Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not another one!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not another one!

    A couple of weeks ago I posted a thread expressing my very slight unease with a marriage cert - everything was absolutely correct, except that the groom's occupation was given as a butcher, not a house painter. But his father was a house painter and his father in law was a butcher and he was living with his inlaws at the time of his marriage, so I accepted this slight muddle.

    Well, today, because I couldn't get in here, nor could I get on ancestry or anywhere else, I decided just to have a little check on the damaged 1851 census, just to make absolutely SURE there wasn't another couple called Edward and Ellen....

    ...there was. Edward, butcher and Ellen his wife. MY Edward and Ellen were living just round the corner.

    OK, not much harm done, just a bit of pencil work on the wrong Ellen, easily scribbled out.

    I went back to some very old notes I made and found a query "Is Ellen a Riddell?"

    I had looked for this marriage before and found nothing. I had another look on Lancsbmd - nothing. Then I entered Ellen Riddell, no spouse and oh dear me, I got this:

    Ellen Riddell to
    Edward W GARLICK.

    Their second child was baptised Emma Garlick Whittaker.

    So, its looking as if my Edward Whittaker is a Garlick by birth...another b**** to add to the ever growing list!

    (Funny, my father was very contemptuous of my mother's Scottish working class roots, but at least all her ancestors were born in wedlock, unlike 3 out of my 4 paternal 2 x GGFs!)

    OC

  • #2
    OC

    Oh dear. Not sure Garlick goes with Fish, lol!
    I've spent some time this weekend doing online research, only to find I'd made notes originally in my files with the same info. Doh!
    ~ with love from Little Nell~
    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

    Comment


    • #3
      Why do we keep doing this????????????????

      I spent two years chasing my great grandfather, William Ketley, only to find the one I'd been doing died before his first birthday.. Found the other Ketley family in the next village with same parents names,etc. Ordered this William's birth cert with mother's maiden name as checking point.
      Got cert......right mother....father Joseph, not James. Maybe just an error.
      At this stage he's mine till I find yet another family.

      Comment


      • #4
        Libby

        I thought the very same thing today! Why am I bothering doing this?

        No one else in the family is interested except vaguely, an uncle, who will be devastated to learn that the Whittaker which is his middle name ought to be Garlick!

        However....the women in the family are always quite easy to trace and that is a bit of a comfort....and maybe my female ancestors are more important in the scheme of things than my male ancestors!

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
          Libby

          However....the women in the family are always quite easy to trace and that is a bit of a comfort....and maybe my female ancestors are more important in the scheme of things than my male ancestors!

          OC
          Funnily enough I was thinking about this only the other day. No matter how many surnames my Male Ancestors had, the only ones whose Y chromosome I carry are those who bear my Father's Surname.
          Grampa Jim passed away September 2011

          Comment


          • #6
            Ah, but Grampa, you are the sum total of ALL your ancestors, not just the Y gene carrier!

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Bob

              Oh, undoubtedly, but I can never understand WHY...the Y carries only a tiny amount of information, most of it useless!

              OC

              Comment


              • #8
                and of course you only have the mum's word for it that the father really was who she said!

                Interestingly I have at least 2 cases where the birth cert names a father (ie the wife's husband) that I know is impossible. And one of the ladies concerned knows it too, even telling me the name of her real father (her mother told her, so OUGHT to be the truth!). So who do you follow when you're drawing up the tree???

                added as an afterthought: if I follow the genetic link, I only have the one person's word that this is the correct line, there is no documentary evidence anywhere. What on earth can you do, to preserve this information for posterity? I can imagine, several generations down the line, someone saying "well, the family story is that xxx was her real father, but I have no evidence to back it up"
                Last edited by Vicky the Viking; 10-03-08, 09:59.
                Vicky

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vicky the Viking View Post
                  So who do you follow when you're drawing up the tree???

                  Good Q!

                  My OH's birth cert has the wrong father recorded........OH worries about trees drawn up in the future, especially as the non-dad's tree is quite easy to follow back, whilst real-dad's tree isn't (he is from Barcelona! lol)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thinking of FTM, how about treating the birth as belonging to the natural mother and father (unmarried) and then linking the offspring also to the married couple. That gets the natural father into the tree and you can add a note explaining the siuation. That's what I've done where a child born prior to marriage becomes a child of the married family.
                    Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X