Hi Ellen, Wow, never thought of that variant! Thank You so much! Do you think the additional details support the hypothesis? Different address, but same area. He's the same age in the censuses. Catherine (really b 1851) said 1854 in 1901 and 1860 in 1911 (reverse aging). Catherine had always said b Ilmington before, but he filled out/signed in 1911. For 1891, there's a Thomas BOND,25, in Lady Wood, Cab Driver, 150, Monument Road, Birmingham (married) 1901 Census. Finally found via MaryAnn, as MAN. Then found Catherine's Index, also MAN: 47 Warwickshire Hennington (really Ilmington) Birmingham Harborne General Domestic (Really Age 50) RG13 Piece: 2817 Folio: 109 Page: 17 Birmingham, CivPar: Harborne; EclPar: St. John's; Cty: Bham; Ward: Edgbaston; Parl: Edgbaston; 106 Elmwood, VillaStationRd? Thomas BOND Hd Wid 35/abt 1866 Coachman's Domestic Warwickshire, Birmingham Catherine J. MEERE Serv Wid 47/abt 1854 General Domestic Warwickshire, Ilmington Mary Ann MEERE Dau S 16 Worcestershire, Selly Oak Violet FLOOD Serv S 11 Warwickshire, Birmingham 1911 Census Reg: Kings Norton Sub District: Edgbaston ED: 25 Parish: Harborne Address: 39 Vivian Road Harborne B'gham County: Worcestershire Thomas Bond BOND, Thomas Head/M 46/1865 Job Master Birmingham BOND, Catherine Jane Wife/M/20 years 51/1860 Birmingham DUGMORE, Bert MansServant/S 25/1886 Groom Birmingham 1931 Death Address: 27 High Street Harborne, U D. Thanks again, Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) [email protected] USA www.bittonfamilies.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ELLEN SPENCE Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WAR] Missing Catherine Jane MEERE in 1911 Census Further to the last posting, I looked for Thomas Bond, who is still in Harborne. Interesting! He has a wife, one Catherine Jane Bond, aged 51, and they have been married 20 years apparently. I suspect they might have been living together, but not legally married. See what you think. Ellen ________________________________ From: Stringer <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010 17:41:28 Subject: [WAR] Missing Catherine Jane MEERE in 1911 Census Greetings, I'm still not able to find my Ggrandmother in the 1911 Census (do have membership). I've tried various search options, all with no results. Any suggestions? She's Catherine Jane MEERE (nee ARCHER) Born: 1851, Ilmington, Warwickshire M: 1868, Birmingham, Orlando John MEERE D: 1931, Edgbaston, Birmingham South, England (Sixth May, 1931 27 High Street Harborne, U D. Virtue L. Gittins present 47 Linden Road, Bournville, Birmingham) 1891 Census: She, my grandfather, and four GAunts are still at The Oak Inn, Selly Oak. 1901 Census (indexed MAN): Catherine Jane MEERE, Wid, Servant to Thomas BOND Harborne; EclPar: St. John's; Cty: Bham; Ward: Edgbaston; Parl: Edgbaston; 106 Elmwood, VillaStationRd? Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) [email protected] USA www.bittonfamilies.com List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- 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 List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- 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 may be using too many search criteria or the name has been misspelt. Given that in 1901 she was in Edgbaston and she died in 1931 in Edgbaston, it would seem fairly likely that she ought to be in the area. Don't you just hate it when ancestors do a disappearing act on you? I found a Catherine MEYER aged 59 in the Aston area. A possible or a no good? Ellen Spence ________________________________ From: Stringer <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010 17:41:28 Subject: [WAR] Missing Catherine Jane MEERE in 1911 Census Greetings, I'm still not able to find my Ggrandmother in the 1911 Census (do have membership). I've tried various search options, all with no results. Any suggestions? Some attempts after MEERE, variants; Catherine, variants: C* , b 1851 +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire M*, b 1851, +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire Pretty sure not her: MEERS, CATHERINE 68/b 1843 F PATIENT [too old, but saving searches] (From exploring earlier censuses, etc., think this is Catherine, nee HEAVEN, b Bristol, who m. Cornelius MEERS in Bham) She's Catherine Jane MEERE (nee ARCHER) Born: 1851, Ilmington, Warwickshire M: 1868, Birmingham, Orlando John MEERE D: 1931, Edgbaston, Birmingham South, England (Sixth May, 1931 27 High Street Harborne, U D. Virtue L. Gittins present 47 Linden Road, Bournville, Birmingham) 1891 Census: She, my grandfather, and four GAunts are still at The Oak Inn, Selly Oak. 1901 Census (indexed MAN): Catherine Jane MEERE, Wid, Servant to Thomas BOND Harborne; EclPar: St. John's; Cty: Bham; Ward: Edgbaston; Parl: Edgbaston; 106 Elmwood, VillaStationRd? Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) [email protected] USA www.bittonfamilies.com List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- 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

