RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Census Lookup and Resource Requests => Topic started by: ohbodder on Sunday 10 December 17 19:55 GMT (UK)
-
I'm trying to find information on a branch of my wifes ancestors who came from Dunkirk, Kent.
I think I may have found them in the 1841 census, but the copy on Ancestry.co.uk is so faint it is impossible to read. The page is :-
Piece 466
Book 5
Page number 1
The family I'm looking for could be the first 8 people on the page. They have been transcribed somehow, but other than Susanna, I can't really make any names out.
Does anyone know if any other websites have a clearer image of this page, or know of any computer techniques or software that might make the page readable.
:)
-
Hi am using a different site and original as you say unreadable, was it the Bice ( Price in 1851) /Brunger or White families you were looking for?
Keyboard86
Full ref HO107/466 / 5/4 / 1
Keyboard86
-
Hi am using a different site and original as you say unreadable, was it the Bice ( Price in 1851) /Brunger or White families you were looking for?
I was hoping to find the Waters family, on Ancestry it is transcribed as W??kert which someone has added a correction as Waters, the only name I can make out is Susanna.
-
:) OK my site has transcribed the family as WHITE Father George 35 Susanna 35 and family.
What is it you wish to view if possible on that census?
Keyboard86
-
You could try downloading the page as an image, then with whatever imaging software you have (MS Office picture manager, or one of the many freeware programs) mess around with contrast and brightness to improve it. That often works for me.
Good luck
Philip
-
Piece 466
Book 5
Page number 1
The family I'm looking for could be the first 8 people on the page. They have been transcribed somehow, but other than Susanna, I can't really make any names out.
They are the last on the page, not the first, and son George is first on the second page.
Debra :D
-
George, no age visable to me, Susanna, 35, Ann, 14, Mary?, 10, William, 9, Martha, 7, Maria, 5, Catherine, 3, George, 3? months. All indicated as born in the county except father George which appears blank to me. I can't make out his occupation.
Debra :D
-
They are the last on the page, not the first, and son George is first on the second page.
Debra :D
So they are :-[
No wonder I couldn't match the names and ages to what I knew already.
Thank you.
You could try downloading the page as an image, then with whatever imaging software you have (MS Office picture manager, or one of the many freeware programs) mess around with contrast and brightness to improve it. That often works for me.
Good luck
Philip
I had a go at that but it didn't help very much, maybe if I'd been looking at the right family it might have helped :D Once I was looking at the right part I had a go with gamma correction and channel splitting which has made it a bit more readable, but hasn't revealed any new information.
Still, it helps with one query I had, who was the Maria that Susannah lived with in 1871 census. But doesn't confirm (as most trees I've seen show) that George and Susannah married in 1838, as they already had 4-5 children by then.
Thanks for all your help
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
GRO Index Birth Regs;
WATERS, CATHERINE, Mothers mn GRANT***
GRO Reference: 1838 D Quarter in FAVERSHAM UNION Volume 05 Page 152
WATERS, GEORGE, Mothers mn GRANT***
GRO Reference: 1840 D Quarter in FAVERSHAM UNION Volume 05 Page 162
It looks to me that Susannah was a Widow when she married George 1838.
Susanah AUSTEN, maiden name GRANT
You need to find all the Baptisms of the Children pre 1838 under either Waters or Austen.
The reason I say that is George may have been Widowed also and on 1841 Census the older Children are possibly from both earlier Marriages.
Only buying the M/C will confirm definitely.
Trish :)
-
It looks to me that Susannah was a Widow when she married George 1838.
Susanah AUSTEN, maiden name GRANT
You need to find all the Baptisms of the Children pre 1838 under either Waters or Austen.
The reason I say that is George may have been Widowed also and 1841 the Children are possibly from both earlier Marriages.
Only buying the M/C will confirm definitely.
Trish :)
That makes sense, I'll look into it.
Thank you
Rob
-
Hi again Rob, I'm amazed with all the Family Trees on this Family no one seems to have brought the 1838 M/C.
Trish :)
-
Maybe I've got it all wrong - are you looking at the marriages in September quarter 1838 - Canterbury Registration District?
