On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:40:10 PM UTC+1, Jill Dyke wrote: > I have just received the death certificate for John HANSON a 76 year old > > shoemaker, who died 11th December 1844 but have been unable to find this man > > in the 1841 census. > > > > The death was registered in the Whitechapel district, sub-district Mile End > > New Town, Middlesex. > > Place of death Workhouse, Charles Street, Mile End New Town > > Informant Mary Hayes Nurse present at the death Christchurch Workhouse her > > Mark X > > > > I am hoping this is my 5*great grandfather John HANSON who married Mary > > JOSLIN at St Mary Whitechapel, Middlesex the 30th November 1790 and baptised > > 3 children at St Mary Whitechapel. Mary (my 4*great grandmother who married > > James SWIGG) bapt. 23 Nov 1791, John bapt. 27 January 1793 and James bapt. > > 12 July 1795 & buried 1 Nov 1796. > > > > Hoping someone can find John in 1841 > > > > Jill Might be the John Hanson buried 15 Dec 1844 at St. Mary's, Whitechapel, aged 70, from Spitalfields - London Metropolitan Archives: P93/MRY1/069, no page number. Peter Haizelden Genealogist and Family Historian www.haizelden.co.uk

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:40:10 +0100, "Jill Dyke" <jill.dyke@ntlworld.com> wrote: >I have just received the death certificate for John HANSON a 76 year old >shoemaker, who died 11th December 1844 but have been unable to find this man >in the 1841 census. > >The death was registered in the Whitechapel district, sub-district Mile End >New Town, Middlesex. >Place of death Workhouse, Charles Street, Mile End New Town >Informant Mary Hayes Nurse present at the death Christchurch Workhouse her >Mark X > >I am hoping this is my 5*great grandfather John HANSON who married Mary >JOSLIN at St Mary Whitechapel, Middlesex the 30th November 1790 and baptised >3 children at St Mary Whitechapel. Mary (my 4*great grandmother who married >James SWIGG) bapt. 23 Nov 1791, John bapt. 27 January 1793 and James bapt. >12 July 1795 & buried 1 Nov 1796. > >Hoping someone can find John in 1841 > If he was in the workhouse in 1841 then it was common practice for workhouse inmates to be recorded in the census using only their initials.

I have just received the death certificate for John HANSON a 76 year old shoemaker, who died 11th December 1844 but have been unable to find this man in the 1841 census. The death was registered in the Whitechapel district, sub-district Mile End New Town, Middlesex. Place of death Workhouse, Charles Street, Mile End New Town Informant Mary Hayes Nurse present at the death Christchurch Workhouse her Mark X I am hoping this is my 5*great grandfather John HANSON who married Mary JOSLIN at St Mary Whitechapel, Middlesex the 30th November 1790 and baptised 3 children at St Mary Whitechapel. Mary (my 4*great grandmother who married James SWIGG) bapt. 23 Nov 1791, John bapt. 27 January 1793 and James bapt. 12 July 1795 & buried 1 Nov 1796. Hoping someone can find John in 1841 Jill

"Piercefield" <Piercefield@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mailman.5.1375674608.3414.genbrit@rootsweb.com... > Geoff Pearson wrote, Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:10 PM > >> It will be worth asking English Heritage for their evidence >> on Lady Fulton - listing is usually a careful process > > Absolute rot. > > In 1983, someone probably drove down our street Listing almost every > building in it, including ours (re-built circa 1915), but not the > house next door, which is outwardly identical to the Listed house > opposite, has a 15th century fire place, and an "1868" date plaque, > but happened to be owned at the time by the Chairman of the Council. > > Oh ! "Careful process". Perhaps you are right, after all ! Maybe in your country that is the case, in mine (Scotland) it is certainly carefully done. I have been closely associated with it for many years.

