Genealogy Chat
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
your thoughts please
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Margaretfinch | Report | 12 May 2005 20:23 |
|
HI to you all so then he aged 20 years in 10 years, and the marriage certificate is plainly 24 so do you think he was a lot older at least 15 years older when he married Margaret |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julia | Report | 12 May 2005 20:21 |
|
Definitely says 44 on the image! Maybe he lied about his age so it wouldn't look too different from his brides on the wedding cert? Perhaps he didn't want her to know he was 13 years older than her! |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 12 May 2005 20:20 |
|
Yes the image is 44 though the bloke writing it had already made the mistake of putting it in the female column first. I take it that the wifes details all match up with the marriage? There was another William Poole on the 1881 who I think was 10 years younger but still living in Haverhill. |
|||
|
Debby | Report | 12 May 2005 20:19 |
|
The image says 44 Debby |
|||
|
Margaretfinch | Report | 12 May 2005 20:18 |
|
I have only seen the family search 1881 census I don't know about the image on the 1881 census and I know for sure his wife was a widow by the 1891 census. thank you Margaret |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julia | Report | 12 May 2005 20:15 |
|
Can you view the image? I found one who was supposed to be 44 but it said 86!! When I looked at the image it was definitely 44! Give us the details and I can ake a look for you. |
|||
|
The Bag | Report | 12 May 2005 20:14 |
|
have you looked at the actual images and read the ages? |
|||
|
Margaretfinch | Report | 12 May 2005 20:11 |
|
I have a William Poole marriage certificate in 1871 states he was 24 married parish church Haverhill Suffolk fathers name George, in the 1881 census I found him and his family but it says he is then 44?? born Haverhill, now the only William Poole with a father George that I can find was in 1831 which means he was 39-40 when he married not 24 what are the odds that this is the same William, I can't find him anywhere else not even a death certificate, in 1881 they were living in Edmonton Middlesex with daughters Emma and Kate. three years I have been at this nothing makes sense. Any ideas Thank you Margaret |
|||
Researching: |
|||