How likely?

Genealogy Chat

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: January 0001 Posts: 0 Send Message	Unknown	Report	26 Oct 2005 09:51
Member Since: January 0001 Posts: 0 Send Message	Karen You can make all the assumptions you like - BUT you can only prove links by tangible evidence on censuses and certificates. I have been misled by people who seem to have unusual names and be the right age before. The marriage cert will give father's name and occupation to help find him on the census with family further back. nell
Member Since: June 2004 Posts: 0 Send Message	Karen	Report	26 Oct 2005 09:43
Member Since: June 2004 Posts: 0 Send Message	Ok,I have details that fit really well with what I know about Great Grandparents. And since someone found them on the census' it fits in really well. Then I've made a few tangible links - one being that the Annie Pitcher I was looking for shows up in 1871 with her family and husband Isaac. Isaac then appears back in 1861 with his Mum Hannah. I'm assuming Isaac wasn't a particularly common name as there was only about three that showed up. Is this a likely scenario or am I jumping to conclusions? Same with Charles Henry Bailey. Shows up in 1891, his father in 1871. Dates are rough match and names all fit. Found marriage details for John and Sarah (Charles henry's parents) but in the name Bayly. Am I going down the wrong road or am I ok to assume this is them so I can order certificates and stuff?