Genealogy Chat

Katrina I've did a search in Darlington 1861,But I couldn't see them I'll have a look again later, promised Maggy I'd do her a look-up when I got home from work Chris

I did a search on Durham County Council information Service and got Love Catherine 1868 Durham Central Love John 1863 Durham Weston Love John 1866 Durham Weston Love Margaret J 1862 Durham Central Love Mary 1864 Durham Western Love Thomas 1869 Durham Western Just put Love in the search box and Births from 1861 to 1870 Even if these are no good it shows how many of these names there where Mary

Kat, 1891 census: John Love, head, mar, 29, labourer in wringing machine works, Durham West Auckland Paulina Love, wife, mar, 29, Lancashire Rochdale John T Love, son, 8, Yorkshire Keighley Mary A Love, daur, 6, Yorkshire Keighley Edith A Love, daur, 4, Yorkshire Keighley Alice A Love, daur, 3, Yorkshire Keighley Frederick Love, son, 7months, Yorkshire Keighley 49 Pitt Street RG12/3539, Folio 39, Page 31 Keighley Yorkshire Emma.

Thanks Emma. I really appreciate it. -Kat

Sorry Kat, I should have said - it's from the 1891 census. Emma.

Hi Lucy! Where is that from? Looks like her doesn't it! Thank you. -Kat

Katrina, Think I've found at least Margaret! Love, Margaret Relationship: Patient Age: 17 Gender: Female Where Born: Durham, Occupation: worsted spinner Piece: RG12/3636 Folio: 122 Page: 7 ED: Bradford Infirmary and Dispensary Town: Manningham Civil Parish: Bradford Eccl. Parish: St Peter County: Yorkshire

Kat Putting all sorts of info in i.e Love being born in Ireland Darlington, nothing coming back that matches any of yours. The plot thickens. If somebody comes back with any other combination I will look again for you. Lynda

Ages on censuses are often wrong. On the 1881 census my great grandad Francis Sherwood is shown as 86 and his wife Alice as 69. He was born around 1823 and she in 1833. Their children are shown as 30, 29 and 4.

Thank you! -Kat

I will look in the 1891 for you. Lynda

I have the 1881 census record for my stepmothers g-g-g-grandparents. The trouble is that in 1901 there is a family with very similar details...but the ages are all wrong! The details are so similar...names, parents birthplaces, kids birthplaces, residence. There are four family members - and every detail is correct EXCEPT for their ages. Here are the details... 1881 John LOVE Head M Male 51<1830> Ireland General Labourer Ann LOVE Wife M Female 49<1832> Ireland Mary A. LOVE Dau U Female 22<1859> Darlington, Durham, England John LOVE Son U Male 20<1861> Darlington, Durham, England (General Labourer) Catherine LOVE Daur U Female 18<1863> Darlington, Durham, England Ellen LOVE Daur U Female 16<1865> Darlington, Durham, England Polley LOVE Daur U Female 14<1867> Darlington, Durham, England Scholar Maggey LOVE Daur U Female 8 <1873> Darlington, Durham, England Scholar Thomas LOVE Son U Male 6 <1875> Darlington, Durham, England Scholar --- Now the two parents and the two youngest kids seem to appear on the 1901 with altered ages... (I know that the family moved to keighley sometime after 1881, it is where John junior had his family) 1901 - 55 Leeds St, Keighley - Keighley Division - St Andrews - Yorkshire John Love Head M AGE 55 Male Where Born Ireland County Sligo No Occupation Ann Love Wife M AGE 55 Female Where Born Ireland County Sligo No Occupation Maggie Love Daughter S AGE 25 Female Where Born Durham Wool Comber, Worker Thomas Love Son S AGE 23 Male Where Born Durham Painter House, Worker --- So could they be the same family? It makes sense on so many levels, but the age thing is really odd. If you think you have the answer then please please let me know! Thanks, -Kat

Hi, Plrease see reply...