Greetings, I'm still not able to find my Ggrandmother in the 1911 Census (do have membership). I've tried various search options, all with no results. Any suggestions? Some attempts after MEERE, variants; Catherine, variants: C* , b 1851 +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire M*, b 1851, +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire Pretty sure not her: MEERS, CATHERINE 68/b 1843 F PATIENT [too old, but saving searches] (From exploring earlier censuses, etc., think this is Catherine, nee HEAVEN, b Bristol, who m. Cornelius MEERS in Bham) She's Catherine Jane MEERE (nee ARCHER) Born: 1851, Ilmington, Warwickshire M: 1868, Birmingham, Orlando John MEERE D: 1931, Edgbaston, Birmingham South, England (Sixth May, 1931 27 High Street Harborne, U D. Virtue L. Gittins present 47 Linden Road, Bournville, Birmingham) 1891 Census: She, my grandfather, and four GAunts are still at The Oak Inn, Selly Oak. 1901 Census (indexed MAN): Catherine Jane MEERE, Wid, Servant to Thomas BOND Harborne; EclPar: St. John's; Cty: Bham; Ward: Edgbaston; Parl: Edgbaston; 106 Elmwood, VillaStationRd? Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) [email protected] USA www.bittonfamilies.com

Hi Joe... Coventry.. June Q. 1881... 6d. 580 Thomas Wheatcroft = Hannah Gilbert. Possible ??? Best wishes Carole -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Joe Connell Sent: 28 July 2010 08:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WAR] Whitcroft & Gilbert Parish records for Bedworth All Saints show that on 24 January 1892 Sarah Jane Gilbert married Samuel Whitcroft. The 1891 census record has Samuel and future bride Sarah Jane living in Mill Lane with his father Thomas Whitcroft. Hannah, the mother of future bride Sarah Jane is shown as wife to father Thomas. I'm attempting to understand this rather tangled situation and would welcome assistance from your more experienced members. Was it considered acceptable to marry a step sibling? I cannot locate a marriage record for Thomas Whitcroft [father of the groom ] and Hannah Gilbert [mother of the bride]. Also, in the 1901 census Samuel Whitcroft is shown living with wife Hannah [Ridgeway] - but again I can find no marriage record; nor a record of death for Sarah Jane. These are deep waters, Watson. -- Joe Connell Firefox & Thunderbird portals Sunbelt Vipre Premium protection List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- 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

Hi Marsha, There is an entry for a Catherine Jane Morris in Warwick born 1850 on the 1911. I do not have a sub but it may be worth checking. Gilly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stringer" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:41 AM Subject: [WAR] Missing Catherine Jane MEERE in 1911 Census > Greetings, > > I'm still not able to find my Ggrandmother in the 1911 Census (do have > membership). I've tried various search options, all with no > results. Any suggestions? > > Some attempts after MEERE, variants; Catherine, variants: > C* , b 1851 +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire > M*, b 1851, +/- 10 years; b Ilmington, Warwickshire > > Pretty sure not her: > MEERS, CATHERINE 68/b 1843 F PATIENT [too old, but saving searches] > (From exploring earlier censuses, etc., think this is Catherine, nee > HEAVEN, b Bristol, who m. Cornelius MEERS in Bham) > > > She's > Catherine Jane MEERE (nee ARCHER) > Born: 1851, Ilmington, Warwickshire > M: 1868, Birmingham, Orlando John MEERE > D: 1931, Edgbaston, Birmingham South, England (Sixth May, 1931 27 High > Street Harborne, U D. Virtue L. Gittins present 47 > Linden Road, Bournville, Birmingham) > > > 1891 Census: > She, my grandfather, and four GAunts are still at The Oak Inn, Selly Oak. > > 1901 Census (indexed MAN): > Catherine Jane MEERE, Wid, Servant to Thomas BOND > Harborne; EclPar: St. John's; Cty: Bham; Ward: Edgbaston; Parl: > Edgbaston; 106 Elmwood, VillaStationRd? > > > Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) > [email protected] > USA > www.bittonfamilies.com > > > > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Joe, Marriage registration in the June qtr 1881 at Coventry reg district of a Hannah GILBERT and one of the other names on the page is that of a Thomas WHEATCROFT - sounds a likely candidate. I can't imagine there would be any barrier to the marriage between Sarah & Samuel as there is no blood relationship involved at all. The actual 1901 census image shows Samuel married to a Harriet who was born c 1868 at Bedworth. I, too, cannot find a death registration for Sarah Jane nor a re-marriage for Samuel. Janet > Parish records for Bedworth All Saints show that on 24 January 1892 > Sarah Jane Gilbert married Samuel Whitcroft. The 1891 census record has > Samuel and future bride Sarah Jane living in Mill Lane with his father > Thomas Whitcroft. Hannah, the mother of future bride Sarah Jane is > shown as wife to father Thomas. > > I'm attempting to understand this rather tangled situation and would > welcome assistance from your more experienced members. Was it considered > acceptable to marry a step sibling? > > I cannot locate a marriage record for Thomas Whitcroft [father of the > groom ] and Hannah Gilbert [mother of the bride]. Also, in the 1901 > census Samuel Whitcroft is shown living with wife Hannah [Ridgeway] - > but again I can find no marriage record; nor a record of death for Sarah > Jane.

My 1928-version CofE Book of Common Prayer does *NOT* include "Father's Wife's Daughter" among those a man is forbidden to marry. Hth Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Connell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [WAR] Whitcroft & Gilbert > Parish records for Bedworth All Saints show that on 24 January 1892 > Sarah Jane Gilbert married Samuel Whitcroft. The 1891 census record has > Samuel and future bride Sarah Jane living in Mill Lane with his father > Thomas Whitcroft. Hannah, the mother of future bride Sarah Jane is > shown as wife to father Thomas. > > I'm attempting to understand this rather tangled situation and would > welcome assistance from your more experienced members. Was it considered > acceptable to marry a step sibling? > > I cannot locate a marriage record for Thomas Whitcroft [father of the > groom ] and Hannah Gilbert [mother of the bride]. Also, in the 1901 > census Samuel Whitcroft is shown living with wife Hannah [Ridgeway] - > but again I can find no marriage record; nor a record of death for Sarah > Jane. > > These are deep waters, Watson. > > -- > Joe Connell > > Firefox & Thunderbird portals > Sunbelt Vipre Premium protection > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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

Parish records for Bedworth All Saints show that on 24 January 1892 Sarah Jane Gilbert married Samuel Whitcroft. The 1891 census record has Samuel and future bride Sarah Jane living in Mill Lane with his father Thomas Whitcroft. Hannah, the mother of future bride Sarah Jane is shown as wife to father Thomas. I'm attempting to understand this rather tangled situation and would welcome assistance from your more experienced members. Was it considered acceptable to marry a step sibling? I cannot locate a marriage record for Thomas Whitcroft [father of the groom ] and Hannah Gilbert [mother of the bride]. Also, in the 1901 census Samuel Whitcroft is shown living with wife Hannah [Ridgeway] - but again I can find no marriage record; nor a record of death for Sarah Jane. These are deep waters, Watson. -- Joe Connell Firefox & Thunderbird portals Sunbelt Vipre Premium protection

Thank you......... ----- Original Message ----- From: "R.B. Burgoyne" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [WAR] Stratford > The Welcombe Estate is close to Stratford-on-Avon was owned by the > Phillips > family until after the first WW when it was sold and broken up, the > Welcombe > Hall is now an Hotel with a golf course. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sandra Todd" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:07 PM > Subject: [WAR] Stratford > > >> Hi List >> Is here a place near Stratford called Welcome? >> >> Looking at a newspaper entry dated December 1848 a man is described as >> being from Welcome near Stratford on Avon. >> Regards Sandra >> List archives are at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >> signature database 5318 (20100727) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 5318 (20100727) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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

The Welcombe Estate is close to Stratford-on-Avon was owned by the Phillips family until after the first WW when it was sold and broken up, the Welcombe Hall is now an Hotel with a golf course. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Todd" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:07 PM Subject: [WAR] Stratford > Hi List > Is here a place near Stratford called Welcome? > > Looking at a newspaper entry dated December 1848 a man is described as > being from Welcome near Stratford on Avon. > Regards Sandra > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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 > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 5318 (20100727) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5318 (20100727) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

Hi List Is here a place near Stratford called Welcome? Looking at a newspaper entry dated December 1848 a man is described as being from Welcome near Stratford on Avon. Regards Sandra

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Divorce Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:05:35 +1200 THANKS Bill and Gus, My Gt Gt grandad william Knight a baker left england in 1860 for Australia with a wife Ann Smith of Werwell ,Hants m. 1854 he was born 1815 they married St Marys ,Southampton . (. In a newspaper cutting in Hamshire Independant 5/1/1854 in wedding colum it reads William Knight esq of Northamptonshire) I have been to archives in Northampton 3 times during trips to England during the past 15 years and searched for this William of mine without luck. Hes buried in Waipori Cemetry in New Zealand where he died 1865.Ive been able to check the Ann Smith side but cant find him anywhere. My Grandfather told me once that he must have had a dark background as no one new much about him. This is why Im now trying to track down any William Knights who were in fact Bakers.William married Ann Smith when he was 39 years old so that is a late marriage and would give enough time for another relationship.I cant find him anywhere in England in 1851 census not to say I havent missed him Ann smith however Is in Stratford Sub castle in Wiltshire in 1851 Anway thank you for sendin this info it seems to point out it would have been difficult for people to get a divorce. Im not so muc tryingto dissolve the marriage between Wm Knight and rebecca by either death or divorce( run away ?) in 1853 but that is the date he wuld need to do so if he was to go to Southampton in 1854 and be married Ha Ha Brickwalls are fun arent they. Thaks and any more ideas you guys have would be appreciated. Kind egards Russel Knight From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Divorce Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:28:23 -0500 Russel, Don’t know if this will help – or even be of interest – but here is the complete piece I have on Divorce in England. I realized that it makes some mentions of Courts and other places where divorce records may be found in England - so thought I would send the whole piece on the outside chance it may be of help. Bill Churchill ******************************* Divorce Records Before 1858 Legal Records Information 43 1. A Brief History of Divorce Under early Catholic Church law there was no such thing as divorce. Death was the only agent for the permanent dissolution of a valid marriage. Marriages that were found on investigation to be invalid could be put aside (as was the case with Henry VIII). By the end of the sixteenth century, England was the only European Protestant country to have no divorce law as such. There was no legal change in the law of divorce before 1857. Fundamental changes in practice and attitudes came only in the twentieth century. In practice, however, various ways were found to separate partners in unsatisfactory marriages, through custom, the church courts, the common law courts and parliament. There were five main methods: Private Separation Desertion and Elopement Wife Sale Judicial Separation by the Ecclesiastical Courts Full Divorce by Act of Parliament 2. Private Separation The conditions of separation were drawn up in a private deed between the husband and the trustee of the wife, the latter having no legal personality in common law. They settled into a common form by c.1730, and included provision for children, and some legal safeguards for the wife, the husband giving a bond to provide a maintenance allowance. Deeds of separation may be found enrolled in the Close Rolls in C 54, although you will need the names of the parties to find them in the contemporary 'indexes' at the PRO. By the late seventeenth century (and perhaps before) cases were brought in Chancery in an attempt to enforce the deeds against defaulting parties. You will need the names of the parties and the approximate date, to trace cases before Chancery in the various C series. There may also be records of the deed, and family correspondence, amongst family or estate records. These collections are usually held locally. The passing of the divorce act in 1857 did not affect the use of these deeds as the law made no provision for the ending of marriages on the grounds of incompatibility. 3. Desertion When little or no property was involved this was the simplest solution. However neither party was free to legally marry again, although bigamous marriages took place. There are occasionally applications for relief by the deserted wife among the Quarter Sessions records held locally, as under statute law a deserted wife became chargeable to the parish. 4. Wife Sale This was a form of public separation, which took place on market day, usually with pre-arranged bidding. Since many of these marriages were based on informal contract, this was a wholly different type of 'marriage' and 'divorce'. It fulfilled the function of providing a symbolic transfer of person, property and responsibility. There could even be a deed of sale, though survival of these is extremely rare. Reports of wife sales may occasionally be found in Quarter Sessions records held locally, and in local newspapers. 5. Judicial Separation by the Church Courts Judicial separations were authorised through the church courts, usually in a suit between the husband and wife before the local consistory court. The cases so started were rarely fought to a finish, as they were often started in order to bring one of the parties to agree to terms. There were several different types of judicial separation, the most common being separation from bed and board, (a mensa et thoro) which was granted for adultery and/or life threatening cruelty. Many people chose to enroll judicial separations in the decree rolls of the Court of Chancery (C 78): this made them a matter of legal record in the common law. Ecclesiastical court orders directing payment of money could also be enrolled up to six months after being made. Records of the consistory courts are held locally. There was a right of appeal to the archbishop's court. The records of the Province of Canterbury's Court of Arches are available at the Lambeth Palace Library, and those of the Consistory court of York at the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research. Further appeal was to the High Court of Delegates (DEL) until 1834, and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (PCAP) from 1834 to 1858. On appeal, the case would be suspended in the lower court, and transcripts of all the records transferred upwards. Thus the PRO holds various divorce records from some local church courts, in DEL 1, DEL 2, PCAP 1 and PCAP 3. The main series of Cause Papers, which include allegations and petitions, can be found in DEL 2, Cause Papers c.1600 to 1834. The papers are arranged by case and term, and consist of bundles of papers relating to each particular case. Details can include: the authorisation of the judges and a formal statement of the terms of the appeal (usually based on faults in the previous legal proceedings, rather than on the intrinsic justice of the case), a note of any appearance by the parties and their statement, the warrants or monitions for hearing and a copy of the citation. The early papers can be in Latin, with occasional depositions in English. A good deal of the material is in a standard legal form, but it is possible sometimes to obtain personal details about the parties concerned. The accounts of proceedings can sometimes run to hundreds of pages. The Case Books in DEL 7, 1796-1834, and PCAP 3, from 1834, contain bound volumes of printed proceedings and also may contain manuscript records of the judgement given. 6. Full Divorce by Act of Parliament Acts of Parliament were used for centuries to regulate difficult situations among the nobility and gentry, caused by bigamy, adultery, pre-contract of marriage, etc. However, the first true parliamentary divorce did not come until 1670, between John Manners, Lord Roos, and Lady Anne Pierpont, which created a precedent for parliamentary divorces on the grounds of the wife's adultery. Divorce acts are held by the Parliamentary Archives: there are a very few examples in the PRO, in C 89 and in C 204. For the Roos case, see C 89/15/20and C 89/15/21. 7. Criminal Conversation This was a civil suit in the court of King's Bench, for the recovery of damages against the lover of the adulterous wife. Many reports of sensational trials found their way to the newspapers, both national and local, from the late eighteenth century. Many trials were covered in some detail by The Times. In 1809 the House of Lords ordered that the transcript of a preliminary trial for criminal conversation should accompany every divorce bill brought before it. This suit was illegal in Scotland. 1. The courts >From 11 January 1858, the new London-based Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes heard all divorce and matrimonial cases (such as restitution of conjugal rights, legitimacy, protection of earnings). In 1873 it was reformed into the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the Supreme Court of Judicature. The real opening of divorce to all classes took place in the 1920s, with the extension of legal aid, and the provision of some local facilities. In 1922, ten assize towns were named as suitable for the hearing of certain kinds of divorce. From 1927, petitions could also be filed in 23 district registries instead of solely at the Principal Registry in London, while cases could be heard in 18 assize towns as well as in London. This option proved increasingly popular: within 10 years nearly a quarter of all suits were started at district registries of the Supreme Court. The county courts were finally able to hear divorce suits in the late 1960s. Most divorces now take place at county courts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ri2288) Last Updated: 21st November 2000| © Crown Copyright 2000 _________________________________________________________________