Susanna/Susannah Austen
Henry Cullen Carter
Jane Court Cullen
John Hayward
William Kerr Loveless
Sarah Elizabeth Maynard
Mary Simmons Philpot
George Waters
John Hayward marries Susanna/Susannah Austen
George Waters marries Mary Simmons Philpot
Henry Cullen Carter marries Jane Court Cullen
William Kerr Loveless marries Sarah Elizabeth Maynard
Images for all 4 marriages, at All Saints, Canterbury, are on FindMyPast.
-
St Mildred, Canterbury - by Banns - 25 December 1830
George Waters, bachelor and Susan Grant, spinster.
-
Snap, BB :)
Just found it too - that site is running very slow for me :-\
Added - William (Wm) Grant one of the witnesses
-
I can only see two baptisms - Christ Church, Dunkirk
Elizabeth - 21 May 1843 - George (Blacksmith) and Susannah of Dunkirk
Emma - 23 March 1845 - George (Blacksmith) and Susannah of Dunkirk
-
I'm on an old laptop which only has an old version of Photoshop on it so a bit limited but have tried to bring up George's details.
It looks as if he might be 55 ( add - or 35) and I think I see the shape of Blacksmith there - definitely a B and a k, etc.
Could Ann, aged 14, be a child born to them before marriage as the marriage entry has Susan's name as Waters crossed out and Grant inserted?
Will see if I can get the snip up via a link - see below
Gadget
Added :
(http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=370538.0;attach=471204;image)
-
Maybe I've got it all wrong - are you looking at the marriages in September quarter 1838 - Canterbury Registration District?
...
John Hayward marries Susanna/Susannah Austen
George Waters marries Mary Simmons Philpot
Henry Cullen Carter marries Jane Court Cullen
William Kerr Loveless marries Sarah Elizabeth Maynard
Images for all 4 marriages, at All Saints, Canterbury, are on FindMyPast.
The 1838 marriage bothered me, seems like people trying to make the evidence fit where they want it to.
The 1830 marriage seems much more likely. Pity I can't find more accurate birth dates for the two eldest children on the 1841 census at the moment.
I'm on an old laptop which only has an old version of Photoshop on it so a bit limited but have tried to bring up George's details.
It looks as if he might be 55 ( add - or 35) and I think I see the shape of Blacksmith there - definitely a B and a k, etc.
He'd probably be 35, and he was a blacksmith.
Could Ann, aged 14, be a child born to them before marriage as the marriage entry has Susan's name as Waters crossed out and Grant inserted?
Is this from FindMyPast?
Thank you both
-
Yes.
Added: possible reason I can't see earlier baptisms, at Dunkirk, might be that earlier volumes are not available to view. :-\
-
Yes.
Added: possible reason I can't see earlier baptisms, at Dunkirk, might be that earlier volumes are not available to view. :-\
The earlier births might not have been in Dunkirk, third child William seems to have been born in Sittingbourne, Kent. So the older two could also have been born there or elsewhere.
-
Dunkirk supposedly from 1810 for baptisms. Nothing for Sittingbourne at all. Preston near Faversham only 1500's.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/articles/world-records/full-list-of-united-kingdom-records/life-events-bmds/kent-canterbury-archdeaconry-parish-list
-
According to Family Search - Catherine, daughter of George and Susannah Waters was baptised at Harbledown - 25 November 1838. Transcription only and the information came from the BTs. No coverage so far from FindMyPast.
It looks as though the church in Dunkirk only came into existence in 1841.
-
Well done everyone :)
I got it wrong as I though she may have been Widowed and did not have access to the 1830 Marriage.
I apologise.
Trish :)
-
Well done everyone :)
I got it wrong as I though she may have been Widowed and did not have access to the 1830 Marriage.
I apologise.
Trish :)
Don't worry, it sounded plausible without the 1830 info, added to the fact that most previous researchers have taken the easy path and assume the 1838 marriage was right because the names almost fitted.
I had a similar example in my mothers family tree. I was looking for the maiden name for a Caroline Hill my great great great grandmother. No sign of a husband in the censuses, so a look through other family trees found a marriage in 1850 for Henry Hill and Caroline Sparrow, surely that was the right one, the names fit? Bought the marriage certificate to find that Caroline Sparrow married James Sparrow so not the right one at all. After a lot more digging I found she was actually a Matthews, had children with a least one,possibly two men named Hill, but never married them and children with another man, again never married but used his name.
-
Thank you, yes Families can be complicated ;)