Geoff Pearson wrote, Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:10 PM > It will be worth asking English Heritage for their evidence > on Lady Fulton - listing is usually a careful process Absolute rot. In 1983, someone probably drove down our street Listing almost every building in it, including ours (re-built circa 1915), but not the house next door, which is outwardly identical to the Listed house opposite, has a 15th century fire place, and an "1868" date plaque, but happened to be owned at the time by the Chairman of the Council. Oh ! "Careful process". Perhaps you are right, after all !

Harriet or Harriot -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Thursday, 01 August, 2013 2:09 PM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Deciphering a name I'd be very grateful if someone could give me a second opinion on a name in the following 1851 census page: http://richard.genmine.com/census/1851/MONDAY_Thomas.jpg The name in question is on the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas MONDAY. I won't say what I think it says until I've heard a second opinion or two, as I'm concerned that I'm reading what I want to see. Thanks, Richard ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6541 - Release Date: 07/31/13

On 03/08/13 16:50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > 1. Watler (!) Miller Son (presumably a family continued from > the previous page) > 2. Anibras (?) Do Do (Andreas?) I think it's Ambras, a misspelling of Ambrose. (I've noticed this family in the census in other years too, even though I'm not related, so far as I know.) > 3. Emma Do Daur > 4. Lydia Do Do > - > 5. Caithrine Do Do > 6. Thomas Monday Head > 7. Frascot (?) Do Wife Hariot, I think. > 8. Elickshe Do Sister > 9. Mary Do daur > 10. Thomas Monday Son > > No way I can see 8 as Thomasine! There's definitely a letter - probably > two - in the middle and near the end of the forename that has an > ascender. Richard

In message <2KqdnccIvM98x2bMnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@bt.com>, Robin Jarvis <robinj@talk21.com> writes: >"Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message news:b60131Fcm >7fU1@mid.individual.net... >> I'd be very grateful if someone could give me a second opinion on a >>name in the following 1851 census page: >> >> http://richard.genmine.com/census/1851/MONDAY_Thomas.jpg >> >> The name in question is on the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas >>MONDAY. I won't say what I think it says until I've heard a second [] >I seem to have different eyesight from everyone else in the group, but >I see it as Thomasine. [] I think you surely do - or rather, are looking at the wrong line! 7fU1 said the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas Monday - so counting from the top: 1. Watler (!) Miller Son (presumably a family continued from the previous page) 2. Anibras (?) Do Do (Andreas?) 3. Emma Do Daur 4. Lydia Do Do - 5. Caithrine Do Do 6. Thomas Monday Head 7. Frascot (?) Do Wife 8. Elickshe Do Sister 9. Mary Do daur 10. Thomas Monday Son No way I can see 8 as Thomasine! There's definitely a letter - probably two - in the middle and near the end of the forename that has an ascender. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:33:14 +0100, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: > > > The name in question is on the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas >> > MONDAY. I won't say what I think it says until I've heard a second >> > opinion or two, as I'm concerned that I'm reading what I want to see. >> > >> >> Could be a badly written Elizabeth, compare with Elizabeth Cotter(?) >> next door. > >As written, Elishshe, which is a fine bit of phonetic spelling. > With the writer sunconciously thinking of "Elishah" ? >In 1841, she is definitely Allicia. The sequence is >Thomas/Hariot/Joseph/Allicia, then the children, which MAY mean Joseph is >> -the husband.- > >EVE >Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians >Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On 02/08/13 12:52, johnfhhgen wrote: > You may find these sites useful > http://www.knightroots.co.uk/transcriptions/Parishes_F/Fawley/Marriages/marriages.htm > > and > http://website.lineone.net/~mcgoa/pr.html Thanks. I hadn't been aware of the second of those. I tend to use the set of CDs produced by the Hampshire Genealogical Society which, as of fairly recently, has complete transcripts of all surviving parish registers in the county (except the Isle of Wight) up to 1837. They're pricey -- a complete set costs £180 -- but as 19 out of 32 of my 3-gt-grandparents were from the county, it seemed worthwhile. > You may also wish to consider that if Alicia were Alicia SCOREY, she may > have married and been widowed a second time by 1851! To lose one husband may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness. :-) > The new Forest Union Workhouse records may shed some light on Joseph MUNDAY. Sadly there are very few any surviving records, and seemingly none from the years in question. Though I might mention it to one of the archivists when I'm next there, just in case there are some additional records that I'm not managing to find in the catalogue. I suspect the whole thing will turn out to be a double sibling marriage, with Alicia and Harriet as siblings, and also Thomas and Joseph as siblings. But I can't yet find the evidence for either of those relations. Richard

