Hi Anthony Glad we sorted this birthplace out. The boxes you mention are on the 1841 Census but later Censuses show place of birth (not always acurate). They also show relationship to Head of household which is not on the 1841 Census. Speaking of not accurate, Philip P. may have been born Ifiled but he wasn't bap.there nor in Crawley. I guess if I find his bap. I will have another Ifield linked family. Incidentally I have noticed something potentially interesting among my 1881 Census data: - a Thomas P. born Ifield (again no bap.) aged 46 [this is 6yrs to young to be yours, if age correct] but with wife Eliza b. Somerset, children Edward 21 b. Somerset, Fanny 13, William 10 & Walter b. Charlwood, George 8 b. Ifield, Albert 5, Annie 3 & Edith 1 b. Worth. Again the Somerset link. Incidentally this isn't so strang as the area had strong cattle trading links with cattle originally being driven down from Wales (hence the large number of Welsh surnames in the area) and by the mid 19th century the links tend to suggest this may have changed to Somerset and Devon. Hope you have a good visit to America. Best wishes Julie Anthony Tinslay wrote: > Hello Julie > Thank you. Yes must have another look at 1851 census. I thought that the > box merely indicated with a tick whether or not the person was born in > Surrey. If indeed it did say Ilminster then that resolves one issue but > not the location of marriage which is still unknown. > Philip P. in the census was born in Ifield. > Away now for three weeks or so but will make an effort to look at Woking > records next month. I am in Fleet so not too far away. > Will have to look at all the other items you mention later. > regards Anthony Tinslay > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julie Martin" <julie@housemartin.f9.co.uk> > To: <PENFOLD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Penfold] PENFOLD/LEMON > > > >>Hi Anthony >> >>I am a bit confused now, as I was sure the 1851 Census gave Hannah >>Humphrey (previously Penfold)'s birthplace as Ilminster,SOM. I have >>found this on the 1851 2% Extract disc (sadly I can't check this till I >>get my computer back). Also I have copied it from the Census copy at >>Woking. As you have seen this Census too and haven't found this >>birthplace, I am now less certain. I guess another look at the Census >>should tell us her correct birthplace. >> >>I would love to have details of the Penfolds you found at Reigate, as I >>have failed to find Reigate records so far. I am particularly hoping to >>find the marriage of Thomas (son of Thomas & Amy - presumed brother of >>Edward (Frusannah)) and his wife Elizabeth who was born Reigate. They >>lived at Buckland or just outside it and in 1822 and 1825 the bap. >>records give them as 'of Reigate'. >> >>The only other Reigate links I have (apart from the Philip I mentioned >>before)are:- >>1) Bur. Charlwood 1836 - Lucy 63 of Reigate (I believe she may be the >>unmarried dau. of Thos. & Elizabeth bap. Jan 1775 Charlwood. She was >>still unm. in Dec 1798 when her dau. Lucy was bap. >>2) 1851 Census Index - James Penfold 24 Ag. servant b. Reigate (1851 at >>Newdigate) >>3) Marr. Buckland - Ann Penfold of Buckland to John Voice of Reigate >>(date unreadable but between 1780-1794) >>4) Marr. Alleation - 1751 Hannah Penfold spinster 28 of Reigate marr. >>Simpsom Jeffery of Ryegate farmer widower 38 at Ewell. John Haws(ins?) >>2nd sig. >>5) Reigate Bur. - (apart from your two John's >>Mary 70 15/7/1832 >>Peter 83 27/9/1833 >> >>I don't know whether any of these mean anything to you. >> >>Sorry its not a lot. If only we could find Edward and Frusannah between >> 1803 and 1812. >> >>Best wishes >>Julie >> >>Anthony Tinslay wrote: >> >> >>>Thankyou Julie >>>I have looked at original Reigate records - such as are available and am >>>convinced that John/Hannah moved to that area (Earlswood) after marriage >>> > but > >>>before children born. Just one question more please. Why do you say >>> > Hannah > >>>born in Ilminster? I KNOW her maiden name was Holbrook because on her >>>marriage record to Richard it states she was the dau. of Thomas >>> > Holbrook. > >>>And yes that is the only Hannah dau of T.H. found on the IGI. But not a >>> > good > >>>reason to suppose it is the same person as so far away. >>>Hope to clarify this as am away from Wednesday for up to three weeks in >>> > USA > >>>Regards Anthony Tinslay >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Julie Martin" <julie@housemartin.f9.co.uk> >>>To: <PENFOLD-L@rootsweb.com> >>>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:09 AM >>>Subject: Re: [Penfold] PENFOLD/LEMON >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>==== PENFOLD Mailing List ==== >>Researching: Penfold, Pennifold, Penford and other variants >>Email addresses subscribed to list: 129 >>Penfold Resource Website: >> > http://member.telpacific.com.au/kylee/penfold_genealogy/ > >>============================== >>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >> > go to: > >>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > > ==== PENFOLD Mailing List ==== > Researching: Penfold, Pennifold, Penford and other variants > Email addresses subscribed to list: 129 > Penfold Resource Website: http://member.telpacific.com.au/kylee/penfold_genealogy/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > >

