RootsChat.Com

I'm doing a history course on Victorian country history, and am looking for some information. I have some details of my husband's great great grandparents, James and Hester Collyer who, on the 1871 census were recorded as being a 'farmer of 50 acres' (in 1881, 54 acres) at Woolfords Farm, in Elstead. However, looking at excerpts from a book called 'Elstead Then and Now'  by Gillian Drew, there's no mention at all of a Woolfords Farm, in any century, though the name comes up occasionally on modern property websites. I'm assuming that James would have been a tenant farmer, rather than a landowner but, what I'd like to find out if possible is who owned the farm, was there a manor house or 'big house'/gentry involved, and what sort of farm it was i.e what would have been grown or raised there. A lot to ask for, I know, but my husband (sadly, no longer with us) knew nothing of these forebears, and I have no contact with the person who originally passed the information to my mother-in-law years ago. Any help or suggestions where I could look, would be much appreciated.

I'm trying to put details together of my husband's grandfather's time in the army in WW1. He was originally enlisted in Surrey, into the Queens Regiment in 1914, but by 1918, was training as a riding instructor at Woolwich - we have an official printed card with a list of those in training. A family story tells that he and his horse were billeted in a Norfolk village just outside Norwich, as he returned from the war, where he met his eventual wife. I've often wondered WHY Norfolk but, on re-reading the card, he is listed as being from (I assume) "64th D.A.C., Norwich". Googling, I can't find any mention of such a division in the county, the only 64th division I can at all find being the Highlanders, and there doesn't seem to be a record of them being in Norfolk or Surrey. At the moment, I can't even reference the Norfolk CC photo archive, because they're revamping it. Any ideas? Anyone know anything about the army being in that county? It's not at all vital to his story, but would be nice to know if possible.

My paternal grandfather had the surname Bruce but, not long before he died (in 1957), he told my parents that his surname had been Boost; he changed it when he ran away to join the army when he was officially too young. Once I started researching our family history, it didn't take long to find out that wasn't true. His surname at birth and baptism in 1894 was Boost, and so it is on his birth certificate (in my possession), but it wasn't made out until 1912.  However, I was unable to find his family - parents and siblings - on the 1901 and 1911 censuses under the name Boost, and eventually found them using the name Bruce. I went back to his parents and grandparents, and found that they, too, changed from Boost to Bruce at various times. In case anyone thinks otherwise, I have checked carefully names of parents and siblings, employment, places of residence and matched them with birth/marriage/death certificates.  What puzzles me is, why keep changing? It's not that the surname has been mis-recorded, because the 1911 census was filled in by the householder. (Incidentally, my grandfather's writing of his signature on his short service attestation is SO like my father's writing, and my great-grandfather's signature on the 1911 census is just like mine!). So, I'm not looking for any more names or 'evidence' - the actual names are irrelevant in a way. Any ideas why those three generations might have kept changing the surname? The previous generation kept firmly to Boost. Suggestions very welcome, really just because, if there was a particular reason, I'd love to find it!

The brother of my paternal grandfather, Sydney George Archer b 1903, was recorded as being in Edmonton, Middlesex. However, I know that my great-grandparents and my grandfather travelled to Calcutta, India in 1904, when my grandfather was around 3 years old. From passenger records I've found, it's possible that GGM and the children returned in 1909, with GGF travelling separately. Two questions - would births of British nationals be recorded with a consul or somesuch, and/or was it possible to register such a birth when the family returned to Britain? Anyone got any ideas?

My mother has told me that her paternal grandparents lived in India for a while, and that her grandfather was an engineer. I have tracked down their return to the country in June 1897, travelling from Bombay to London on the Caledonia, and they're listed as Private and Mrs Archer. I have no idea if my great-grandfather was an engineer in the army, or became one after leaving. What I'd love to find out, if possible, is when they went out there (they were only 25 and 22 when they returned), and whether they went out together, or separately, and if they met out there. I do know, though, that they weren't actually married until after they got back to England - shock!  Not sure I'll tell my Mum that! I can't think where to start looking. His name was Horace George Archer, born 1873 in Greenwich; her name was Harriet Ellen Archer nee Bell, born 1877 in Kimberley, Nottinghamshire.  Any help would be much appreciated.