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
James Kendall 1842
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Philip | Report | 6 Feb 2014 08:21 |
Hi I have traced the Kendall,s back to 1842 but cannot go any further can anyone help? |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 09:09 |
They should both be on 1851 census............have you looked? |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 09:11 |
Is this what you think is their marriage? |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 09:20 |
Please post some evidence of the info you have given............. |
|||
|
Mary | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:08 |
1851 Cogenhoe Northamptonshire |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:08 |
This will be the couple you mean, in 1891: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:09 |
|
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:15 |
Various marriages of James Kendalls to Mary Anns 1861 - 1871, none of them in either Yorkshire or Northants. And no Wilkinsons. But as they were living in Middlesex from early marriage, I'll guess at this: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:20 |
Ancestry suggests Mary Ann Kendall is Mary Ann Wilkinson, but there's no suggested marriage record, and no proof that the suggested link is correct. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:22 |
???? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:24 |
So it is JAMES...............not JOHN |
|||
|
Mel Fairy Godmother | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:25 |
Here is that marriage. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:26 |
??? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:27 |
|
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:28 |
His birth may not have been registered - no penalty until 1875 |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:31 |
Get a copy of this - for FACTS about the mother |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:35 |
1862 would make Mary no more than 10/11 when the marriage took place.................. |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:40 |
It may, of course, be the case that they never actually married................ |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:44 |
You're right about the marriage year, Reggie - silly me. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 6 Feb 2014 10:45 |
Presumably, the child James born c1869 died..............a second James was born c1883 |