Anne Chambers wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> >> It doesn't look that different - and very similar to Emma. It's *very* different to the initial letter of the >> name above Emma which must surely be an A. OTOH that name looks like Anabras which I wouldn't even like to >> guess at so maybe whoever wrote this page had a somewhat creative approach to spelling names. >> > I think the enumerator either had dyslexia or was writing very fast - look at the first name on that > page...Watler Millers, surely Walter ? > And a little lower Carthrine > Ambras.... etc > > the births of Walter and Catherine Millers are on FreeBMD as well as an Ambrose Miller, all the right ages and > RD. > Hit 'send' too soon... The families were probably illiterate and the enumerator, possibly unfamiliar with the accent and in a hurry, wrote down what he heard. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Ian Goddard wrote: > J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <ktetqn$umi$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Keith Nuttle >> <Keith_Nuttle@sbcglobal.net> writes: >>> On 8/1/2013 6:49 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> On 01/08/13 23:12, Steven Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://richard.genmine.com/census/1851/MONDAY_Thomas.jpg >> >> My first attempt would be Elickshe. >> [] >>> I really do not see any way it can be Transcribed as Alicia. This is >>> based on the A in Ambras second line from the top compared in the name >>> in question on the eight line. Also compared the E to Elizabeth on >>> line 13 >> [] >> No, but as Anne says it could be a phonetic version of Alicia - in other >> words someone unfamiliar with the name Alicia wrote down what they heard. >> >> The E looks different to the one in Elizebeth > > It doesn't look that different - and very similar to Emma. It's *very* different to the initial letter of the > name above Emma which must surely be an A. OTOH that name looks like Anabras which I wouldn't even like to > guess at so maybe whoever wrote this page had a somewhat creative approach to spelling names. > I think the enumerator either had dyslexia or was writing very fast - look at the first name on that page...Watler Millers, surely Walter ? And a little lower Carthrine Ambras.... etc the births of Walter and Catherine Millers are on FreeBMD as well as an Ambrose Miller, all the right ages and RD. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 02/08/13 08:20, Steven Gibbs wrote: > The IGI suggests that Harriet was Harriet Scorey, and that a Joseph Mondey > married Alicia Roberts at St Mary, Southampton. Without seeing the > originals, it's difficult to be sure what's going on. Indeed. Something mentioned in the register, but not in the IGI, is that Alicia Roberts was described as a widow. The marriage was witnessed by Thomas Mondey, Harriet Mondey and James Beavis. So it's pretty certain that it's the right marriage. > Since there was an > Alicia Scorey from Fawley, I'm a bit stuck without finding a marriage to a > Roberts (or an elimination of that Alicia Roberts). There was also an Alicia Saunders, also baptised in 1801, a few miles away in Eling, but I think we can rule her out. Alicia Saunders married Benjamin Kingston in 1826, was widowed, and then married Paul Phipps in 1830. However there was an Alicia Elton baptised in Nov 1806 in Millbrook who seems to vanish, and Millbrook is very close to Southampton where Alicia Roberts was "of this parish". However it seems a little unlikely (but not impossible) that Alicia should be on a her second marriage in Jul 1828, if she were only aged 21. In any case, Alicia Monday's date of birth is variously calculated as 1801-6 (from the 1841 census), 1802-3 (1851 census), 1795-6 (1861 census), 1800-1 (burial) and 1803-4 (GRO death index). A birth sometime around 1800-3 seems most likely. The only other Alicia born in that time period in the HGS baptism index is an Alicia Haiter, baptised in Christchurch, and buried there a month later. So by a process of elimination, Alicia Scorey seems pretty likely. Coupled to that, Harriet Munday is Alicia Scorey's sister, which must bump the odds up a bit further, especially as we know Alicia Munday was described as Thomas Munday's sister. (That said, I'm now reconsidering my opinion that Thomas and Joseph were not brothers. I suspect they were, and that Joseph's baptism is missing.) But whilst it's quite fun to persue this sort of convoluted reasoning, it doesn't leave me in confidence I have the right set of parents of Alicia. Richard

