Welcome, Guest. Please login or register for free.
Did you miss your activation email?
Tuesday 14 October 08 18:55 BST (UK)
Welcome Home Help Shop Search Calendar Login Register
Search Images Online
 
  First Name(s)
Last Name
 
News: Ad: New! FULL 1841 Census: England - Isle of Man - Wales  - Channel Islands Now online. No missing counties.

+  RootsChat.Com
|-+  England (Counties as in 1851-1901)
| |-+  England - General
| | |-+  Dorset (Moderator: RootsChat)
| | | |-+  james Snook/s
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: james Snook/s  (Read 942 times)
pixie6
RootsChat Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #30 on: Thursday 31 January 08 05:43 GMT (UK) »
Had someone look up nz details for james and he enlisted 21 march 1854, age at enlistment was 22, so born 1832.
His birthplace down as weymouth and discharge date 5 oct 1865, trade at enlistment was labourer.
I don't know if that ties in with the buckland ripers james snook born 1827?
Logged
Valda
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7144
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #31 on: Saturday 02 February 08 10:31 GMT (UK) »
The trouble with army records is they are notoriously unreliable. The army didn't really care much about ordinary men's details they were just anxious to recruit and more or less took anyone - under age, men using aliases, they really were not all that bothered, and not all that bothered whether they got exact details or not.
In records despite the mythology of women and their ages being a moveable feast, it is (at least in historical records) men who moved their ages up and down as it suited them, as for instance when enlisting in the army to appear younger (27 being a bit more old in the tooth for the army) or older (if under age). So age on enlistment in the army as far as the many army records I have looked at cannot be relied on to be exact and as I said once you leave a very small place people often gave the nearest well known larger town, which they may have spent some time living in anyway.

None of that actually rules in the James from Buckland Ripers or necessarily rules him out and unless you have checked Weymouth parish registers (not on the IGI or the BVRI for the period you are interested in) you cannot rule out a James Snook baptised in Weymouth. However on the 1841 and 1851 censuses there is no such James Snook, though he could of course be appearing under another surname. You really need more information from James' other army records in the hope there is more detail - there may be, there may not.

Regards

Valda
Logged
This information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »


[Copyright] [Free RootsChat Webspace] [Your Surname Interests] [Shrink Link] [About Us] [Terms of Use]
All Census Lookups are Crown Copyright, National Archives for academic and non-commercial research purposes only
RootsChat.com cannot be held responsible directly or indirectly for the messages or content posted by others. Inline images in messages are the copyright of the respective linked sites.
RootsChat.com, Europa House, Bury, Lancashire, BL9 5BT
0.33:21