Genealogy Chat

Thanks!

If a death has no age (post 185-something), it usually means the person died before the age of 1, which would make sense if the 1862 one died. I think I'll agree with Brenda :)

Go for the later one first. Unless you can find a Ruth in 1861, I suspect an infant death. If the later Ruth did not die, then she ought to be the one on the 1871 census. (I assume she is the only Ruth Hartley?) Even if you had the wrong one, you do have a framework to fit her into to start proving/ disproving your theories.

I think I'm gonna have to! And chase up other lines until they arrive. I don't even want to know how long that's going to be lol

Wait till the 18th, then get both lol ;)

I only have 10 pounds in the bank until the 18th though, hence the problem lol! Just wondering which to get first you see. And now I'm unsure...

Here's a posisbility - order both certs and compare. You'll then at least get both their mothers names, which may or may not be people you already have in your 'to put in' list. You could, alternatively, look for Baptism records for them. Those should hold both parents names, and the father's occupation and the address they lived in at the time. There could be one in 1863. The images aren't on FreeBMD, so I can't check it. I checked 1837, there isn't one.

Deaths Mar 1863 HARTLEY Ruth Preston 8e 301 Any ideas?

Hadn't thought of that, thanks

Ruth is a slightly unusual name, which suggests that the two births you have found may be related. Have you looked to see if there are any deaths? It may be that one child was named after a sister who died.

Ok. I now have the details for Ruth's grandparents and aunts and uncles (presumably!) back to 1851 which is great. Just can't fit them to my tree as I've no parents for Ruth! I don't know what to do! And I've only got till the end of May to get as far as I can. This is one major brick wall!

Have to go to work now, will continue with this tomorrow! At least I suppose I'm getting slightly further! Thanks for your help

He could be a Grandchild. I have one who was a boarder with his grandparents.

Have found her grandmother in 1871 along with her grandfather who has died by 1891. List of sons and daughters and also a three year old boarder? What would that mean?

Her husband John Kettlewell died in Dec Qt 1890 aged 31. In 1891 her first two children are living with their Aunt and Uncle in Bilsborrow (in the same pub that Ruth was in 1871 - hence the possibly confusion - Aunt's first name and ages match also) and Ruth is living with her grandmother and her young child - just born. Believe John died whilst she was pregnant. I've just realised that I have her grandmother's name lol. I've had it a while and never thought anything of it. Hmm dumb blonde moment =) Will chase that up and report back!

If her father isn't there, the likleyhood is that she lied about her age. Have you found her in 1891? Oh my... she wasn't very fortunate - possibly lost her parents when very young, then lost her husband shortly after marrying! I think this one is yours, unless there's another hiding in 1863 that hasn't been transcribed - Births Jun 1862 HARTLEY Ruth Preston 8e 575

Sorry, should really have mentioned that. There is no father listed on the marriage cert. I also can't find another Ruth Hartley on the 1871 census that fits my information.

Who is her father on the marriage cert? FreeBMD doesn't have very good coverage for the early 1860s, so she may not have been transcribed yet.

I'm looking for the birth of my Gt Gt Grandmother Ruth Hartley. On her marriage certificate she is aged 22 on March 1st 1883. However I have found her on the 1871 census aged 7. I have found these two births on freebmd: Births Jun 1862 HARTLEY Ruth Preston 8e 575 Births Jun 1864 HARTLEY Ruth Preston 8e 505 Both these births fit the ages I have. The only explanation is that the Ruth I found on the census doesn't belong to me and that they are both what I have. Unfortunately I have no details on her parentage. In 1871 she is living with her Aunt and Uncle. Any suggestions? I'm desperate!

See below: