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
Help am all out of Logic
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Dawnieher3headaches | Report | 8 Apr 2005 15:25 |
I have a Mary Ann Barnes (my gt grandmother) her father is unknown mother is Elizabeth Barnes thats from her birth cert. On 1881 census they are with her Elizabeths mother and stepfather and there is also a Elizabeth Barnes aged 2 months. Elizabeth senior then in 1874 married a Wm Hayes. on 1881 they have with them Rebecca Hayes 3, Elizabeth Barnes 10 and Eliza Ann Barnes 4 months. Mary Ann stayed with her grandparents. On IGI it gives the parents for Eliza as Wm and Elizabeth Hayes and also for Elizabeth that was born in 1871 before they got married. Wm would only of been 14 in 1871. Why would they name the last child Barnes if they are the parents or has the enumerator made yet another booboo And where do the IGI get the info from as I'm sure he can't be the father and the only Mary Ann Barnes they have born in Nottingham in 1867 doesn't have the right parent either. Help my logic has run out, must be the exhaustion of ten pin bowling with the children this morning. Any Suggestions |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy | Report | 8 Apr 2005 15:30 |
Ok, as I see it, Rebecca is William's daughter. Elizabeth was born before they were married, so has Barnes. As for Eliza Ann, she is down after Elizabeth, so maybe she's something else... *goes back to thinking* Hmm... Births Sep 1880 Barnes Eliza Ann Barrow upon Soar 7a 171 Maybe?Any of these places sound familiar? Anstey, Anstey Pastures, Barkby, Barkby Thorpe, Barrow upon Soar, Beaumont Leys, Beeby, Belgrave (1837-92), Birstall, Bradgate Park, Cossington, Cropston, Gilroes, Leicester Abbey (1837-91), Leicester Frith, Maplewell Longdale, Mountsorrel North End, Mountsorrel South End, Newtown Linford, North Thurmaston, Queniborough, Quorndon, Ratcliffe on the Wreake, Rearsby, Rothley, Rothley Temple, Seagrave, Sileby, South Croxton, South Thurmaston, Swithland, Syston, Thrussington, Thurcaston, Ulverscroft, Walton on the Wolds, Wanlip, Woodhouse. Oh goodie.... Births Dec 1880 Hayes Eliza Ann Mansfield 7b 80 That's more like it Blidworth, Fulwood, Haywood Oaks, Hucknall under Huthwaite, Lindhurst, Mansfield, Mansfield Woodhouse, Pinxton (1837-95), Skegby, Sookholme, Sutton in Ashfield, Teversal, Warsop Therefore - my conclusion - enumerator got bored of writing out different surnames, and just dittoed the last one. |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 8 Apr 2005 16:01 |
Tracy, ever thought of going into the Geneaolgy business ? Brilliant ! |
|||
|
☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy | Report | 8 Apr 2005 16:05 |
lol Laird, it has crossed my mind, but I wouldn't know where to start :) I'm not that good anyways... I have no parish records. I only use what's online. Not a good start for a professional lol |
|||
|
Dawnieher3headaches | Report | 8 Apr 2005 16:09 |
Tracy Good enough for me thank you so much Sorts them out now just got to sort Elizabeths mother out. Thanks again Dawn |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Ken | Report | 8 Apr 2005 16:14 |
1891 Eliza Ann clearly shown as daughter also son George age 7 |
|||
|
Kate | Report | 8 Apr 2005 17:52 |
IGI batch is U000941, no information about where the data came from. It seems to be a sizeable batch with various births from the East Midlands, but it is unusual to get a batch of births rather than christenings, isn't it? So I would treat the info on there as fairly suspicious. Nosing around it a bit more, I see that it contains 55 births from 1881 for example and none from 1882, so I wonder if somebody 'helpfully' put up births for children they found on the 1881 census and guessed / figured out the parent's names from the census details? I would now be very very suspicious of it! In general, if it says at the bottom that the data was extracted from the local records you can trust it, but if it was added by a member of the LDS church you have to wonder. This one as I said has no source information that I can see. Kate. |
|||
|
Dawnieher3headaches | Report | 8 Apr 2005 18:12 |
Ken Thank you see told you all my logic had gone didn;t think to look on 1891 doh. Kate didn't look at the info bit at the bottom might be back to sort of normal self next week as children back to school. Mind you probably wouldn't of thought of looking at that bit anyway Thanks Dawn |
|||
Researching: |