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
More help with census please. Please ignore tick.
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 16 Aug 2013 01:12 |
Maybe Ann Eckersley had a fling with her brother-in-law??? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 16 Aug 2013 01:08 |
Going off son Elijah's birth, the mother's maiden name was BURY |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 16 Aug 2013 01:01 |
Re James's first wife, plenty of candidates. Does Lancs BMD give his first marriage? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:58 |
Pity! That was an appealing theory about Elijah! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:55 |
Maybe significant. |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:48 |
Not William's son .... |
|||
Marked as Answered | |||
|
Mike * | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:41 |
Off the wall theory so bear with me. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:41 |
The Eckersley daughters were all too young to have had a child in 1841, so if he was illegitimate he could have been a nephew, or else the son of a neice. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:28 |
Trouble is the boy Eckersley was born to a mother maiden name Eckersley so most likely unmarried. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 16 Aug 2013 00:28 |
GRO refs for the birth and death Mike found: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 15 Aug 2013 23:22 |
I'd also say that he was William and Ann's child. On the 1851 census there is a gap between the births of Timothy and Martha (when Abram was probably born and died). |
|||
|
Christina(Lancashire) | Report | 15 Aug 2013 22:33 |
Thank you Mike & ArgyllGran. Shame the 1841 didn't record relationships. It looked as though he was William & Ann's child. If he wasn't, then he was very young, at 3 days old, to be away from his mother. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 15 Aug 2013 18:22 |
Yes, Christina, Abram's name is correct. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 15 Aug 2013 18:16 |
OR... |
|||
|
Mike * | Report | 15 Aug 2013 18:08 |
???????? |
|||
|
Christina(Lancashire) | Report | 15 Aug 2013 17:23 |
Thank you Kath & Potty. Much appreciated. :-) |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 15 Aug 2013 17:05 |
Not much luck with the 1841 but this looks like the birth of the Martha in the 1851: |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 15 Aug 2013 17:00 |
Is this them in the 1841 census? :- |
|||
|
Christina(Lancashire) | Report | 15 Aug 2013 16:37 |
Found possible deaths for Mary & Timothy aged 76 & 84 respectively. |
|||
|
Christina(Lancashire) | Report | 15 Aug 2013 16:16 |
Thank you George. Both still living, that's a bonus. Off to look for possible deaths now. :-) |