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
John Baker 1888 - Bethnal Green
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 18:39 |
Yes, I think we'll wait for Rita. I think that other child b1917 it just too much of a co-incidence! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 18:44 |
I'll post this while I have it handy. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
LondonBelle | Report | 25 Nov 2014 18:49 |
The address given on Albert Baker's Service Records is 20 Digby Walk the same as the 1911 census that you've just posted, rootgatherer. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 25 Nov 2014 20:19 |
I have to agree with you folks. I think that Rita has the wrong parents for Albert and they are Nicholas Samuel & Harriet not John and Esther even though Rita seems to be pretty positive about her results. Which means that I've been researching the wrong family. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 20:49 |
I thought you were on the right track Margee until Rita posted details of Albert's marriage and children. I was just looking to see if Albert's marriage was on Ancestry and if the names of the witnesses would help. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 20:55 |
Name: Samuel Baker, Labourer, 20 James Street |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 20:59 |
1891 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rita | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:04 |
Yes that is correct Londonbelle and rootgatherer - Albert IS on my previous message as a son of Albert Senior born 1899 and his wife Rose Barlow. How did I find Albert senior's parents? Through various Census' then once I had her christian name I compared it with all the possible marriage partners of his father that fitted the criteria. Seems to work most of the time! |
|||
|
Rita | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:19 |
Incidentally - was it not the practise in days gone by for children to be given the names of their parents? For instance, with regard to my Albert born 1889 and his wife Rose born 1914 - their first two born were Rose b 1915 and Albert 1917. As a puzzle that fits very nicely...... |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:26 |
But the Albert who married Rose in 1914 says he was 21 making him born 1893. This is getting confusing! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:30 |
We're not disputing Albert & Rose, Rita, just the parents of Albert. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:32 |
Well in Scotland if parents were following the traditional naming pattern (which certainly wasn't always the case) it would be the third son and third daughter that were named for the parents. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:33 |
This has already been posted but, what the heck! Her name is definitely Rose on the original and it shows Albert's father as Samuel. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 21:45 |
Rose Barlow's husband Albert was unlikely to have been born in 1899 if he married in 1914. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rita | Report | 25 Nov 2014 22:18 |
Where are we at the moment guys - I replied to your last comment but it has disappeared from the screen - think I maybe doing something wrong! I had said that re Albert 1889 - his first born son Albert 1917 was named after him and likewise the first born child (a daughter) Rose 1915 was named after her mother that seemed to be quite common in the 'old days'. |
|||
|
MargaretM | Report | 25 Nov 2014 22:25 |
Your message is still there, Rita, and my response was that we're not disputing the fact that Albert & Rose had children named Albert & Rose. It's Albert's parents that we're disputing.. The marriage record gives his father's name as Samuel. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rita | Report | 25 Nov 2014 22:27 |
O K Guys thank you for your time and trouble - you have been very helpful I now know what to work on - 'back to the drawing board' for me.... |
|||
|
rootgatherer | Report | 25 Nov 2014 23:00 |
Rita, if you are sure that the Albert who married Rose is your Albert, then it's not quite back to the drawing board. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rita | Report | 25 Nov 2014 23:57 |
|
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 26 Nov 2014 08:16 |
(phew!, that was a bit worrying folks, lol, saw below last night, the Moulton Witness connection!) |