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
Birth reg query help please
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Jennifer | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:56 |
|
I am not quite sure what it says on the census, but it definitely does NOT say 17 months, if you look at the other infants down the page Reginald 9 months and Nellie 4 months, the M looks nothing like the word after the 17. Jennifer |
|||
|
faerykingdom | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:34 |
|
Thanks ever so much! It's strange I didn't see that before! I've just looked at when the census was taken that year - 31st March, so she would have been a month old. Thanks again Vicky |
|||
|
Sam | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:28 |
|
Ignore that above, the second Elizabeth should show on the census if she was born in February, shouldn't she! I would think it was just an error by the enumerator if everything else fits. Actually, if you look closely at the image, I think it says '1 month', the first stroke of the M looks a bit like a 7. - look at the child in the next family down, it looks like 97 months! Sam x |
|||
|
faerykingdom | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:28 |
|
Do you think they could have not regstered her on purpose? There is a family rumer that her parents were going to give her away, maybe they changed their minds and then registered her? Vicky X |
|||
|
faerykingdom | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:26 |
|
Thanks for your reply, I've just this minute looked and there isn't one that fits the place and time frame. Thanks Vicky X |
|||
|
Sam | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:21 |
|
Was there another child who died young? It was quite common in those days to name the next child after the one that had just died. Try looking for a death of the first one. Sam x |
|||
|
faerykingdom | Report | 18 Apr 2007 18:19 |
|
My great grandmother always maintained she was born in 1901 'the year queen Victoria died', I never mey her but my mum and grandmother always believed this. I found her on the 1901 census living with the right parents and siblings in Leicester, but it says quite clearly she is 17 months old making her born in about 1899. I first thought she had just lied about her age to make herself younger, but I then looked on the birth regs and found her registered in 1901. I ordered her cert and it confirmed she was registered on 3rd April 1901 and the cert says she was born on 23rd Feb 1901. Has anybody else come accross this kind of thing or do you think it could be a mistake on the census form? Her name is Elizabeth Daisy Pearce with parents Minnie and Joseph Pearce if anybody would like to see for themselves. Thank you for any help or advice in advance. Vicky |
|||