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
Who is Fred and is he really 200 years old?
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
peejay | Report | 3 Jul 2008 20:31 |
I was looking at the IGI fiche in the library at the marriage of one of my ancestors, Matthew Coats, who married Mary Jones in Barnstaple in 1791. In the entry it mentioned a relative, Frederick William Jones. I thought I'd have a look to see if I could find other sources for Mary and Frederick, and to my surprise I found entries for births, christenings and marriages for Mary Jones with relative Frederick William Jones going back every couple of decades to 1598. |
|||
|
Chica in the sun ☼ | Report | 3 Jul 2008 21:20 |
All I know is that I have a Richard G going back to that time. All the first borns were called Richard from 1300 right up till 1864.. You are lucky if you have the mothers as well because often they just named the fathers. I think it is possible but couldnĀ“t really say without checking it out. Perhaps someone else who is better informed could advise you. |
|||
|
Sam | Report | 3 Jul 2008 21:41 |
If they are submitted records then they could be wrong. On the other hand, Mary and Fred William Jones are extremely common names and it is quite common for generations of a family to all be named the same. |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 3 Jul 2008 22:19 |
I'm not quite clear on what it is you've found -- but yes, if they're submitted records, watch out. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 4 Jul 2008 01:47 |
Shelly -- you want to contact whoever has that nonsense in their tree and tell them firmly that you want it removed! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Richard in Perth | Report | 4 Jul 2008 02:56 |
Kathryn - I think what Shelly means is those entries are on the BMD births index, not on the submitted family trees. |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 4 Jul 2008 03:24 |
Oh! On checking, yes indeed. As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say: Never mind then! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 4 Jul 2008 08:13 |
I don't know for sure how the IGI works but I thought that if you see a marriage, then a relative's name, eg. Frederick William JONES, then he, FWJ had perhaps submitted a tree with the married couple somewhere on it. |
|||
|
Janet 693215 | Report | 4 Jul 2008 11:46 |
A child born before the marriage could be registered in the fathers name but until 2002 if they married at a later date they had to be re-registered because a father could not be classed as next of kin in a medical emergency. Hope that makes sense. |