Genealogy Chat

I just read a thread on records where someone couldnt find a family on the 1891. Someone else kindly replied giving a reference for the page taken from the 1837online info. Now am I being a thicko here, but does that mean peeps we cant find on ancestry COULD be found on 1837?

Hi Heather Well it's certainly worth a try - 1837online has a different transcription and a different filming of the census to that on Ancestry, so you never know, you may get lucky! Cheers, Richard

I find it is often easier to search for an 1841 transcription on British Origins (providing the county has been covered of course) than it is on Ancestry. Just a slightly different type of search format.

Have just tried to find my elusive Gt Grandfather on 1837, all I keep getting is 'your search has taken too long and has therefore stopped'. Fed up Linda

Linda - can we help ?

Yes please Looking for James Moyce b. 1860 (age seems to range from 1860 to 1865) Deptford. Have him on 1861, 71, 81 and 1901. 1881 View Record Name Estimated Birth Year Birthplace Relationship to head-of-house Civil parish County View Record Eliza Moyce abt 1858 Deptford, Kent, England Daughter Deptford St Paul London View Record Elizabeth Moyce abt 1828 Deptford, Kent, England Wife Deptford St Paul London View Record James Moyce abt 1817 Deptford, Kent, England Head Deptford St Paul London View Record James Moyce abt 1863 Deptford, Kent, England Son Deptford St Paul London View Record Thomas Moyce abt 1861 Deptford, Kent, England Son Deptford St Paul London 1901 View Record Name Estimated Birth Year Birthplace Relationship Civil Parish County/Island View Image View Record Julia Jessum abt 1887 Deptford Stepdaughter St Paul London View Record Maryan Jessum abt 1889 Deptford Stepdaughter St Paul London View Record James Moyce abt 1895 Deptford Son St Paul London View Record Janes Moyce abt 1864 Deptford Head St Paul London View Record Nellie Moyce abt 1899 Deptford Daughter St Paul London View Record Selina Moyce abt 1860 Deptford Wife St Paul London View Record Sidney Moyce abt 1897 Deptford Son St Paul London Thanks very much for your time, Unfortunately have to go to work now. Will check back after 6.00 p.m. Linda

So could be worth buying some units on there - now who told me she had loads left for that site ....................hmmm..............rushes to check pms

1891 - have a look at image - I think name should read Jutsum - not Elsom Unfortunately the James Bayee looks like James Bayes - but I wondered if this could be your James prior to his marriage to Selina (see below) - age and place of birth fit - maybe name misheard by enumerator (may be not!!) James Bayee abt 1865 Deptford, Kent, England Boarder St Paul Deptford London Florence E Elsom abt 1884 Deptford, Kent, England Daughter St Paul Deptford London Julia E Elsom abt 1887 Deptford, Kent, England Daughter St Paul Deptford London Mary A Elsom abt 1889 Deptford, Kent, England Daughter St Paul Deptford London Selma Jane Elsom abt 1864 Deptford, Kent, England Head St Paul Deptford London 25 Knott Street (in 1901 they were living at 33 Knott Street) RG12/494 Registration district: Greenwich Sub registration district: St Paul Deptford ED, institution, or vessel: 2 Folio: 45 Page: 20 ---------------------- Possible marriage of James & Selina Year of Registration: 1900 Quarter of Registration: Jul-Aug-Sep District: Camberwell (1837-1919) County: London, Surrey Volume: 1d Page: 1720 Selina Jutsum 1900 Jul-Aug-Sep Camberwell (1837-1919) London, Surrey James Moyce 1900 Jul-Aug-Sep Camberwell (1837-1919) London, Surrey -------------- 1901 census you have - with James, Selina and family --------------- That´s the best I could do! (All from Ancestry!) Elaine

That definitely reads Selina Jane----------- James Boyce boarder magnified to 125% they are your people

If you are ignorant, Heather (which you are not!!) then I am too!!!! I haven't used 1837 for quite some time as I have an Ancestry subscription. When I did use it I only searched for BMD records. What else do they have? I have one or two elusive rellies who I can't find on some of the censuses on Ancestry.

Thanks for that Alter Ego - new glasses are definitely required here!! Still at least it´s solved Linda´s puzzle.

'H' Morning, hope your a little better today. Your welcome to use some of my credits on 1837!!! They have changed the site alot. Let me know. Enjoy the sun!! janey

The Elsom entry looks dodgy- the only name that makes sense is Simmonds or Simpson as there was a marriage round about the time of the first born for a selina jane simpson-but the image doesnt look like that or Elsom.

Alter Ego, I agree - it doesn´t look like Elsom. I think it is Jutsum, which fits in with the Selina Jutsum and James Boyce marriage in 1900. Elaine

Thanks Jane - may do that if you dont mind. Glitter, yes it was your message I meant. So desperate to find this William Dixon born 1821 Rotherhithe, Surrey. Marriage cert 1848 shows him with father spelt John Dixson but Im blowed if I can find his baptism or his father anywhere.

Ohhhhhh, rushes to 1837 to spend Janes units (oops, did I say that out loud?) only to find they only have 1861 and 91 online. Aaargh.

This is Selina Jane Jetsums record-the only one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Event(s): Birth: 15 JUL 1860 Christening: 05 AUG 1860 Saint Paul, Deptford, Kent, England Death: Burial: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parents: Father: WILLIAM JUTSUM Family Mother: MARGARET ELIZABETH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The birth isnt on bmd,despite 2 others with that surname from london being registered in that year.This is where its handy cross referencing. Note that the age on the census of 1891 must be wrong.

But the Selina/Selma Elsom/Jutsum on 1891 is listed as being married - so Jutsum is probably not her maiden name.

What is surprising is that there is another selina jane boyce living in london-be careful-!! she is married to a daniel and they have children aged 9 and 5 in the 1901 census