Thanks alot for your help Gus and Bill . Im new to this but learning quick thanks to your help. I was a bit out with my boundaries whilst looking for a death of william Knight it seems. The fact of the matter is I am hoping to find some proof that William Knight the Baker in 41 and 51 census did in fact do a runner on his wife Rebbeca. My gt gt Grandfather Wm Knight a Master Baker came to Australia in the 1860 goldrush. I cant find anybody that fits the slot as it were.Im probably clutching at straws ha but > From: [email protected] > Subject: WARWICK Digest, Vol 5, Issue 154 > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:01:34 -0600 > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. William knight (russel knight) > 2. tr: Re: Latin 101 (ramaix) > 3. Re: William knight (Bill Churchill) > 4. Re: William knight (Gus Tysoe) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:00:49 +1200 > From: russel knight <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very nice.Regards Russel Knight > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:12:42 +0200 (CEST) > From: ramaix <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] tr: Re: Latin 101 > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Am resending attached message as ithas come back undelivered, blocked by spamcop. This happens periodically to messages from Orange. I am not sending spam, but it's possible someone else has hijacked my address for the purpose. Hope this one will get through. > > MAR in France. > > > > > > Message du 25/07/10 07:42 > > De : "ramaix" > > A : > > Copie ? : > > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > > > Sorry to correct you, but shouldn't "baptizavi Mariam Reed" be translated "baptized Mary (or just possibly Maria) Reed", as it is a direct object, not a nominative? Lots of Mariams in places like Mali, but that's not Latin! > > On Wendy's query, I have seen this distinction too and assumed that children recorded as born (natus/nata) in the parish rather than baptized were either baptized in another parish (mother's parish for instance) or did not live long enough to be baptized > > It may be interesting to note that in earlier times mothers did not attend baptisms. They took place very soon after birth when the woman would still be considered unclean. This is why very often only the father's name is given. Where the child was born out of wedlock, the mother often brought the child to be baptized surreptiously, for instance at a very early or very late hour. Not only was she physically unclean if it was soon after the child's birth, but of course she had also committed a sin. > > MAR in France. > > > > > > > Message du 25/07/10 03:18 > > De : [email protected] > > A : [email protected] > > Copie ? : > > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > > > > > Wendy: I am in the United States and have recently gone through Catholic > > registers of births, deaths, marriages written by 19th century Irish and > > German Catholic priests. For what it is worth, an example: > > Die 10 julii baptizavi Mariam Reed, filiam Guiliel Reed et Juliae Reed, > > natae Walsh, natum die 18th Junii 1886. I translated: The 10th of July I > > baptized Mariam Reed, daughter of William Reed and Julia Reed, born Walsh > > (referring to the mother), born on the 18th of June 1886 (referring to the > > child). > > I found these priests to be semiliterate and with lousy handwriting. > > Don't envy your task. Best, Cynthia in California > > > > > > In a message dated 7/24/2010 5:06:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > > > Thank you Ann > > > > It's a possiblity but he usually adds spuria / us > > and gives the mother's name. > > A few entries he has written the reputed father's name as well. > > > > I might play safe and add the latin to the notes. > > > > all the best > > Wendy > > > > > > Hi Wendy, > > I did not do well in Latin either, but an wondering if the > > "nata/natus" would be the natural born (illigitimate) child of ....... > > Congratulations on "having a go" and attempting this very difficult > > task. We will very appreciate your work when it is completed. > > Thank you, Wendy Anne > > > > WABoland wrote: > > > Hello Searchers. > > > I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- > > > and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who > > knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. > > > > > > Baptisms > > > The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries > > > and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) > > > for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson > > writing ) > > > he records > > > nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. > > > I translate these as > > > I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and > > > ... born of ....... > > > > > > > > List archives are at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:09:47 -0500 > From: "Bill Churchill" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > From: russel knight <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] William Knight > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:16:49 +1200 > > Hello is there anyone in the position to look up parish register for the > death of a William Knight who died in 1853 in March at Coleshill, > Warwickshire. I need to know if his wife was called Rebbeca? > > This man was married in 1851 to a Rebecca Knight but he disappeared by 1861 > and Rebecca had remarried. I'm wondering if he died . Thanks from New > Zealand. Rgards Russel Knight > > I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If > William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have > remarried? > > > > Russel, She could not have legally remarried unless the 1853 William Knight > died. > > For all practical purposes there was no devoice in England until the reforms > of the early 20th Century. If Rebecca married a William Knight in 1851, > then married a William Knight in 1861 there were two William Knights and the > first William had died. > > Bill. