Genealogy Chat

Carol Thanks for the reply. I don't have Hannah's maiden name yet. Someone found a marriage for Thomas Quick to a Harriet but haven't got the certifcate yet. Funnily enough I have been imagining stories along the line of Thomas being mates with the innkeeper and being offered the job. I'll see if I can find the marriage for definite. Thomas Quick had a sister Sarah who I thought might have married George Lane but again I have not found the marriage yet, and Sarah Lane's age is not quite right for Sarah Quick yet when are they ever! Karen

Hi again, Karen, Do you know Hannah Quick's maiden name? Could Sarah Lane be her older sister? Then, when Thomas lost his job as gamekeeper, Innkeeper George Lane could have helped him thru kinship. Otherwise, George and Thomas were mates in 1861 in Aldenham as were their wives..... I do think your 1881/1891 family is the same one as 1861/1871/1901. Good luck in connecting them up. Regards, Carol

That makes sense. If Charles is Marlon then I just need to find the connection to the Lane family to explain why the other children went there. And maybe get a birth certificate for one of the kids who was in 1861 or 1871 and one for one in the 1881 or 1891 group and see if the parents are the same. As I still can't find Thomas Quick the gamekeeper in 1881 or 1891 I'm hoping it is the same family. I'm creating all sorts of stories as to why he became an innkeeper for a while and why his children were sent away - lol Karen

i agree with Brenda-it would answer a lot of questions-we keep on forgetting that these sheets we view were not on a clipboard whist some chap went door to door seeing who was in-they are the secondary source. Household transcript>census sheet>us. These knock -on mistakes are prevalent and there was another one just a couple of days ago here.

Gosh - I nipped out to buy something for dinner and meanwhile you have all found more stuff! Carol - it seems you may have found evidence of a Charles & Fredrick. It was a Fredrick George staying with the Lanes. I haven't found him on 1881 and Charles could be Marlon. I would respond by name but hate that GR don't let you see the posts as you reply - Thanks for finding death of Montague - I think I must be doing searches wrong! It does seem strange that Mary went to the Lanes in the following census, but I suppose it doesn't tie them up with my lot. I still can't find another Thomas and Hannah so working towards 'proving' this is the right couple. The marraige for Thomas and Harriet could be Hannah, I don't have a certificate, I got the wifes name from the census but they did name a daughter Harriet. These Quicks came from Luton, first two children born in Luton and all the rest in Redbourn. Thomas born 1829, is the 5th child of nine . Most of the Quicks in Redbourn are connected to this family and so far have not worked out where Fredrick may attach to another branch. I really appreciate your help and input, this is driving me mad! Karen

My hunch, and I can convince myself of this, if not others, is that on the original household schedule the 'C' started from the base, went up in a straight diagonal, came down and only curved at the bottom, looking like a lower case 'l'. The 'h' had a vestigal 'n' bit to it and the enumerator misread the name. I can certainly MAKE Ch look like a washing line M.

I reckon Charles changed his name to william charles Quick 1901 Camberwell Wm. C Quick 32 Tram conductor born nrSt.albans Herts.

Seeing as how we can't find 'Marlen' anywhere apart from 1881, when Charles is missing, is it possible that the enumerator mis-read Thomas' entry for Charles as Marlen

Hi, Karen, You noticed that the Lanes lived in Aldenham in 1861 running the pub when Thomas and Hannah were there, and in 1871 George is a victullar. The visitor is down as Frederick George. On IGI, there are the following baptisms: Frederick Quick St Stephens St Albans 16.4.1865 and then Frederick George Quick St Stephens 15.4.1866 plus Charles Quick St Stephens 26.7.1868 All with parents Thomas and Hannah Quick (taken from PRs) Don't know if this adds anything useful, or just more confusion :-) All best wishes, Carol

Ive looked at the Marlen image in detail,and have viewed the writing of Charlotte on the same page and a Charles on a previous page-despite hoping that it had been a mistranscription ,there is no evidence from the authors other scripts to suggest Charles.

I'm intrigued by this family the children keep going to visit - a sister maybe Found marriage of Thomas, which you prob. have already Allen, Harriett Eliza 1854 June Marriages St Albans Hertfordshire Field, Martha 1854 June Marriages St Albans Hertfordshire Quick, Thomas 1854 June Marriages St Albans Hertfordshire but I thought your Thomas'wife was Hannah

Montague's death: Deaths Mar 1864 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUICK Barbara St Albans 3a 251 QUICK Montague St Albans 3a 242

Thanks Christine - am I clutching at straws here to think Charles might have liked to be known as Marlon ?!! Yes, I think Thomas was 51 not 57 - which ties him up better but probably not to me? Karen

1881 - looks like Marlen Could Thomas' age be 51, not 57, the 1 joined to the 5, if you see what I mean. That would make his year of birth 1830

Brenda - Thanks so much for helping. I've had a look and much as I wanted it to be mistranscribed I do think it is not Charles, however this is the image number if someone else could look. RG11/1441 District 3, Folio 68, Page 11 'Marlen Quick' b.1869 St Albans, Herts Thanks Karen

Zoe - thanks, I forgot to cut and paste the text to a reply! Sam - that's my gut feeling too but I can't find another Hannah & Thomas that fit my couple. They are the right age and the right birth places. Anyone else find a smilar couple ??? Karen

Have you seen the image for 1881? Marlen is a most unusual name CH arle S M arle N I imagine it is a mistranscription. Get someone to have a peek and see.

Sorry, but I don't think they are the same people in 1881 & 1891. The children are completely different and the career change is a bit odd as he goes back to being a game keeper in 1901! Sam x

hope you dont mind - make sit a bit easier to read Thomas Quick born 1829 in Redbourn, Herts married to Hannah born c.1836 in Hemel Hempstead Herts. I have tried to track this couple through the census' and I think I have found them but some of the children are throwing me off Do you think I have the right couple in 1881 & 1891? In each census Thomas is born Redbourn in 1830 except 1881 when it is 1824. Hannah is born H/H 1836/35. 1861 Thomas is a Game Keeper with the following children Montaque, b.1855 William, b 1857 Harriet, b 1860 1871 Thomas is a Game Keeper with the following children William, b 1857 Harriet, b 1860 Thomas, b 1862 Charles, b 1869 1881 Thomas is a Beer House Keeper with the following children Fredrick, b 1866 Marlen, b 1869 Helen A, b 1874 1891 Thomas is an Inn Keeper with the following children Mary A F, b 1872 Helen A, b1874 1901 Thomas is a Game Keeper with no children at home I'm trying to double check that these are all the same family as the parents look right but the kids don't in 1881 & 1891 - so I tried looking for the children that should be at home but aren't My problem is that Can't find Montague on census or deaths after 1861 Charles in 1871 seems to have turned into Marlon by 1881. I can't find a death for Charles. Thomas, I have found a possible fit for him in London in 1881 - The only Fredrick I can find in 1871 that fits is an orphan living with George & Sarah Lane and their neice Mary Ann Budd - but obviously he is not an orphan? The only Mary I can find in 1881 is living with the same couple (George & Sarah Lane) as Fredrick is in 1871.

See below ..