View Full Version : Could someone look at this census image please?
1851:
HO107/2410 Folio 422 Page 69
The Longford family:
The 2 girls transcribed as Mary and Marlia (Maria??) Or are their names Lucy and Amelia??
I've stared and stared at this, but the contrast on my computer doesn't work and I can't decide what their names are.
Many thanks.
Looking...or trying to!! Ancestry is at a crawl for me at the mo!
The 8 yr old is definitely Amelia. Not too sure about the older girl, I see both Mary & Lucy quite easily.
So do I, and as I can find neither a suitable Mary OR Lucy (or Amelia) on future censuses, I'm a bit stuck there! How I hate trying to find army families!
Thanks for looking Lyn.
Rachel Scand
06-04-08, 11:51
I can't see a Mary ...
James
Margaret
Lucy ?
James
Harriet
Amelia
William
Sarah
So do I, and as I can find neither a suitable Mary OR Lucy (or Amelia) on future censuses, I'm a bit stuck there! How I hate trying to find army families!
Thanks for looking Lyn.
Army families!!! Grrrrrrrr! I hate them, too!!!
I have a doozey & I don't think that I will ever sort them out...Can't find the births, marriages or them on a census!!
Snap Lyn!!!
I have (so far!) 10 assorted offspring out of this family, born in 8 different places from Waterford, Ireland to Bengal, India (with one born at sea!)
The trouble is, when I can't find them on a census, there is no way of knowing if they are abroad, or just mistranscribed!
And of course, the sons became soldiers, and the daughters married soldiers!
Moan over!!
Rach, thank you, I'm going for Lucy then.
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 12:28
Hi Bev
Sorry to confuse you but I think it's Mary, not Lucy, because the "M" s seem to start at the bottom of the letter with a little curl, like the Margaret. The L in Longford hasn't got that, so I don't think it's an "L"
:)
Hi Bev
Sorry to confuse you but I think it's Mary, not Lucy, because the "M" s seem to start at the bottom of the letter with a little curl, like the Margaret. The L in Longford hasn't got that, so I don't think it's an "L"
:)
AAAARGH!!! Shuddup Joan, lololol! :)
Little Nell
06-04-08, 12:37
I think the child under Margaret looks like Mary (compare the two Ms) and I think its Amelia written with a big little a if you see what I mean.
Ok, that's 2 for Mary, one for Lucy, and 2 undecided.
I should have put up a poll ...........!!! hee hee
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 12:46
LOL !
Thanks Nell, that's what I think too !!
Can you find them in 1861 Bev? Where was James snr born, cos I can't read that at all, except for the "West" bit lol !
:D
All but Harriet, then married, and William have left home in 61, (mostly) never to be seen again.
Birth places are:
James, West Clandon, Surrey
Margaret, Littleton, Tipperary
Mary/Lucy, Dubin
Harriet, Fermoy, Ireland
James, Mediterranean Sea
Amelia, Waterford, Ireland
William, West Clandon, Surrey
Sarah, Kinsale, Ireland
All of these have been mistranscribed slightly, lolol
Rachel Scand
06-04-08, 12:51
Had another look .... I think it's 'M' and not 'L'
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 12:52
This must be them in 1861 ?
Harriet is now married:
Class: RG9; Piece: 3778; Folio: 97; Page: 33; GSU roll: 543185.
That enumerator should be shot as his writing is still naff, lol!
:)
Little Nell
06-04-08, 12:54
James junior is in Battersea 1881 RG11 Piece / Folio 0654 / 37 p.20
Little Nell
06-04-08, 12:56
Looked again at image. The a in Mary does look like u but so does the a in James below, so I think it is Mary,
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 12:59
Harriet married a James Traylen in Durham in 1859 :
Harriet Langford
Year of Registration: 1859
Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10A
Page: 514
Mistranscribed as Langford
Right, that's it! Mary it is! All fairly academic as I don't envisage ever being able to find her again, but I was hoping for a Lucy - Lucy being marginally less common a name than Mary!
Thanks for that Nell, I haven't started on James jnr yet. William is gone in 71, pops up in 81 then vanishes again in 91 and 01.
Rachel Scand
06-04-08, 13:00
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o228/rachelscand/imagexweb.jpg
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 13:01
It's definitely Amelia she married in 1860 :
Amelia Langford
Year of Registration: 1860
Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10a
Page: 520
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 13:02
Bev they are LANGFORD not Longford, aren't they?
Every girl married is LANGFORD so far.
:)
Harriet married a James Traylen in Durham in 1859 :
Harriet Langford
Year of Registration: 1859
Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10A
Page: 514
Mistranscribed as Langford
It is actually Langford, Joan, I only said Longford as it is the name on 51 census - Langford and Longford seem to be pretty much interchangeable all through the censuses.
It's definitely Amelia she married in 1860 :
Amelia Langford
Year of Registration: 1860
Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10a
Page: 520
I'm not sure this is her Joan.
She would only have been 17. I couldn't find her in 61 or 71 (but that's not suprising if she married a soldier!) There is an Amelia Warren married to a George in 1881, but born in Berkshire.
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 13:14
If these are yours in 1861 Bev, she is with them under her married name, mistranscribed :
Class: RG9; Piece: 3778; Folio: 97; Page: 33; GSU roll: 543185.
:)
Yes, that is them Joan,
All 3 vanish after 1861 - I haven't had a very good look for Harriet or James Trayler, but haven't been able to find them on a quick hunt.
I don't know what happened to James snr and Margaret. James could have died - hard to tell if/when/where as they moved around so much, but Margaret was a good 20 years younger. Perhaps she (or both!) went back to Ireland
Joan of Archives
06-04-08, 13:38
Did James & Margaret die before 1871 ? There are 2 deaths that would fit :
Margaret Langford
Year of Registration: 1863
Quarter of Registration: Jul-Aug-Sep
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10a
Page: 259
James Langford
Year of Registration: 1864
Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar
District: Sunderland
County: Durham, Tyne and Wear
Volume: 10a
Page: 276
:)
That could very well be them!!!
Thanks Joan.
(I've just found the funniest thing - will pm you!)
Little Nell
06-04-08, 14:22
Good luck with Mary (much commoner than Lucy) and I have various Marys in own and OH's tree who have proved impossible to trace. One of them has middle name Timbers which was promising, except that she never, ever used it!
I think this is Amelia in 1861, transcribed as Werren....although James now becomes George. LOL!!!
RG9; Piece: 435; Folio: 75; Page: 7
Oh yes that is definitely her!
MWAH Lyn!!!! You are clever!
I knew she'd marry a soldier, I didn't expect him to be quite so (comparatively) old! :)
Then this is them in 1871:-
RG10; Piece: 909; Folio: 22; Page: 37
And I wonder if this is George & children in 1881:-
RG11; Piece: 892; Folio: 82; Page: 22
There is a death for Amelia Warren aged 30 in Sherborne, Jun Qtr 1873 5a / 224.
A birth for George Francis Warren, Jun 1879 (was 1881 census in Jun?) at Medway (includes Chatham & Gillingham) 2a / 509
A death for George Francis Warren, aged 2 at Medway, Jun Qtr 1872 2a / 264
and a borth for Frederick William Warren in Medway, Dec Qtr 1872, 2a / 470
George is on his own in 1901:-
RG12; Piece: 662; Folio 14; Page 23
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.