RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: pipkim on Sunday 07 January 07 10:41 GMT (UK)
-
(This is from the 1871 census)
I know this man is a jeweller from a later census return.
He also claims he is born London in the 1891 census, although in 1881 he says born Birmingham.
Please can anyone decipher the place his was supposed to be born in this 1871 census and is the occupation Jeweller?
Many Thanks
Pipkim ???
He's another one who has been hiding!!! ::)
Edited: Sorry image was to big, hope this one worked
-
looks like Warwick, Birmingham to me :)
Gadget
-
Thanks Gadget, do you think that is what is said under the line?
Pipkim
-
I agree with Gadget.......dee
-
Thanks Gadget, do you think that is what is said under the line?
Pipkim
Hi Pipkin
It looks as if a mess was made of the whole entry. If you notice, jeweller has been written in in place of something scored out. Then under where born there was originally something, London which has been scored out and Warwick Birmingham written in its place. I'm sure it refers to that top line - the rest are -dos- but for the life of me I don't understand what N.K followed by 'do' means unless it's Birmingham for them all ::) ::) ::)
Gadget
-
Hi Gadget,
In 1891 he is down as born London and his family are all Warwickshire, Birmingham, but in 1881 he is down as Birmingham (may be because of ease). I wonder is N.K. is Not Known and was the ennumerator giving up and put Birmingham for the rest. If that makes sense!
I'm waiting eagerly for his sons birth certificate, which I'm hoping will give me the sons mothers maiden name and then I can pinpoint his marriage. But if he ends up coming from London, I fear I may loose him with a name like Baily/Bailey - it's almost as bad as Smith, I'm leaving those for another time.
-
I still think that Birmingham refers to his entry, Pipkin :)
Gadget
-
Thanks Gadget, I'll work with that, hopefuly that will make the search easier.
Cheers
Pipkim ;)
-
To me it looks like Wallend in London and then the ditto in the next line was scored out and replaced with Birmingham for the birthplaces of all of the others
-
But the first line is definitely scored out, Falkyrn ??? ??? ???
I agree Wall or War something :-\ Could it be Warwick - if you compare it with Warwickshire lower down?
Gadget
-
I think it might be Walsall.
meles
-
Might well be Wallsall , meles :)
Does the scoring out read something like 'East End to London' :-\
Gadget
PS - please can someone remove the wide image :( :( :(
-
There is a Wallend in East London (Newham) .... there are also references to Kent
-
I don't think the crossed out bit is "London" - no tall letter. I really can't make anything out, as hard as I try.
meles
-
The man in question generally calls himself James, but in 1881 calls himself John, maybe because his family, was living with his father and he also was called James.
As some of you still think there is an outside chance of his place of birth is in or around London, I did another search for births and found a John James Baily b1845 Pancras (not quite the right place I know).
I think I've developed a bad head and need to find my glasses.
Pipkim
-
Hi Gadget,
I wonder is N.K. is Not Known and was the ennumerator giving up and put Birmingham for the rest. If that makes sense!
NK for 'not known' has probably been written (in a different colour on the original) by the census clerk in the cesus office, who was extracting birthplaces for the statistical records, and could not decipher it.
Stan
-
The man in question generally calls himself James, but in 1881 calls himself John, maybe because his family, was living with his father and he also was called James.
As some of you still think there is an outside chance of his place of birth is in or around London, I did another search for births and found a John James Baily b1845 Pancras (not quite the right place I know).
I think I've developed a bad head and need to find my glasses.
Pipkim
Having had yet another look at it ::) ::) ::) I'm starting to think that the 'to' I thought in my earler posting is possibly the Lo of London. The handwriting is very scrawly and it would fit - a small lo - followed by a very scrawly ndon :-\
Have you checked for him on the 1851 or his father on the 1841?
Gadget
Added - there are quite a few possible James Bail(l)eys b.c. 1845 with father James in London on the 1851.