majm: Thank you for re-posting my first initial post as well as the other one , the highlights , the bold and enlarged print.
I am hoping this will confirm what I have been saying all along but apparently not getting through to some.
majm: "Each of us come to RootsChat either seeking advice or offering advice or as a combination of those. The Opening Post included the words "Any kind of advice greatly appreciated". On reading back through this thread I can see that we have given our OP all kinds of sensible advice, together with explanations, local knowledge, specific knowledge, links, and have endeavoured to help our OP help her friend. Her friend's quest is basically to find the names of the parents of Mary Ann's husband. " (This was followed by the re-posting mentioned above.)
Clearly, I did not at any time ask anyone to help me research the origins of CHW and neither was I expecting anyone to do so. I asked for and I repeat (for the last and final time I hope)
""Does anyone know if adoption records for this era are now available to the public? Any kind of advice greatly appreciated."
How others came to assume that I was asking for advice on anything other than adoption records I haven't as yet been able to work out. And if I have made a mistake at all, it is that I probably should have said "Any kind of advice ON ADOPTION RECORDS greatly appreciated." However, I wasn't aware that I needed to spell it out, so clearly a small oversight on my part. I had expected to be given advice as to where I might have been able to access adoption records. for instance, Ancestry and the like, archives, other websites etc. etc. Hopefully we can now put that issue to bed.
Post #12 mygirlbill " ........ my friend seems to think that he was adopted and Wakefield was his adopted name. That being my reason for inquiring about adoption records. Any other suggestions gratefully received.
"
In this instance I am clearly asking for suggestions other than adoption and again NOT for help in finding CHW.
Just getting back to posts 47 and 48 which I wasn't able to give too much time to earlier on this morning before heading out starting with an earlier post.
Post #21 majm "................... it could be that the longhand writing was in a scribble and the surname has been 'mis-read' or it could be that the birth was registered in another surname or the given names were reversed, or that Charles was raised as Charles, but registered under a different name. There are many explanations."
In my post #44 which was in reply to Sparrett's post #42 " G'day Sue. Charles Henry Wakefield claimed to have been born in 1875 in Rockhampton. The Claremont Wakefields also had a son (John) born in 1875 albeit that he was born in Claremont and an exact date at this point in time is unknown. If they are one and the same, then it would mean that Charles Henry had taken on a false identity which as I have mentioned earlier, I will not rule out entirely until proven otherwise. However, at this point in time, I doubt very much that they are one and the same. I wonder if on marriage and death certificates of these Claremont born Wakefields the names of their parents were given?
?"
Reply by Sparrat #46 "I am not in any way suggesting, by any means whatever, that John WAKEFIELD and Charles Henry WAKEFIELD are the same person and I do not know where you got the idea
" Followed further down by,
"If your friend wants more guidance and support, he/she will need to reflect on the answers given in the thread with an open mind."
First I want to refer back to post #10 mygirlbill " Charles Henry Wakefield is not an ancestor of mine. He's an ancestor of a friend of mine who is not on the computer and so I've offered to help her ....
You must have overlooked this post it perhaps?
? I might add to that that she is elderly and not computer literate.
My reply #48 " Not at all accusing you of suggesting that John Wakefield and CHW are one and the same. I was merely stating I knew of their son John who was born in 1875 also and speculated that "if they are one and the same....." Can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?"
This brings us once again back to post #21. ".................. it could be that the longhand writing was in a scribble and the surname has been 'mis-read' or it could be that the birth was registered in another surname or the given names were reversed,
or that Charles was raised as Charles, but registered under a different name. " There are many explanations."
Can I assume that this post was overlooked as well?
I think this proves that I at least reflect on the answers given in the thread with an open mind.
In reply to post #50. Sorry majm, I was not aware that I could access the exact dates of birth. As I have already told you, I'm not very knowledgeable regarding English and Australian genealogy.
Also, yes I am aware that not all school records are on line however, seeing as he claims to have been born in Rockhampton, I decided to see if I could find an attendance for him there but as I've mentioned earlier, I wasn't able to find one.
Aussie1947. Yes, we are aware of the electoral rolls info. But unfortunately, it doesn't answer as to whether he was adopted or not.
Once again many thanks for your help and support and thanks also to the other volunteers however I do think that we have exhausted this thread now. Thank you.
