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 - Rob T

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
Derbyshire / Re: Robert Tomlinson 1814 of Butterley - update
« on: Sunday 29 November 20 21:19 GMT (UK)  »
In a previous post on this topic, I suggested I favoured the Mary Ann Tomlinson born 29 Jun 1793, father Isaac Tomlinson, as the mother of my Robert Tomlinson who was bapt at Pentrich on the 10th Jun 1820.

As anticipated, the records show that Robert was the illegit son of Mary Tomlinson of Butterley Park.

I followed up on Isaac Tomlinson who was buried at Pentrich in Jan 1838, at the age of 99. Supporting information shows that the informant of his death was his grand-daughter Elizabeth Johnson. This would be the Elizabeth Johnson who married Joseph Peach later that year at Shirland.

I've attached a pdf showing how the various pieces of evidence I've collected relate to each other. Taking all this into account, I'm now satisfied that Mary Ann Tomlinson born 1793 is my 3xgreat grandmother, and that Isaac Tomlinson, born abt 1740, is my 4xgreat grandfather.

Many thanks for your support in unravelling this puzzle.

Of course, that only opens up other questions!
Rob

2
I have a number of separate trees, but Ancestry doesn't have the facility to join them together. I have a version of Family Tree Maker which used to sync with the online trees, but no longer.
I ended up exporting them all from Ancestry as gedcom files and patching them together in FTM before copying it back as a new combined tree. Problem is the media files don't get transferred, but the structure should catch any matches.

I imagine the quality of the matches are only as good as the family trees that are on the site.

I sent off my test 2 weeks ago (to Dublin), but it's still not shown as being received. I read somewhere that tests are collected before being shipped on to America in a batch. Hope they haven't lost it.
Rob

3
Cumberland / Re: Fire at pottery near Maryport, about 1907
« on: Tuesday 02 July 19 01:01 BST (UK)  »
It's tales such as these that bring our ancestors to life, as well as making our research much more interesting.

4
Cumberland / Re: Fire at pottery near Maryport, about 1907
« on: Monday 01 July 19 01:17 BST (UK)  »
It looks like Mary Jane Whillans was the widow of George Whillans, builder, who died March 1906.

5
Cumberland / Re: Fire at pottery near Maryport, about 1907
« on: Monday 01 July 19 00:40 BST (UK)  »
Thank you so much, cristeen. That is an absolutely brilliant find.

6
Cumberland / Re: Fire at pottery near Maryport, about 1907
« on: Sunday 30 June 19 23:02 BST (UK)  »
Many thanks, giblet and maddy. David and Amy had a daughter in Whitehaven in 1902, and their first son was born in Dearham in 1904. As they had moved to Chesterfield by late 1908, they would likely have lived in Dearham for no more than 5 years. It would seem logical, particularly in that era, for the family to live close to the place of work, so the Dearham pottery link is very interesting.
For the record, the Milton Pottery at Hoyland opened as a separate entity in 1911, having developed as an extension of a previous brickmaking business, and closed in 1934,  shortly after David's death aged 58.

7
Cumberland / Fire at pottery near Maryport, about 1907
« on: Saturday 29 June 19 23:52 BST (UK)  »
I was wondering if anyone had any information about a fire that destroyed a pottery, situated near Maryport, probably about 1907.
Family lore has it that my grandfather, David Keir, owned a pottery that was destroyed by fire, after which he relocated to find employment in the industry.
David and his wife, Amy Louise, came from Whitehaven but had 3 sons in Dearham. The last of these was registered in April 1907 while the family was living at Pleasant View, Dearham. Grandfather's occupation was given as "earthenware manufacturer", suggesting he was an owner.
By November 1908 the family was living in Chesterfield, where another son was born. Grandfather's occupation this time was "potter's thrower", suggesting he was employed.
Hopefully, someone will be able to cast some light on this. Many thanks.

8
Thanks for all the suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't have any obvious candidates that fit that timescale so, for now at least, it will have to remain a mystery. Kind regards, Rob.

9
Having done some further research, I think I can answer part of my original query. Boys were commonly dressed in frocks up to the age of 3 or 4 years, up to and beyond WW1.

The reason I asked this was that I was wondering if the Gibson photo could be of my grandfather, David Keir, with his parents. He was born in March 1876, so the photo would have to be from about 1877.

Does anyone have a view whether or not this could be feasible?
Kind regards.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5