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
"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
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
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. ;-)
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>
"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
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.
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 >
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