1
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Illegitimate baptism record
« on: Sunday 18 April 21 22:38 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much! Reputed father makes so much sense, and yet I could have stared it for hours without guessing that.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Illegitimate baptism record
« on: Sunday 18 April 21 17:14 BST (UK) »
Does anyone know what the phrase is that appears between "Jane Earl" and "Edward Blythe" on the middle row of this baptism record? From the context, and comparing it to the records either side where only one surname is listed, I assume it has something to do with Lucy being illegitimate, but what does it actually say? Many thanks.
3
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Physical description on convict record
« on: Thursday 25 February 21 13:34 GMT (UK) »
H definitely seems to be for high, but the letter after B doesn't look like the r in "fresh" or in "grey." I guess you could describe a forehead as bland, although googling it just brings up people called Bland.
4
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Physical description on convict record
« on: Thursday 25 February 21 13:07 GMT (UK) »
Ooh, oval would make sense for head, thank you!
5
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Physical description on convict record
« on: Thursday 25 February 21 12:33 GMT (UK) »
I'm struggling with a few words on this convict record. I've got Complexion: fresh, ?? : ??, Hair: grey, Whiskers: do, Visage: round, ?? : ??, Eyebrows: black, Eyes: blue, Nose: large.
From other records I think the missing items might be head and forehead, but I have no idea what the description for the head might be. Forehead might be HBland - so high and bland, if that was a thing?
From other records I think the missing items might be head and forehead, but I have no idea what the description for the head might be. Forehead might be HBland - so high and bland, if that was a thing?
6
Australia / Re: significance of comments on convict record
« on: Tuesday 29 December 20 14:00 GMT (UK) »
Oh yes, I see - 2 children right in the page gutter!
It does seem very strange that he should have said that Susan Marsh was his wife - he certainly didn't acknowledge her as such in England, nor did she ever use his surname. It is noticeable that the newspapers start off by describing her as his "sister-in-law", and then as "calling herself his sister-in-law" and then as "a woman living with him". She did go to visit him on the hulk at Woolwich, so it would have been common gossip that she was his wife - could that have overruled anything he tried to claim to the contrary?
It does seem very strange that he should have said that Susan Marsh was his wife - he certainly didn't acknowledge her as such in England, nor did she ever use his surname. It is noticeable that the newspapers start off by describing her as his "sister-in-law", and then as "calling herself his sister-in-law" and then as "a woman living with him". She did go to visit him on the hulk at Woolwich, so it would have been common gossip that she was his wife - could that have overruled anything he tried to claim to the contrary?
7
Australia / Re: significance of comments on convict record
« on: Tuesday 29 December 20 13:19 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for directing me so precisely 
.
Interestingly the indent mentions his "wife" and siblings, but not the two children, so the comment on his record must have at least partially come from an additional source.
Any ideas on the three different ships?
.Interestingly the indent mentions his "wife" and siblings, but not the two children, so the comment on his record must have at least partially come from an additional source.
Any ideas on the three different ships?
8
Australia / significance of comments on convict record
« on: Tuesday 29 December 20 11:29 GMT (UK) »
Scribbled across the bottom of my ancestor Edward Edwin Blythe's convict record is:
"In Description Book of Susan 2, I Watson, Triton. Blythe is stated to have a wife Susan at Woolwich and 2 children, a Brother John and 3 sisters Jemima, Martha and Eliza."
My questions are: all documents state that he was transported on the Susan (departed Plymouth 24/04/1842), so why would he also be in the description books of the Isabella Watson and the Triton, which sailed sightly later? Are description books the same as log books? Was it usual to have family information added on to the record like that, and would the information have come from him or from elsewhere?
Other sources indicate that Susan was his sister-in-law rather than his wife, and he definitely had more siblings than those listed, so I'm curious of whether that was information he gave, or information they had sourced from elsewhere.
Many thanks
"In Description Book of Susan 2, I Watson, Triton. Blythe is stated to have a wife Susan at Woolwich and 2 children, a Brother John and 3 sisters Jemima, Martha and Eliza."
My questions are: all documents state that he was transported on the Susan (departed Plymouth 24/04/1842), so why would he also be in the description books of the Isabella Watson and the Triton, which sailed sightly later? Are description books the same as log books? Was it usual to have family information added on to the record like that, and would the information have come from him or from elsewhere?
Other sources indicate that Susan was his sister-in-law rather than his wife, and he definitely had more siblings than those listed, so I'm curious of whether that was information he gave, or information they had sourced from elsewhere.
Many thanks
9
Family History Beginners Board / Re: significance of "7 years on board a King's ship"
« on: Sunday 12 July 20 10:48 BST (UK) »
So if I'm looking for a HMS, that would just be navy or prison hulks - not a merchant ship - is that right?
His imprisonment 1832 to 1833 was Millbank in London. He lived everywhere from Hull to Westminster to Wrexham, which is impressive in a time before the railways, but makes him hard to track. I only know it's the same person each time because his insolvency records list all these different cities under the same name. Liverpool would have been the nearest port to his birthplace, it was where he was insolvent in 1821 and where he married in 1830, so it seems the best bet for this 'king's ship' clue.
His imprisonment 1832 to 1833 was Millbank in London. He lived everywhere from Hull to Westminster to Wrexham, which is impressive in a time before the railways, but makes him hard to track. I only know it's the same person each time because his insolvency records list all these different cities under the same name. Liverpool would have been the nearest port to his birthplace, it was where he was insolvent in 1821 and where he married in 1830, so it seems the best bet for this 'king's ship' clue.
Pages: [1] 2