newbie problems

[suzard]

this is the family in 1891 -but george is not at home

1891
12 Fullerton Rd Croyden Surrey
Charles Holyoake head M 48 Decorater leicester
Annie wife 48 Walsham Suffolk
Henry son 21 Decorator
Elizabeth daughter 18 Domestic Servant
Gertrude daughter 12
Sidney son 10
Nettie daughter 8
Cedric son 1
children all b Croyden
RG12 593 25 45

I'll look for george in 1891

Suz

[suzard]

this looks like George in 1891
Royal navy
moored in Falmouth Harbour
Cornwall
George F Holyoake 16 Boy 2nd Class Croydon Surrey
RG12 1836 132 25

Suz

[ajaxbay]

thank you so much for your help. when you look at census dates ie 1881 annie is 36 yet 10 yrs later 1891 she is 48 is this commen because this has made me think i have been dealing with 2 different but close familys.
Also having come across a gf holyoake circa 1875 from croyden in navel records ie hms ganges i have thought it to be my grandad as i know he was in th navel reserve in ww1 as i have his medals but because my granads b cert says 1873 i have been ignoring the 1875 george thinking it a red herring.  almost wish i was not so fascinated its so confusing!!!!!

why would george be masquerading as two years younger than he actually was whilst in the navy?


sorry- does newbold leics mean george is from newbold leicestershire?

[lisamc10]

ive hit the same problems many of times aj gone back to the drawing board then discoverd its the same person,most people lied about there ages in order to join the army etc

[suzard]

newbold leics is the place of birth as given on the census records.

It is not unusual at all for ages to differ -not much importance wasplaced on year of birth - often the birth differs because of the time of year they were born and the time the census was taken

It must be the same george -as their are no other born around same time

I also think the George Sharman Holyoake who married Annie Amelia is "your" George too.

We are not allowed to post 1911 census (copyright issues etc) but you can search the index free. It may be worth buying credits to look at the 1911 census =the George married to Annie Amelia is listed as George frederick -not George Sharman -and has 5 children.

Suz

[suzard]

sorry- does newbold leics mean george is from newbold leicestershire?

I should have stated Newbold Leics is the place of birth given for Charles Holyoake

on the census there is (what is described as ) "head" this is head of that particular household
the relationships given are to the head of the household - at the side of each name is given the place of birth
1891 Charles gives p.o.b. as Leicester, Annie as Walsham Suffolk and all of the children were born Croyden Surrey

Hope this helps


Suz

[ajaxbay]

how does this explain the marriage ecord of george sharmen holyoake as listed june qurter 1897 2a 393?- are you saying that on the 1911 cencus georg is shown living with annie amelia? i had notyet established who he married in 1897 and of course i need to find if they divorced or she died before he married my gran in1919.

[carol8353]

Free BMD has this batch of people who married in 1897.

Marriages Jun 1897 
 
Barratt  Ada    Croydon  2a 393   
Coppard  Amelia Annie     Croydon  2a 393   
Holyoake  George Sharman     Croydon  2a 393   
Reeves  Oliver     Croydon  2a 393   

Suzard has found George in 1901 with an Amelia- so he must have married Amelia Coppard above. 

Carol

OOps sorry it was Jan who found 1901 

[suzard]

If you look at reply #12 from janan the 1901 census has been posted  and George F is with wife Amelia A .

Holyoake is quite an unusual surname so it makes searching a little easier - but there is only George Sharman Holyoake who has an Amelia A on the same page of the marriage register - then in 1901 he is George F.

The possibility is that "Sharman " is a verybad mistranscription of frederick???

The marriage cert is really needed -and the marriage cert too Annie e Fry

Can't the family remember any children form the first marriage???


Suz