It could be Elisabeth. Regards, Pauline On 02/08/2013, at 7:08 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > 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 >

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. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Richard Smith wrote: > 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 Elishshe - possibly a phonetic Alicia ? -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

"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 Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message news:b60131Fcm7fU1@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 > opinion or two, as I'm concerned that I'm reading what I want to see. > > Thanks, > Richard I seem to have different eyesight from everyone else in the group, but I see it as Thomasine. Robin Jarvis

On 01/08/2013 22:08, Richard Smith wrote: > 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. > Could be a badly written Elizabeth, compare with Elizabeth Cotter(?) next door. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

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 (I've just noticed the spelling of that). It'd be good to get a different scam of the page of yo can, to see if it is different. Also the k (or could be h) doesn't to me match anything else on the page: it'd be worth looking at the surrounding pages to see if you can find a similar character. The c could be s. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep. That's deep enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?" - Jean Kerr

On 01/08/2013 22:08, Richard Smith wrote: > 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. Ancestry.com reads it as Elisbethe, which isn't a bad guess, because it does look a bit like that. The 1841 has her as Allicia Munday but this 1851 looks like: Elishshe

On 01/08/13 23:12, Steven Gibbs wrote: > >> http://richard.genmine.com/census/1851/MONDAY_Thomas.jpg > > I'm not sure what is written, but I think it is a very bad spelling of > Alicia, the mother of the children Mary and Thomas. Yes, that's what I think too. However at the moment my identification of Alicia's parents rests heavily on this actually being Alicia and not, say, a poorly spelt Elizabeth or some other variant, so I was keen for a second opinion. (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.) Richard

"Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message news:b60131Fcm7fU1@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 I'm not sure what is written, but I think it is a very bad spelling of Alicia, the mother of the children Mary and Thomas. Steven

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

On 01/08/2013 19:57, Chris Dickinson wrote: > Graeme Wall wrote: > > >> The beer they drank was small beer, about 1%ABV, just enough to kill the >> germs. Modern beers are in the 3.5% to 6% range. > > > > Aw now, Graeme. Don't spoil my little fun with cold sober science. > Cheers :-) Seriously it was a lot safer to drink beer than water then, even children would be given beer. For serious drinking gin was the tipple! See Hogarth's prints. My grandfather worked for a gin distillery near Waterloo and he hated the stuff! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

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 >> >> I'm not sure what is written, but I think it is a very bad spelling of >> Alicia, the mother of the children Mary and Thomas. > > Yes, that's what I think too. However at the moment my identification > of Alicia's parents rests heavily on this actually being Alicia and not, > say, a poorly spelt Elizabeth or some other variant, so I was keen for a > second opinion. > > (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.) > > Richard 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 Could it be Elisheba from the Hebrew Bible She was the wife of Aaron? Now that I have written the above, Elisheba could have been heard by some census takers as Alicia. ;-)

Graeme Wall wrote:     > The beer they drank was small beer, about 1%ABV, just enough to kill the > germs.  Modern beers are in the 3.5% to 6% range.     Aw now, Graeme. Don't spoil my little fun with cold sober science.     Chris

On 01/08/2013 13:47, Keith Nuttle wrote: > On 8/1/2013 8:38 AM, Chris Dickinson wrote: >> Martin Brown wrote: >> >> >>> I have a few like this in a family of brewers - who perhaps lived longer >>> because they *didn't* drink the water! It has to be partly genetic since >>> it seems to be that extreme longevity runs in families. >> >> >> Though you could also argue that a family of brewers was likely to >> live in a place that had access to clean water. >> >> >> <snip> >>> ISTR they had a daily beer allowance of 12 pints for hot working >>> at the furnace hearth (OK it was watery beer). >> >> >> We should really, as genealogists and historians, be more aware that a >> large proportion of our ancestors were probably pissed or stoned most >> of the time. > >> >> Chris >> > We should also be aware that our ancestors may have lived lives that we > were brought up to believe were quite scandalous. We should also > remember that that scandalous behavior may be the reasons there are some > people in our family trees that we can find nothing about. You can usually find births deaths and marriages post 1837 even with a wall of silence since the census data provides a lot of good clues. > > There was a time when a relative was living a scandalous life, were not > talked about in family gatherings, in fact may have been purged from the > family. Typically "marrying a Catholic" and as recently as the 1920's too. I have one where the bride's father is declared as "deceased" on her Wedding certificate but he pops up again alive and well at a later siblings wedding. There is no doubt as to why they were disowned. -- Regards, Martin Brown

