Author Topic: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census  (Read 4478 times)

Offline Milliepede

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,277
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 26 March 15 09:49 GMT (UK) »
As mother has remarried could they be under her new surname?  Appears to be Appleton.

Also how can she have remarried before 1911 if first husband is still alive in 1911 - did they divorce?

Marriage Dec 1910 Faversham
George Appleton
Amelia Wyles - was that her maiden name?

 ???
Hinchliffe - Huddersfield Wiltshire
Burroughs - Arlingham Glos
Pick - Frocester Glos

Offline Milliepede

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,277
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 26 March 15 10:15 GMT (UK) »
I'm not finding George alone in Deal - how is he described - married?

Ok a family tree says George and Amelia were never married

plus Amelia has a son Henry Wyles in 1904 - no father listed



Hinchliffe - Huddersfield Wiltshire
Burroughs - Arlingham Glos
Pick - Frocester Glos

Offline jibba

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 26 March 15 14:11 GMT (UK) »
Afternoon

Neither daughter appears when looking searching under Appleton, but will double check this later.

George and Amelia never married (long story) so she was free to marry when they separated c.1904/5. George isn't listed correctly on the last census and took a while to find. However cross referencing his details, despite an incorrect place of birth, confirm that he is my George. Interestingly he does list himself as married but the length of marriage matches up to when he and Amelia separated. Possibly another "wife" for me to find.

StevieStevie's post may be onto something. Will investigate.

Its just very odd how all but one of the sons are with the mother in 1911, but none of the daughters. In most cases this should be the other way around!

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 26 March 15 14:20 GMT (UK) »
It might have been easier for the daughters to find work in service, but at 9, Gladys would have been too young for that.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,847
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 26 March 15 15:22 GMT (UK) »
Hello,

Have you looked at this one?

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XW6M-5LY

On another index, I think she is Elsie Jacoks so writing might be bad  :)

Heywood
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 26 March 15 17:33 GMT (UK) »
That looks very like her  ;)
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,847
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 26 March 15 18:17 GMT (UK) »
Perhaps  :D
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline jibba

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • View Profile
Re: Missing Sisters in 1911 Census
« Reply #16 on: Friday 27 March 15 13:41 GMT (UK) »
Well done Heywood! That look like my Elsie despite the incorrect place of birth. The handwriting on the form is bad but there is enough there to assume the surname is meant to be Jacobs.

As for the Gladys StevieStevie found, I'm not so sure on. There is evidence to suggest that this really was someone called Gladys King, although the place of birth on the form is probably wrong

Will keep looking for Gladys. Hopefully she won't be that far from her mothers home!