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
Jane Wilson (nee Percival)
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Julie | Report | 25 May 2020 16:23 |
My thoughts too ArgyllGran. The 1881 census being a lodging house makes it more likely that marital status might be wrongly recorded. At the Asylum, entries in 1901 & 1911 may also have been based on incomplete information. As a result I spread my window for a death for Jane up to and beyond 1911. I suspect that in 1881 the John listed with Reuben is the same John as appears on the 1871 census, the lodging house personnel may have assumed John's surname to be Wilson, or he may have adopted that name. This is perhaps a pointer to Jane being dead by then, which would explain why there is no census entry for her after 1871. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 25 May 2020 15:55 |
Reuben is listed as widowed in both 1901 and 1911. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 25 May 2020 15:36 |
malyon, the Shawcroft middle name doesn't fit with my Jane, there are no Shawcrofts in her ancestry, so I'm a bit dubious that this is her death. |
|||
|
malyon | Report | 25 May 2020 15:13 |
Deaths Jun 1882 |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 25 May 2020 14:35 |
malyon, I've seen some grossly inaccurate details on other census records, including wrong names and ages. In those cases the census concerned had another one for the family 10 years later that in effect reverted to the "correct" information, thus demonstrating that the census data in between was mis-recorded. As a consequence I haven't fully discounted the possibility that it is Jane in 1891. That made me look for death details for Jane from 1871 onwards, not just 1871 to 1891. |
|||
|
malyon | Report | 25 May 2020 14:14 |
could not be jane in 1891 census jane would be 54 years old kate is 40 yrs |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 25 May 2020 12:45 |
True, but equally the birth could have been registered as Wilson if Kate had taken Reuben's surname even though not married. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 25 May 2020 12:36 |
ArgyllGran, forgot to mention I'd see that birth regn, but as I can't see a marriage for Reuben to a Kate Smith or some variant. If Mary Ann is a "foster" child her birth regn could be under a completely different name. |
|||
|
ArgyllGran | Report | 25 May 2020 12:14 |
Possibly the birth of Mary Ann: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 25 May 2020 11:48 |
I'm trying to establish what happened to Jane after the 1871 census. She was born in Southwell, Notts in 1837 and married Reuben Wilson there in 1863. I have the couple on the 1871 census |