable! > > Viv > > Could anyone offer advice on a problem? I have > George and Elizabeth > POUND recorded on every census from 1871 to 1901 > living at Rochford, > Worcs. with a dozen or so children. The births of > the children are all > recorded at the GRO and their baptisms appear on the > IGI ? all except > one, and of course he is the one I need! He is > Edwin POUND born about > 1876 and he doesn?t seem to have been registered or > baptised, and I > don?t understand why when all the other children > were ? and he wasn?t > the first or last child, he came right in the > middle. He is on the 1881 > census aged 5, on the 1891 aged 14, and on the 1901 > (called Edward but I > can accept that as a mistake by the enumerator) aged > 25. > > Does anyone have access to the Rochford parish > records, who would be > willing to look at children of George and Elizabeth > through the 1870?s? > And has anyone got any other suggestions? I would > really like his birth > certificate but I need some proof that he was born! > > Joan > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - > Release Date: > 04/02/2008 10:10 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/