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
Trying to Find
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:29 |
After being so well received on my derbyshire threads..I am ashamed to say i have made a complete boo boo on my own tree. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:33 |
Derek |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:33 |
Possible 1871 |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:35 |
Hi Julie.no i haven't....I'm hoping that Mary was either the sister or the husband of James..if that fails then i have to look further.....thanks for your idea. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:36 |
From 1871 census I would say that Mary was Ann's sister? |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:37 |
Thanks catherine.....that's 1871.....which i have...but gives no hint of her parents. Mary and Ann possible sisters..thanks for that |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:41 |
The Jane Watson who is also noted as niece has Bamber as maiden name too, so another possible sister? |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:46 |
This is the 1861 might be them |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:49 |
1851 |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:49 |
In 1861 Jane is living with Mary (from 1871 census), noted as niece. |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:52 |
1841 |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:54 |
Hi catherine and Julie...have found Ann daighter of James and mary (1861 Census) but born Salford..........which i quite fancy........BUT |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:56 |
HENRY BAMBER |
|||
|
Choccy | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:57 |
In 1881 Ann Bamber is with Jane Hoole as a niece, BUT she married in 1872 didn't she? |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 22:57 |
If its nat help i have James Bamber 1808-c1870..and Mary .Hopefully his wife...1813-1893.............ant chance of Mary being born Hoole???? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 23:00 |
Hi Wilma....oh dear..you're right..i only picked her up on the 1871.......not her then......... |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 23:11 |
The other 1871 census:- |
|||
|
Catherine | Report | 28 Apr 2009 23:21 |
So have you dismissed the 1871 census, Ann with sisters Mary and Jane, living with Mary Slater ? |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 28 Apr 2009 23:35 |
No catherine.I've dismissed nothing..........but I think I made to mistake of accepting Jane Hoole as part of my tree........I'd rather i was able to confirm your idea than rejecting it........at the moment i have rebecca Hoole as part of the jigsaw............I'll Pm you and opne my tree for you to have a looksee...........Derek |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
lancashireAnn | Report | 28 Apr 2009 23:56 |
didn't read right to the end of your post Derek before I posted the above |
|||
Researching: |