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.


Messages - jettejjane

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 235
1
Sussex / Re: John Redman c.1797 and William Redman c. 1798 - Marriages?
« on: Friday 04 December 20 15:44 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks Artifis and ColC.

Since posting I have discovered that William married the Elizabeth belonging to Henry and Elizabeth. Her brother Edward Burchell had a Grocers shop, she and William worked as grocers  according to census. In 1857 Kelly's William is listed as  Shopkeeper with an entry for Edward Burchall Grocers Shop.  Without being too long winded everything fits.

Regarding the 1831 marriage I think its the lady born to John and Hannah.  I discounted  the  1792 as it would make her 54 when she gave birth to a daughter.  Not impossible but my gut says no. A witness to  marriage was  Zephaniah Greenfield who is related to John's stepmother, Jane Redman, formerly Greenfield.

So my mission should I choose to accept it is to  find out about John and Hannah Burchall.


2
Sussex / John Redman c.1797 and William Redman c. 1798 - Marriages?
« on: Thursday 03 December 20 14:39 GMT (UK)  »
I am totally confused in need of a fresh pair of eyes ::)  Have I gone down a wrong road? 

John and William are brothers born in Billingshurst, sons of  my Gt x 3 Grandfather Edward and Hannah Redman. Both baptised in adulthood in 1827 General Baptists Billingshurst.
 
A  John married Elizabeth Burchall 9 May 1831 Billingshurst, which I always though correct
.
Then I found a  William married Elizabeth Burchell 6 Apr 1822 West Chiltington.

Note the subtle difference in Elizabeth's surname one has e and other a probably just mis-transcription. 

Found 2 poss births for Elizabeth . 1806 Billingshurst - parents Hannah and John . 1804 Billingshurst  - parents  Henry & Elizabeth.

Have birth details for children of John and William,  and census which do show both brothers wives are Elizabeth.  But maybe they are not brothers?   

3
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 22:15 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: chris_49 on Monday 30 November 20 21:42 GMT (UK)
Just because there are no sources on my Ancestry tree doesn't mean I don't have them....

Yeah me too. For fear of repeating myself, we do this for ourselves not for others. I saw the tree that started this thread , regardless if their finds were sourced or not I did my own check, but if people enjoy taking from trees and adding to theirs without checks it will always annoy me but tbh it’s nothing to do with me.

I am sure there are many researchers starting out who will, like I did, see i tree and take it to be their ancestors. They will learn like I did to check and read check and repeat this every now and again.

4
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 20:36 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: groom on Monday 30 November 20 20:21 GMT (UK)
Quote from: pharmaT on Monday 30 November 20 20:07 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Annie65115 on Monday 30 November 20 19:56 GMT (UK)
Pharma, many pages back in this thread I referenced an Ancestry tree which I'd come across, which had more than 800,000 names and only 2 attached sources.

If you have nearly 1000 attached sources on your tree, I really don't think that anyone is going to put you in the same bracket as the tree I found. Do you? Has anyone said to you, "Pharma, you've only got 900+ sources, that's clearly an under-resourced and probably dodgy tree"? I doubt it!



atm I have fewer sources on my tree than I do people.  I have many sources just stored elsewhere

So what, that is no one's business but yours! There is no right or wrong way, if you choose to store sources elsewhere, that is up to you. Even if people have sources attached to their online tree it doesn't mean their tree is right, it just means they have chosen to accept that source. Stop worrying what other people think and just do what you want and what is best for you.

Well I have no sources so I must be a rubbish researcher. Who cares.

5
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 19:30 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: groom on Monday 30 November 20 19:24 GMT (UK)
Quote
So frustrating guess just need to accept that people see me as someone who doesn't care about doing research properly because continuing to upload all my sources seems pointless if they're just going to disappear, complete waste of time.

For goodness sake, Pharma, why are you blaming yourself when it is obviously an Ancestry glitch. From the Facebook group where I'm an admin this sort of thing is happening a lot lately. People enter things that disappear, or they appear several times. No one who looks at their tree thinks they don't care, in fact  the only person who is bothered is the person who's tree is mucked up. If it keeps happening contact Ancestry.

You put into words what I wanted to say Groom. I am in process of doing my tree, no sources and I don’t give a you know what what others think. It’s my tree to manage as I see fit.

6
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 17:13 GMT (UK)  »
Hard to imagine in days gone by a flash of a well turned ankle was considered risqué. I love the sound of Your postcards Brigidmac .  I also agree it doesn’t matter what your ancestors have or haven’t done just finding them is enough for me.

Large families tended to be the norm but your Great Aunt took it to another level :o but I suppose there wasn’t much to do back then and the woman’s role in many cases was to have endless children, keep the home, work hard..........  Some modern women have it easy ;)

7
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 15:22 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Annie65115 on Monday 30 November 20 14:19 GMT (UK)
Jettejane - I have to admit that if it were me, I probably wouldn't tell them as when I've tried that in the past, I've rarely been acknowledged and never believed.

But if you did, then rather than telling them you were wrong, perhaps you could frame it that you have found this (whatever the recent proof is), was interested to see that they descended from the same line and would appreciate discussing it with someone?


I agree. I have tried in the past to help others and did it very tactfully. Few answered and those that did didn’t believe me but they had no explanation for the wrong information recorded.

Very possibly this tree owner will not welcome my comments no matter how nice I am.

8
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 13:53 GMT (UK)  »
I have lots of black sheep and I am not at all ashamed. Like Viktoria I don’t yearn to be connected to nobility. My best Black Sheep is a murderer. Killed 2 wives, 2 strangers and injured many more including all of his 4 wives. 1882 Indiana. Was mudered himself by a lynch mob while awaiting trail for murder of his child wife they sprung him from Jail.

Not that I am condoning what he did but it was an exciting find, all true and verified plus I had article published in genealogy publication about it.  He is the grandson of my Gt x 3 and his second wife.

9
The Common Room / Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« on: Monday 30 November 20 13:43 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: groom on Monday 30 November 20 12:17 GMT (UK)
What now Jettejane - are you going to tell them? I doubt very much if they will want to believe you. If their tree is on Ancestry, you can believe you can leave a message under the wrong father, saying why that is wrong. At least then it is flagged up for others to see and decide.

I am not sure about telling them but on other hand I would want to know and all I have found can be verified.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 235