Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone suggest any mistranscriptions for...

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

  • Anyone suggest any mistranscriptions for...

    Smith?

    I'm still hunting in vain for Cecil (John) Smith anywhere!! I can't find a birth that fits or him on any census returns.

    I've been looking at 1911 this morning and wondered if Smith has been mis-transcribed. *hopes desperately*:(

    Clare
    Clare

  • #2
    Could he be in one of the counties that hasn't been uploaded for 1911 yet?

    As for mistranscriptions, Snith - there are a few of those on ancestry. Or Saith? Or Smeth?
    KiteRunner

    Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
    (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

    Comment


    • #3
      You can search without a surname!

      I feel we have been here before, but can you tell us a bit more about him?

      Luckily (??) my lunchtime kippers are ready, so hopefully this mystery will be solved by the time I return

      Comment


      • #4
        This is where you remember him from, Merry:
        http://www.familytreeforum.com/resea...ing-smith.html
        KiteRunner

        Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
        (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

        Comment


        • #5
          I have searched for Cecil in Birmingham b1875 +/- 3 years without a surname and nothing jumped out at me. I don't know much about him at all which is part of the problem with finding him!

          Thanks Kite I'll try those suggestions
          Clare

          Comment


          • #6
            Is he with the family on the 1881 census, or not born by then? And why is he Cecil (John), please?
            KiteRunner

            Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
            (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess he could be in an area that isn't uploaded, but I was thinking Birmingham as my Nan knew him and she seems to have only known her uncles and aunts who were local. But as she's long gone I can't ask her
              Clare

              Comment


              • #8
                He's not with the family in 1881. I have a picture of him with his younger sister who was born in c1878 and he is older than her, so he should be around. And he's still not there in 1891. By 1901 the parents are both dead, the siblings are mainly with my gt gt grandmother but not him

                I have given the John in brackets as that is the middle name he used in 1946 to obtain let of admin for his sister, but as I've not found a birth for him or an entry on any census yet I wouldn't rule someone out just because that is missing, but might help finding him, if you follow that!

                PS I can't find any birth in Aston, Birmingham or Kings Norton for a Cecil Smith at all and his grandparents are all long dead, I have looked for their deaths this morning

                Clare
                Last edited by claretaylor22; 06-03-09, 12:57. Reason: adding info after re-reading old post
                Clare

                Comment


                • #9
                  Maybe he's a cousin rather than a sibling? How much older is he than the "sister" he is photographed with?

                  Which is your family in 1881?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Source Citation: Class: RG11; Piece: 3027; Folio: 118; Page: 5; Line: ; GSU roll: 1341723.

                    James and Eliza Smith et all. The sister concerned is lucy aged 3.

                    He could be a cousin I guess, I will get the let of admin, this will tell me the relationship won't it?

                    My mum's mum said he was Lucy's brother (she knew them both) and I thought that as he had obtained the let of admin meant he was a closer relative than a cousin as she had nieces alive who would have been entitled to let of admin over a cousin.

                    Thank you for your help.

                    Clare
                    Last edited by claretaylor22; 06-03-09, 13:20. Reason: changing census details
                    Clare

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      this will tell me the relationship won't it?
                      I thought I might have to ask you that!!! lol

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lol!! I'm off work today and my brain is turned off I think!

                        I've just had another look at the 1881 census and Eliza is 5 and Lucy 3. I am saying that Cecil was born between these two, so something about this is not quite making sense I think!! Let of admin is next step to est the connection.

                        Thank you for your help.

                        Clare
                        Clare

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm even more puzzled now, thought I'd look for Eliza Smith who would be born about 1876, and I can't find a birth for her either (Human error not lack of births lol)

                          Think I'm giving the Smiths up as a bad job! :D I'd done well up to now finding their marriages and children
                          Last edited by claretaylor22; 06-03-09, 14:11. Reason: adding comment re my error
                          Clare

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've just had another look at the 1881 census and Eliza is 5 and Lucy 3
                            Could the girl in the photo be Eliza not Lucy? There's more room for a boy before her!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That is possible yes.I think the reasoning is that we have these pics as Lucy lived in the house that my mum grew up in so we have pics of her as she had them with her when she lived there. (she is the lady I posted pics of for opinions on the photo board her and Eliza I think!)

                              I'll get the pic off my mum and post it for dating as it's niggling at me that this pic was taken in 1875ish, which seems like a great expense for a family with so many children.

                              Clare
                              Clare

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                You would hope the letter of administration will give his relationship to the deceased, but I do remember someone on here being disappointed in the same hope. Definitely worth trying, though. As for the nieces being closer to her than a cousin, yes, but they may have let him do it because he was a man, or because he was older, or more experienced at that kind of thing.
                                KiteRunner

                                Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
                                (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Fingers crossed then!

                                  I agree that men did this more often my great uncle did my gt gt grandmothers, no relation, just because he was a man!! Obviously my gt gran was incapable by virtue of being female!:D
                                  Clare

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Finally got the Admon this morning only taken 2 weeks! Think the probate reg told me porkies on the phone they told me last Friday it had already been sent out but it is franked yesterdays date!!!!!:D

                                    Anyway it DID give the relationship to Lucy and Cecil John Smith is a nephew. I knew she had a lot of brothers but have never found any of them after they left home so now know at least one married and had children. Just got to find them now
                                    Clare

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      you should have more luck finding them now.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I have just found them in 1911 All makes sense now, the picture is taken about 1912 and his Cecil and Lucy Smith, but not the Lucy Smith we thought! So all sorted now. *off to tell :Dmum the good news*
                                        Clare

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X