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.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
1861 census interpretation needed
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Skewedhalo | Report | 12 Jun 2005 22:04 |
|
Thanks Christine. Sharon |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 12 Jun 2005 13:59 |
|
I had a look on the Warwickshire bmd site, in case they had anything useful. (Prob easiest to find off www.ukbmd.org.uk, following the 'local' icon for the list of local sites) These don't seem to be the family you're talking about, but it might be relevant to know they're about if you need them: (births 1837-1861) # MULLIS, Anne - 1840 # MULLIS, Rebecca - 1844 # MULLIS, Harriett - 1845 # MULLIS, Mary - 1845 # MULLIS, William - 1847 # MULLIS, Harriett - 1849 # MULLIS, George - 1850 # MULLIS, Jonathan - 1851 # MULLIS, Elizabeth - 1852 # MULLIS, Sarah - 1853 # MULLIS, Fanny - 1854 # MULLIS, Hannah - 1854 # MULLIS, Mary - 1855 # MULLIS, George - 1856 # MULLIS, James - 1856 # MULLIS, Eliza - 1858 # MULLIS, Sarah - 1858 # MULLIS, Mary - 1859 # MULLIS, Matilda - 1859 # MULLIS, John - 1860 # MULLIS, Mary - 1860 Presumably they have't transcribed the relevant area yet. Christine |
|||
|
Skewedhalo | Report | 12 Jun 2005 13:27 |
|
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Especially for giving me the answer I wanted. :-) And have just discovered that the young George isn't a son anyway, he's a grandson! So I don't think there were any second marriages and 'twins' is good for me! Sharon |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 12 Jun 2005 09:43 |
|
I have the image open in another window and I would say they are twins as well. In the relationship column Richard and John are definately stated as SON and they are bracketted together and the word twins inserted. If they were stepsons, I think that the relationship column would state stepson. |
|||
|
Christina | Report | 12 Jun 2005 09:29 |
|
I found the following birth entries on freeBMD - I think that they are your twins. John Mullis June Q 1849 District Southam Vol 16 p 547. Richard Mullis June Q 1849 District Southam Vol 16 p 547. Christina |
|||
|
Maz from Cornwall | Report | 12 Jun 2005 01:59 |
|
It definately says TWINS! Maz x |
|||
|
cazzabella | Report | 12 Jun 2005 01:51 |
|
Hi Sharon, Have just taken a look and I'm sure it says twins - which would make much more sense - definitely DOESN'T say step! Best wishes, Carole |
|||
|
Skewedhalo | Report | 12 Jun 2005 00:48 |
|
Because you lot are so good at sorting out my problems I thought I would try you with this one. The family in question is on the 1861 census. The head of the family is John Mullis born abt. 1801 in Harbury, Warwickshire. He is shown with his wfie, Sarah, daughter Sarah born abt. 1847, stepsons John and Richard born abt. 1849 and son George born about 1856. All members of the household have the surname Mullis. Now the thing is this...for the middle 2 children to be step sons to John Sr., they must be from a first marriage for Sarah. If that's the case, why do they have John's surname? The other simpler explanation is that the transcriber has misread what was written on the census return. I have looked at the original and both children are given as Son. They have then been bracketed together and another word is written alongside which has been interpreted as 'step'. I am not sure what it says. I would love it to say 'twins'! Please can people have a look and give me your opinion? Thanks, Sharon |
|||