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 - Kendra71

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 18
1
England / Re: The Three Sisters Slater
« on: Friday 16 February 24 08:41 GMT (UK)  »
Here is a picture of the three of them, circa 1905 (from the British Newspaper Archive)...

2
England / Re: The Three Sisters Slater
« on: Friday 16 February 24 08:14 GMT (UK)  »
You’re all amazing. I don’t know where to start…

Mckha489, the name change explains a lot. I couldn’t make sense of why I was getting stuck. Sister acts were very popular at the time, but all have catchy or familiar names. Sleightholm to Slater makes sense. I only included the Hackford Rd address as an after-thought…

CaroleW, thanks also for the pointer towards FreeBMD. I keep forgetting that it is there wven though the search tools and results display are so much more powerful than anything else I access.


3
England / The Three Sisters Slater
« on: Thursday 15 February 24 19:58 GMT (UK)  »
Hello, I need some help please. I am researching a music hall act called the “Three Sisters Slater”, active from circa 1890 to 1914. The sisters’ names or stage names were Maude, Lizzie and Edie. Maude joined them from a different troupe in 1894. I think they were genuine sisters - when they toured the US in 1895, they gave these as their passenger names.

The reliable outbound record (Liverpool to NY) was as follows:
Arrive NY 16th March 1895.
Maude Slater, born c1874
Lizzie Slater, c1875
Edie Slater, c1876
Nationality for all was English.

Confusingly, on their return to Liverpool, their names were noted differently (although I think the person writing may just have been deaf!).
Maude, Lily, Emily.
Other details the same.

I have this much and a lot of info on show dates, but can’t find the sisters themselves.
One of them at least was living or working at 93 Hackford Road, Brixton, London in circa 1910.





4
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: 1826 letter
« on: Sunday 01 October 23 11:25 BST (UK)  »
Hollander, thank you! (that was quick!)
Best wishes

5
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: 1826 letter
« on: Sunday 01 October 23 11:05 BST (UK)  »
Thank you all for your help with these queries. "impossible" fits perfectly, and the suggestions of "accuity / acuity" also fit, in the sense of clarity and sharpness. Sorry for the slow response - I missed the notifications that I had a reply.

I have one other request in the same hand please, and it's something to do with 'malice'. The letter dates to about 1831 and is English:
"...from being exposed. I have heard your Lordship tell a certain Peer in the House of Lords that his language was malice [_______]. I can safely say..."

6
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: 1826 letter
« on: Monday 25 September 23 08:58 BST (UK)  »
I have one other query from the same letter please. Do you have any thoughts on what this word might be?

"Return the
enclosed &
acquaint him that
it is [_______] for me
to enter into the communication
of any questions at..."

7
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / 1826 letter
« on: Monday 25 September 23 08:30 BST (UK)  »
Hello, I am reading an 1826 letter from an English army officer. I have made sense of most of it, but I am struggling with one word. My own ideas make no sense. Do you have any thoughts please?

"...removed from the Regiment to gain [_____] for himself but he was mistaken. I should have published..."

8
Hi Bookbox, I thought I'd follow up after your helpful response. I did what you suggested - contacted the experts at the National Archives, and described my problem.

They've given one solution and one suggestion - 

1. "Although June 1804 did indeed fall within Trinity Term 44 Geo III the relevant Plea Roll may be for an earlier term, as the Plea Roll was created at the start of the court process, not at the point of judgment." Using this logic, they've helped me find the entry in the earlier term's records.

2. For my second one, they've suggested that because there were multiple defendants, maybe it is listed under a name other than the first (I hadn't thought of that). The other option is that it was recorded by the Crown rather than civil side of the court, which means more docket books but might yet provide an answer.

Anyway, thanks for your advice. 

9
Westmeath / Re: Reynell (married in 1794)
« on: Wednesday 01 February 23 20:35 GMT (UK)  »
Queenie, I’m replying on my phone so will have to pick through your wonderful response later. You’re right about her husband’s death - sorry that was my typo. I’m delighted with what you’ve told me here. Thank you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 18