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
Charles Luff and his Dad
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Dugless | Report | 25 Feb 2009 15:18 |
My great great grandfather was Charles Luff and I have traced him in the 1861 census when he was 26 and an agricultural labourer living at Eaton Socon, Hunts. With him are his wife Emma [29, nee Markham] and their children William [4], Emma [2], and George [3 months, later to become my great grandfather]. [RG9/0984/F?/P30] |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 25 Feb 2009 15:47 |
What were Charles and William's occupations on the marriage cert? |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 25 Feb 2009 15:56 |
Th 1841 census does not give relationships, so Charles's parents may not be the George and Sarah he is living with. I cannot see a Rose in the 1841. |
|||
|
+*+blossom In Essex+*+ | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:00 |
I think this is slightly complicated by the fact that there seems to be another Charles Luff born in Huntingdonshire who is married to an Elizabeth. His parents could be George and Rose. |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:01 |
The 1841 family in 1851. So, either Sarah and Rose are the same people or Sarah has died and George has married Rose: |
|||
|
Dugless | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:04 |
Both Charles and William are shown as labourers on the marriage certificate. Point taken about relationships in 1841, but there is an IGI submitted [ie iffy!] for a Charles born to George and Rose. Yes, there's no Rose in 1841, but then there is no Sarah in '51. Could be used name as opposed to real name. |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:10 |
Probably a red herring EDIT - from occupations definitely a red herring!: |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:15 |
I would say that whoever submitted the IGI entry found Charles, George and Rose in the 1851 and has no real proof of Charles's mother's name. |
|||
|
+*+blossom In Essex+*+ | Report | 25 Feb 2009 16:17 |
Found this on freereg: |