On 01/08/2013 13:38, Chris Dickinson wrote: > Martin Brown wrote: > > >> I have a few like this in a family of brewers - who perhaps lived longer >> because they *didn't* drink the water! It has to be partly genetic since >> it seems to be that extreme longevity runs in families. > > > Though you could also argue that a family of brewers was likely to live in a place that had access to clean water. > > > <snip> >> ISTR they had a daily beer allowance of 12 pints for hot working >> at the furnace hearth (OK it was watery beer). > > > We should really, as genealogists and historians, be more aware that a large proportion of our ancestors were probably pissed or stoned most of the time. > > The beer they drank was small beer, about 1%ABV, just enough to kill the germs. Modern beers are in the 3.5% to 6% range. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

In article <b60131Fcm7fU1@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: > http://richard.genmine.com/census/1851/MONDAY_Thomas.jpg I can't make out the whole name but what I can see is: Elish_he

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:     > Of these 10, 5 are Quaker; it is noticeable that my Quaker ancestors > generally married late in life giving greater generation gaps.     It's an interesting observation.   Circa 1700, I would think that a 'yeoman' male would marry normally aged 25-35, and a female somewhat earlier. I would assume that the lower down in the family pecking order you were, the later your marriage would be (but can see arguments against that). What else would make Quakers different? Something, possibly, to do with Quaker attitudes to sex and procreation? A smaller pool of suitable partners, so longer to wait?     Chris

From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > On 31 Jul at 10:49, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> 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? > > <snip> for brevity> > > Well that makes some sense for what I had dismissed as a ridiculous > question and I find that I have birth dates of before 1700 for 10 of the > 84 5G G-Fs that I have found. Though at least half of the 84 I have not > got any birth dates at all. > > Of these 10, 5 are Quaker; it is noticeable that my Quaker ancestors > generally married late in life giving greater generation gaps. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ < My great-great-great-grandfather GEORGE STOCKDILL was born about 1718, calculated from his given age of 66 when he was buried in 1784 at Husthwaite in the North Riding of Yorkshire. I do not know who his father was, but he must almost certainly have been born before 1700, which would make him my 4x-great-grandfather and me only the seventh generation from before that date. In my direct male line there are much longer gaps between the generations than in most families, principally due to my great-grandfather ROBERT STOCKDILL (1806-1896) who was married four times, the last time in 1851 when he was 45 and he had my grandfather when he was 55. 1) George Stockdill, b circa 1718, married 1756 when he was about 38, d 1784. 2) Robert Stockdill, b 1765, married 1790 at 25, d 1822. 3) Robert Stockdill, b 1806, married 1851 at 45, d 1896. 4) Albert Edward Stockdill, b 1861, married 1885 at 24, d 1907. 5) Leonard Stockdill, b 1902, married 1941 at 39, d 1961. 6) Me, born 1940. Thus, it will be seen that because of the marriages at a fairly late age of my great-grandfather and my father, from the birth of my 3x-great-grandfather to my own birth is a span of 222 years, or an average of 44.4 years compared to the norm of 25-30. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Martin Brown wrote:     > I have a few like this in a family of brewers - who perhaps lived longer > because they *didn't* drink the water! It has to be partly genetic since > it seems to be that extreme longevity runs in families.     Though you could also argue that a family of brewers was likely to live in a place that had access to clean water.     <snip> > ISTR they had a daily beer allowance of 12 pints for hot working > at the furnace hearth (OK it was watery beer).     We should really, as genealogists and historians, be more aware that a large proportion of our ancestors were probably pissed or stoned most of the time.     Chris