Find Ancestors
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
Help! Trying to find Adelaide M Wilson
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 02:43 |
From the info on the 2005 thread |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 03:17 |
Well I'm flummoxed. Not seeing a single point of commonality, meself! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 03:21 |
Your confusing me JC I just got the 1911 census of the lady Frederick Anders got together with does'nt look like they married though. This looks like her husbands death |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 03:27 |
I'm confusing myself, I fear. I'm too underslept to figure out the connections here, but I'm sure they're there. ;) |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 03:32 |
The only connection is that Rachel's gt grandparents both married twice, must have been a divorce in there somewhere then?? and we are looking for a Polly aswell....which I cant find |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Click ADD REPLY button - not this link! | Report | 15 Dec 2010 05:53 |
According to William's army records, Rose Julia was born 28/11/1912 and Adelaide was divorced when he married her. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 15:19 |
Well there's a bit of news! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 15 Dec 2010 16:08 |
Hi guys, I've jus had a quick scan of all this as I'm work and I want to thank you all so much for all the help! I'm going to speak to my Mother later and go through all this info properly. |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 15 Dec 2010 20:06 |
Right managed to look over everything and it's all starting to fit into place so I've updated my tree on here. |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 20:15 |
For the marriage, search at FreeBMD for a marriage |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 20:18 |
The only likely one I see is in Alverstoke 1865 -- which would work if John was in the military maybe. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 20:33 |
same census it is Broadstairs in Kent |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:02 |
Yeah I though the gap as quite big, so if she was 5 her birth would be in 1868, I'll have a look for a birth. |
|||
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:07 |
That would be your best move Rachel to get Adelaides birth cert. Sarah would have been born 1866 which would fit in nicely with that marriage |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:14 |
In 1871, Sarah is definitely shown as 15. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:17 |
1861 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:20 |
hmm that's a interesting theory if she had her before the marriage to John, would she be listed as daughter if the relationship refers to that beteen them and the head of the family? |
|||
|
jax | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:21 |
But would'nt you think she would have been working at 15 Janey? not that I'm doubting your logic |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:22 |
Yes, absolutely. If the husband embraced the child into the household (contrary to what my gr-grfather did with my gr-aunt in the 1890s), the child would be known by his surname and reported as his child in the censuses, and possibly even marry under his surname. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JaneyCanuck | Report | 15 Dec 2010 21:24 |
It's just a theory! But it does say 15 very clearly on the 1871 census image, and the spouses were of a bit of an advanced age if they married in 1865, and her place of birth is different from the other children's, and so on. |
|||
Researching: |