On 02/08/2013 8:20 AM, Steven Gibbs wrote: > "Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message > news:b606uuFdrqsU1@mid.individual.net... >> (Specifically, the obvious conclusion when you see a husband, wife and >> widowed "sister" on a census, all with the same surname, is that the widow >> is probably the sister-in-law of the head of the house and had married his >> brother. In this case, I don't believe that to be the case. I think that >> Alicia and Harriet are sisters, and that Thomas and Alicia's husband, >> Joseph, were cousins. But that conclusion is more tenuous than I'd like >> and rests on the person the facts that (i) Alicia was described as >> Thomas's sister, and (ii) that she was born in Fawley, both of which I get >> from 1851 census, and a very similar 1861 entry. If this entry isn't >> Alicia, then I have a problem.) > The IGI suggests that Harriet was Harriet Scorey, and that a Joseph Mondey > married Alicia Roberts at St Mary, Southampton. Without seeing the > originals, it's difficult to be sure what's going on. Since there was an > Alicia Scorey from Fawley, I'm a bit stuck without finding a marriage to a > Roberts (or an elimination of that Alicia Roberts). > > I have no doubt the Eli...she is a phonetic misspelling of Alicia. I've > seen this sort of thing all too often. > > Steven > To follow up on my last message, Alicia Roberts, according to FamilySearch, was a widow. But where the marriage of her to a ROBERTS is???? (and again, she could have hbeen a widow. The new Forest Union Workhouse records may shed some light on Joseph MUNDAY. Kind regards John

On 02-08-2013 12:45, Richard van Schaik wrote: > On 31-07-2013 18:45, Renia wrote: >> On 31/07/2013 10:49, Ian Goddard wrote: >>> Geoff Pearson wrote: >>> >>>> However, interesting question: does anyone have a proven ancestor >>>> only 5 generations back living before 1700? Given that we normally >>>> allow 30 years per generation it will be very good going but could >>>> be done. >>> >>> OP wrote 5x *great grandfather*. Add on father & grandfather so >>> we're dealing with 7 previous generations, not 5. Does anyone have a >>> 5xggfather living before 1700? Well, for a start: >>> >>> John Goddard, my 5x ggfather, bapt 25 Jul 1687, Holmfirth chapel, >>> Almondbury parish, bur 21 Aug 1750, Kirkburton, was mine. He married >>> 1711. >> >> Nearly. My 5x great-grandfather, John Bury, was born about 1706 (or >> perhaps earlier). He was born when his father was about 40 years old, >> and had his own son when he, himself was about 27 years old. There was a >> similar 27-year gap between the next three generations, then a 42-year >> gap, a 49-year gap until the birth of my grandfather, who was aged 53 >> and dead when my mother was born. > > My grandfather Laurens de Vroom was born 1825 and married 1884 to a far > younger wife where he got 8 children. That way its easy to get the 5th > ggf before 1700. Oops, great-grandfather of course -- Richard van Schaik f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

