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
Here's a puzzle for you all
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Twinkle | Report | 29 Aug 2003 22:39 |
Thanks for replying. I am fairly certain that my guess is correct in the case of the Herricks. Unfortunately, William Wakeham seemed to make his date of birth up as he went along - it may have had something to do with his getting a teenager pregnant when he was in his thirties! |
|||
|
Anthony | Report | 28 Aug 2003 21:56 |
Kathryn, Unless the previous respondent knows more than they're letting on, then it is unwise to assume the answer to either of these questions is Yes. Re: Wakeham, Free BMD shows a marriage between a William Henry Wakeham & Elizabeth Hooper in Reg District of Stoke Damerel Sep Qtr 1877 ref. 5b609. However, there is also a marriage of a William Henry Wakeham, same quarter, in Kingsbridge - not a million miles away, ref. 5b359. Was this also to an Elizabeth? FreeBMD is far from complete - there may also be others not yet shown. Perhaps you need to consult GRO Indexes / 1837 Online to investigate other possibilities before deciding the 'right one'. Are you descended from this couple? If so, then you presumably have names / approx dates of birth of at least some of their offspring - in which case look up GRO index of birth & obtain copy of certificate which will give you mothers maiden name. Re: Herrick, I assume you know John is alive at Williams wedding as he appears on certificate. However that doesn't mean he lived in Birmingham four years later or was even still alive, & so the one in the census born in Essex may not be the right one, although I agree it is perhaps likely. I think you could do worse than start by looking at the 1851 & 1861 census for the area in the hope of finding William with his father - these will confirm the tie-in & hopefully confirm Johns place of birth. Best of luck. Tony. |
|||
|
Keith | Report | 28 Aug 2003 19:40 |
Hi Kathryn. Yes and Yes. Good hunting. Keith |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Twinkle | Report | 28 Aug 2003 19:33 |
Well, two actually. Puzzle No.1 - I have a William Wakeham whom I know married an Elizabeth, who was born in 1860. Their first child was born when Elizabeth was around 18. Then I discovered a marriage between a William Wakeham and an Elizabeth Hooper in 1877, in the right place. I checked and there was an Elizabeth Hooper born in 1859. What is more interesting is my mum's recollection of an 'uncle' Ed Hooper. She can't remember if she was told he was a relative, but he did leave our family some war medals. Do you think that Elizabeth Hooper is my Elizabeth? Puzzle No.2 - I have a William Herrick born in Aston in 1857. His father was John Herrick, who was definately alive in 1877 for his son's wedding. There is only one John Herrick in the Birmingham area on the 1881 census. He is old enough to be William's dad, and was born in Essex. There are no John Herrick's in the Birmingham area on the 1851 census. Do you think the John from Essex is the right John Herrick? |