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:38:20 +0100 > From: "Gus Tysoe" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hello again, Russel, > > I take it that your information about William in 1851 comes from the > Census - and unfortunately from a very poorly-written page :-( > > 1851 Census - [HO107/2063/116/83] - Coleshill, WAR > William Knight, Head, M, 37, M, Baker, WOR, Offenham > Rebben** Knight, Wife, M, 35, F, [Do??], HEF[?], [H????] > Elizabeth Knight, Dau, U, 15, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > William Knight, Son, 12, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Joseph Knight, Son, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Rebbams** Knight, Dau, -, 8, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Mary E Knight, Dau, -, 6, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Benjamin Knight, Son, -, 3, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Thomas Knight, Son, -, 11 Mo, M, -, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > ** Both look likely to be "Rebbeca"; but the mother's stated birthplace > doesn't match [for 'shape'] any known Parish in Herefordshire.... > > Because of the uncertainties, it seemed advisable to see what the 1841 had > to offer - which proved much more helpful than usual... > > 1841 Census - HO107/1128-1/40, p2 - High St, Coleshill, WAR > William KNIGHT, 25, M, Baker, N > Rebecca KNIGHT, 20, F, -, N > Sarah KNIGHT, 6, F, -, N > Elizabeth KNIGHT, 4, F, -, Y > Jas [or Jos] KNIGHT, 6m, M, -, Y > [Ages of those over 15 were rounded-down to the next-lower multiple of 5; > 'N' = Not born in WAR] > > So his wife *was* named Rebecca, so your next task should be to find her > maiden name by buying the birth certificate of one of their children. > Benjamin has the least-common forename, so should be readily-findable using > FreeBMD. [Colehill was in Meriden Registration District.] > With the names of both parties known, it *should* be reasonably simple to > find their marriage on FamilySearch - and on the face of it looks very > probably to've been between (roughly) 1833 & 1836. > > It's clear from your initial posting that you'd found "a" Rebecca of a > different surname in the 1861- it'd've been a big help had you given the > surname - but it looks to be this: > > 1861Census - RG9/2188/66/69 - [Probably High St], Coleshill, WAR > Thomas BEDWARD, Head, M, 35, M, Licenced Beerseller & Painter, Hereford > Rebecca BEDWARD, Wife, M, 43, F, -, HEF, Hureland*** > Benjamin KNIGHT, Son, U, 13, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill > Thomas KNIGHT, Son, U, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill > Charles DAVIS, Neph, U, 25, M, Wheelwright, RAD, Tillen[?] > *** "Hureland" matches the 'shape' of the 1851 birthplace - but doesn't > appear on Google Maps...... But she'd seem to be consistent in her belief. > > It would also be simple to find any marriage of a Thomas BEDWARD and a > Rebecca KNIGHT [or her original maiden name] using FreeBMD. The certificate > should also give her marital status - presumably 'widow', but marriage > certs often include lies....... > > For this marriage to have been legal, Thomas KNIGHT would've had either to > die or to've been "presumed dead" at an inquest. [Divorce at that time > would've been out of the question for 'ordinary' folk.] > > Which brings the question full circle.... Why do you believe William mght > have died in "March 1853"? Of the 20 "William KNIGHTs" whose deaths are > included on FreeBMD as being registered in that Quarter, only one was in > WAR - in Coventry District, which doesn't include Coleshill. Of course, he > *could* have died "away from home" [for deaths are registered in the > District where they occurred, and *NOT* where the deceased was normally > resident] but I would suggest searching FreeBMD for William KNIGHTs dying in > Meriden District. He would *seem* to've died in Sep Q 1856 - with a lesser > possibility of Dec Q 1858. > > Yet again, it's "Buy the Certificate" time if you really want to know what > happened..... > > Gus > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "russel knight" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:00 AM > Subject: [WAR] William knight > > > > > > Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the > > certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and > > left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this > > out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very > > nice.Regards Russel Knight > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List archives are at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > 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 contact the WARWICK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the WARWICK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of WARWICK Digest, Vol 5, Issue 154 > *************************************** _________________________________________________________________