On 02/08/2013 8:20 AM, Steven Gibbs wrote: > "Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message > news:b606uuFdrqsU1@mid.individual.net... >> (Specifically, the obvious conclusion when you see a husband, wife and >> widowed "sister" on a census, all with the same surname, is that the widow >> is probably the sister-in-law of the head of the house and had married his >> brother. In this case, I don't believe that to be the case. I think that >> Alicia and Harriet are sisters, and that Thomas and Alicia's husband, >> Joseph, were cousins. But that conclusion is more tenuous than I'd like >> and rests on the person the facts that (i) Alicia was described as >> Thomas's sister, and (ii) that she was born in Fawley, both of which I get >> from 1851 census, and a very similar 1861 entry. If this entry isn't >> Alicia, then I have a problem.) > The IGI suggests that Harriet was Harriet Scorey, and that a Joseph Mondey > married Alicia Roberts at St Mary, Southampton. Without seeing the > originals, it's difficult to be sure what's going on. Since there was an > Alicia Scorey from Fawley, I'm a bit stuck without finding a marriage to a > Roberts (or an elimination of that Alicia Roberts). > > I have no doubt the Eli...she is a phonetic misspelling of Alicia. I've > seen this sort of thing all too often. > Steven Richard, In 1861 "Elesher" is still in Fawley, with her sister Harriet. She appears to die in 1868 as Alicia 1868 February 11 65 513 Alicia MUNDAY 67 Hardley Arthur M Hoare, Rector GRO has age as 64 from http://www.knightroots.co.uk/transcriptions/Parishes_F/Fawley/Burials/burials.htm You may find these sites useful http://www.knightroots.co.uk/transcriptions/Parishes_F/Fawley/Marriages/marriages.htm and http://website.lineone.net/~mcgoa/pr.html You may also wish to consider that if Alicia were Alicia SCOREY, she may have married and been widowed a second time by 1851! Joseph had died in 1843 in the workhouse 1843 March 3 5 34 Joseph MUNDAY 49 New Forest Union Workhouse T B Lancaster No trace GRO Kind regards, John Henley

On 31-07-2013 18:45, Renia wrote: > On 31/07/2013 10:49, Ian Goddard wrote: >> Geoff Pearson wrote: >> >>> However, interesting question: does anyone have a proven ancestor >>> only 5 generations back living before 1700? Given that we normally >>> allow 30 years per generation it will be very good going but could >>> be done. >> >> OP wrote 5x *great grandfather*. Add on father & grandfather so >> we're dealing with 7 previous generations, not 5. Does anyone have a >> 5xggfather living before 1700? Well, for a start: >> >> John Goddard, my 5x ggfather, bapt 25 Jul 1687, Holmfirth chapel, >> Almondbury parish, bur 21 Aug 1750, Kirkburton, was mine. He married >> 1711. > > Nearly. My 5x great-grandfather, John Bury, was born about 1706 (or > perhaps earlier). He was born when his father was about 40 years old, > and had his own son when he, himself was about 27 years old. There was a > similar 27-year gap between the next three generations, then a 42-year > gap, a 49-year gap until the birth of my grandfather, who was aged 53 > and dead when my mother was born. My grandfather Laurens de Vroom was born 1825 and married 1884 to a far younger wife where he got 8 children. That way its easy to get the 5th ggf before 1700. -- Richard van Schaik f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

> > The name in question is on the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas > > MONDAY. I won't say what I think it says until I've heard a second > > opinion or two, as I'm concerned that I'm reading what I want to see. > > > > Could be a badly written Elizabeth, compare with Elizabeth Cotter(?) > next door. As written, Elishshe, which is a fine bit of phonetic spelling. In 1841, she is definitely Allicia. The sequence is Thomas/Hariot/Joseph/Allicia, then the children, which MAY mean Joseph is > -the husband.- EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> > The name in question is on the eighth line down, the sister of Thomas > > MONDAY. I won't say what I think it says until I've heard a second > > opinion or two, as I'm concerned that I'm reading what I want to see. > > > > Could be a badly written Elizabeth, compare with Elizabeth Cotter(?) > next door. In 1841, she is definitely Allicia. The sequence is Thomas/Hariot/Joseph/Allicia, then the children, which MAY mean Joseph is > -the husband.- EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

http://vcp.e2bn.org/ Website Victorian Crime & Punishment