I think there are two 'mistakes' on the 1861 entry: 1) Sarah is described as John's daughter whereas she was actually his 'wife' 2) I think she was actually called Maria not Sarah The 1871 entry shows the family as follows: John HILL (40) - Head Maria BOURN (37) - Wife Eliza BOURN (15), Ann BOURN (8), Maria BOURN (7), Kate BOURN (5), John BOURN (1) - no relationships given for any of these children RG10/3212 f.10 p.11 In 1881 we find: John HILL (48) - Head Maria HILL (46) - Wife Maria HILL (17) - Daughter John HILL (11) - Son Kate E PRITCHETT (9) - Grand Daughter RG11/2943 f.98 p.22 This last entry clearly proves that this is the right family - however, Kate was before Emma married James PRITCHETT and her birth is registered as Kate Elizabeth BOURNE (Mar q. 1872, Alcester 6d 618). Dave Annal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jill and Peter Harvey" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:34 PM Subject: [WOR] EMMA BOURNE 1861/1871 lookup please > Dear Julie > > More:- > > 1861 census living at Headless Cross, Webheath, Redditch aged 8 with > mother Sarah Bourne 27, and sisters Jane,7, Eliza 5, Harriet 3, > Elizabeth 1,...and grandfather John Hill aged 28?! Mistake somewhere. > RG9/2118 f 27 p 5. > Best wishes > Jill > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
Dave Annal wrote: >I think there are two 'mistakes' on the 1861 entry: > >1) Sarah is described as John's daughter whereas she was actually his 'wife' >2) I think she was actually called Maria not Sarah > >The 1871 entry shows the family as follows: > >John HILL (40) - Head >Maria BOURN (37) - Wife >Eliza BOURN (15), Ann BOURN (8), Maria BOURN (7), Kate BOURN (5), John BOURN >(1) - no relationships given for any of these children >RG10/3212 f.10 p.11 > >In 1881 we find: > >John HILL (48) - Head >Maria HILL (46) - Wife >Maria HILL (17) - Daughter >John HILL (11) - Son >Kate E PRITCHETT (9) - Grand Daughter >RG11/2943 f.98 p.22 > >This last entry clearly proves that this is the right family - however, Kate >was before Emma married James PRITCHETT and her birth is registered as Kate >Elizabeth BOURNE (Mar q. 1872, Alcester 6d 618). > >Dave Annal > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jill and Peter Harvey" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:34 PM >Subject: [WOR] EMMA BOURNE 1861/1871 lookup please > > > > >>Dear Julie >> >>More:- >> >>1861 census living at Headless Cross, Webheath, Redditch aged 8 with >>mother Sarah Bourne 27, and sisters Jane,7, Eliza 5, Harriet 3, >>Elizabeth 1,...and grandfather John Hill aged 28?! Mistake somewhere. >>RG9/2118 f 27 p 5. >>Best wishes >>Jill >> >>------------------------------- >>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 >> >> >> > > > >------------------------------- >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 > > > > You could be right - in fact I had a Sarah Maria Bailey who turned up variously as Sarah M, Sarah or Maria over all the censuses from 1841 to 1901! But it could also mean the first wife Sarah died between 1861 and 1871. in the 1871 census there is a gap of around 7 years in the children Eliza and Ann's ages. It could mean infant deaths, children in other homes working or with relatives) or the death of Sarah. It pays to keep an open mind till you clarify matters. Or you could end up having wasted time researching other people's families! Good hunting