Hello again, Russel, I take it that your information about William in 1851 comes from the Census - and unfortunately from a very poorly-written page :-( 1851 Census - [HO107/2063/116/83] - Coleshill, WAR William Knight, Head, M, 37, M, Baker, WOR, Offenham Rebben** Knight, Wife, M, 35, F, [Do??], HEF[?], [H????] Elizabeth Knight, Dau, U, 15, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] William Knight, Son, 12, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] Joseph Knight, Son, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] Rebbams** Knight, Dau, -, 8, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] Mary E Knight, Dau, -, 6, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] Benjamin Knight, Son, -, 3, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] Thomas Knight, Son, -, 11 Mo, M, -, WAR, [prob Coleshill] ** Both look likely to be "Rebbeca"; but the mother's stated birthplace doesn't match [for 'shape'] any known Parish in Herefordshire.... Because of the uncertainties, it seemed advisable to see what the 1841 had to offer - which proved much more helpful than usual... 1841 Census - HO107/1128-1/40, p2 - High St, Coleshill, WAR William KNIGHT, 25, M, Baker, N Rebecca KNIGHT, 20, F, -, N Sarah KNIGHT, 6, F, -, N Elizabeth KNIGHT, 4, F, -, Y Jas [or Jos] KNIGHT, 6m, M, -, Y [Ages of those over 15 were rounded-down to the next-lower multiple of 5; 'N' = Not born in WAR] So his wife *was* named Rebecca, so your next task should be to find her maiden name by buying the birth certificate of one of their children. Benjamin has the least-common forename, so should be readily-findable using FreeBMD. [Colehill was in Meriden Registration District.] With the names of both parties known, it *should* be reasonably simple to find their marriage on FamilySearch - and on the face of it looks very probably to've been between (roughly) 1833 & 1836. It's clear from your initial posting that you'd found "a" Rebecca of a different surname in the 1861- it'd've been a big help had you given the surname - but it looks to be this: 1861Census - RG9/2188/66/69 - [Probably High St], Coleshill, WAR Thomas BEDWARD, Head, M, 35, M, Licenced Beerseller & Painter, Hereford Rebecca BEDWARD, Wife, M, 43, F, -, HEF, Hureland*** Benjamin KNIGHT, Son, U, 13, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill Thomas KNIGHT, Son, U, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill Charles DAVIS, Neph, U, 25, M, Wheelwright, RAD, Tillen[?] *** "Hureland" matches the 'shape' of the 1851 birthplace - but doesn't appear on Google Maps...... But she'd seem to be consistent in her belief. It would also be simple to find any marriage of a Thomas BEDWARD and a Rebecca KNIGHT [or her original maiden name] using FreeBMD. The certificate should also give her marital status - presumably 'widow', but marriage certs often include lies....... For this marriage to have been legal, Thomas KNIGHT would've had either to die or to've been "presumed dead" at an inquest. [Divorce at that time would've been out of the question for 'ordinary' folk.] Which brings the question full circle.... Why do you believe William mght have died in "March 1853"? Of the 20 "William KNIGHTs" whose deaths are included on FreeBMD as being registered in that Quarter, only one was in WAR - in Coventry District, which doesn't include Coleshill. Of course, he *could* have died "away from home" [for deaths are registered in the District where they occurred, and *NOT* where the deceased was normally resident] but I would suggest searching FreeBMD for William KNIGHTs dying in Meriden District. He would *seem* to've died in Sep Q 1856 - with a lesser possibility of Dec Q 1858. Yet again, it's "Buy the Certificate" time if you really want to know what happened..... Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: "russel knight" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:00 AM Subject: [WAR] William knight > > Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the > certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and > left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this > out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very > nice.Regards Russel Knight > _________________________________________________________________ > > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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

Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very nice.Regards Russel Knight _________________________________________________________________

Am resending attached message as ithas come back undelivered, blocked by spamcop. This happens periodically to messages from Orange. I am not sending spam, but it's possible someone else has hijacked my address for the purpose. Hope this one will get through. MAR in France. > Message du 25/07/10 07:42 > De : "ramaix" > A : > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > Sorry to correct you, but shouldn't "baptizavi Mariam Reed" be translated "baptized Mary (or just possibly Maria) Reed", as it is a direct object, not a nominative? Lots of Mariams in places like Mali, but that's not Latin! On Wendy's query, I have seen this distinction too and assumed that children recorded as born (natus/nata) in the parish rather than baptized were either baptized in another parish (mother's parish for instance) or did not live long enough to be baptized It may be interesting to note that in earlier times mothers did not attend baptisms. They took place very soon after birth when the woman would still be considered unclean. This is why very often only the father's name is given. Where the child was born out of wedlock, the mother often brought the child to be baptized surreptiously, for instance at a very early or very late hour. Not only was she physically unclean if it was soon after the child's birth, but of course she had also committed a sin. MAR in France. > Message du 25/07/10 03:18 > De : [email protected] > A : [email protected] > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > > Wendy: I am in the United States and have recently gone through Catholic > registers of births, deaths, marriages written by 19th century Irish and > German Catholic priests. For what it is worth, an example: > Die 10 julii baptizavi Mariam Reed, filiam Guiliel Reed et Juliae Reed, > natae Walsh, natum die 18th Junii 1886. I translated: The 10th of July I > baptized Mariam Reed, daughter of William Reed and Julia Reed, born Walsh > (referring to the mother), born on the 18th of June 1886 (referring to the > child). > I found these priests to be semiliterate and with lousy handwriting. > Don't envy your task. Best, Cynthia in California > > > In a message dated 7/24/2010 5:06:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Thank you Ann > > It's a possiblity but he usually adds spuria / us > and gives the mother's name. > A few entries he has written the reputed father's name as well. > > I might play safe and add the latin to the notes. > > all the best > Wendy > > > Hi Wendy, > I did not do well in Latin either, but an wondering if the > "nata/natus" would be the natural born (illigitimate) child of ....... > Congratulations on "having a go" and attempting this very difficult > task. We will very appreciate your work when it is completed. > Thank you, Wendy Anne > > WABoland wrote: > > Hello Searchers. > > I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- > > and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who > knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. > > > > Baptisms > > The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries > > and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) > > for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson > writing ) > > he records > > nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. > > I translate these as > > I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and > > ... born of ....... > > > > > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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 > > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > ------------------------------- > 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 > >

From: russel knight <[email protected]> Subject: [WAR] William Knight Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:16:49 +1200 Hello is there anyone in the position to look up parish register for the death of a William Knight who died in 1853 in March at Coleshill, Warwickshire. I need to know if his wife was called Rebbeca? This man was married in 1851 to a Rebecca Knight but he disappeared by 1861 and Rebecca had remarried. I'm wondering if he died . Thanks from New Zealand. Rgards Russel Knight I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried? Russel, She could not have legally remarried unless the 1853 William Knight died. For all practical purposes there was no devoice in England until the reforms of the early 20th Century. If Rebecca married a William Knight in 1851, then married a William Knight in 1861 there were two William Knights and the first William had died. Bill.

Thank you Ann It's a possiblity but he usually adds spuria / us and gives the mother's name. A few entries he has written the reputed father's name as well. I might play safe and add the latin to the notes. all the best Wendy Hi Wendy, I did not do well in Latin either, but an wondering if the "nata/natus" would be the natural born (illigitimate) child of ....... Congratulations on "having a go" and attempting this very difficult task. We will very appreciate your work when it is completed. Thank you, Wendy Anne WABoland wrote: > Hello Searchers. > I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- > and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. > > Baptisms > The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries > and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) > for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson writing ) > he records > nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. > I translate these as > I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and > ... born of ....... > >

Hi Wendy, I did not do well in Latin either, but an wondering if the "nata/natus" would be the natural born (illigitimate) child of ....... Congratulations on "having a go" and attempting this very difficult task. We will very appreciate your work when it is completed. Thank you, Wendy Anne WABoland wrote: > Hello Searchers. > I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- > and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. > > Baptisms > The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries > and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) > for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson writing ) > he records > nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. > I translate these as > I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and > ... born of ....... > >

Hello Searchers. I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. (yes I know I am a sucker for punishment but it keeps me out of mischief) Baptisms The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson writing ) he records nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. I translate these as I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and ... born of ....... If this is the correct translation why does he record them differently? Is the second example a date of birth ? Thank you Wendy