Hello Julie Just to say thank you for latest info. - all to be digested later in July/August. I have full details of the four children to John/Hannah and all their descendants. Bye for now Anthony Tinslay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Martin" <julie@housemartin.f9.co.uk> To: <PENFOLD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [Penfold] PENFOLD/LEMON > Hi Anthony > Glad we sorted this birthplace out. The boxes you mention are on the > 1841 Census but later Censuses show place of birth (not always acurate). > They also show relationship to Head of household which is not on the > 1841 Census. > Speaking of not accurate, Philip P. may have been born Ifiled but he > wasn't bap.there nor in Crawley. I guess if I find his bap. I will have > another Ifield linked family. > Incidentally I have noticed something potentially interesting among my > 1881 Census data: - a Thomas P. born Ifield (again no bap.) aged 46 > [this is 6yrs to young to be yours, if age correct] but with wife Eliza > b. Somerset, children Edward 21 b. Somerset, Fanny 13, William 10 & > Walter b. Charlwood, George 8 b. Ifield, Albert 5, Annie 3 & Edith 1 b. > Worth. Again the Somerset link. Incidentally this isn't so strang as > the area had strong cattle trading links with cattle originally being > driven down from Wales (hence the large number of Welsh surnames in the > area) and by the mid 19th century the links tend to suggest this may > have changed to Somerset and Devon. > Hope you have a good visit to America. > Best wishes > Julie > > Anthony Tinslay wrote: > > > Hello Julie > > Thank you. Yes must have another look at 1851 census. I thought that the > > box merely indicated with a tick whether or not the person was born in > > Surrey. If indeed it did say Ilminster then that resolves one issue but > > not the location of marriage which is still unknown. > > Philip P. in the census was born in Ifield. > > Away now for three weeks or so but will make an effort to look at Woking > > records next month. I am in Fleet so not too far away. > > Will have to look at all the other items you mention later. > > regards Anthony Tinslay > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Julie Martin" <julie@housemartin.f9.co.uk> > > To: <PENFOLD-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:00 AM > > Subject: Re: [Penfold] PENFOLD/LEMON > > > > > > > >>Hi Anthony > >> > >>I am a bit confused now, as I was sure the 1851 Census gave Hannah > >>Humphrey (previously Penfold)'s birthplace as Ilminster,SOM. I have > >>found this on the 1851 2% Extract disc (sadly I can't check this till I > >>get my computer back). Also I have copied it from the Census copy at > >>Woking. As you have seen this Census too and haven't found this > >>birthplace, I am now less certain. I guess another look at the Census > >>should tell us her correct birthplace. > >> > >>I would love to have details of the Penfolds you found at Reigate, as I > >>have failed to find Reigate records so far. I am particularly hoping to > >>find the marriage of Thomas (son of Thomas & Amy - presumed brother of > >>Edward (Frusannah)) and his wife Elizabeth who was born Reigate. They > >>lived at Buckland or just outside it and in 1822 and 1825 the bap. > >>records give them as 'of Reigate'. > >> > >>The only other Reigate links I have (apart from the Philip I mentioned > >>before)are:- > >>1) Bur. Charlwood 1836 - Lucy 63 of Reigate (I believe she may be the > >>unmarried dau. of Thos. & Elizabeth bap. Jan 1775 Charlwood. She was > >>still unm. in Dec 1798 when her dau. Lucy was bap. > >>2) 1851 Census Index - James Penfold 24 Ag. servant b. Reigate (1851 at > >>Newdigate) > >>3) Marr. Buckland - Ann Penfold of Buckland to John Voice of Reigate > >>(date unreadable but between 1780-1794) > >>4) Marr. Alleation - 1751 Hannah Penfold spinster 28 of Reigate marr. > >>Simpsom Jeffery of Ryegate farmer widower 38 at Ewell. John Haws(ins?) > >>2nd sig. > >>5) Reigate Bur. - (apart from your two John's > >>Mary 70 15/7/1832 > >>Peter 83 27/9/1833 > >> > >>I don't know whether any of these mean anything to you. > >> > >>Sorry its not a lot. If only we could find Edward and Frusannah between > >> 1803 and 1812. > >> > >>Best wishes > >>Julie > >> > >>Anthony Tinslay wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Thankyou Julie > >>>I have looked at original Reigate records - such as are available and am > >>>convinced that John/Hannah moved to that area (Earlswood) after marriage > >>> > > but > > > >>>before children born. Just one question more please. Why do you say > >>> > > Hannah > > > >>>born in Ilminster? I KNOW her maiden name was Holbrook because on her > >>>marriage record to Richard it states she was the dau. of Thomas > >>> > > Holbrook. > > > >>>And yes that is the only Hannah dau of T.H. found on the IGI. But not a > >>> > > good > > > >>>reason to suppose it is the same person as so far away. > >>>Hope to clarify this as am away from Wednesday for up to three weeks in > >>> > > USA > > > >>>Regards Anthony Tinslay > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Julie Martin" <julie@housemartin.f9.co.uk> > >>>To: <PENFOLD-L@rootsweb.com> > >>>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:09 AM > >>>Subject: Re: [Penfold] PENFOLD/LEMON > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>==== PENFOLD Mailing List ==== > >>Researching: Penfold, Pennifold, Penford and other variants > >>Email addresses subscribed to list: 129 > >>Penfold Resource Website: > >> > > http://member.telpacific.com.au/kylee/penfold_genealogy/ > > > >>============================== > >>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, > >> > > go to: > > > >>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >> > >> > > > > > > ==== PENFOLD Mailing List ==== > > Researching: Penfold, Pennifold, Penford and other variants > > Email addresses subscribed to list: 129 > > Penfold Resource Website: http://member.telpacific.com.au/kylee/penfold_genealogy/ > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== PENFOLD Mailing List ==== > Researching: Penfold, Pennifold, Penford and other variants > Email addresses subscribed to list: 129 > Penfold Resource Website: http://member.telpacific.com.au/kylee/penfold_genealogy/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >