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 - DRH123

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 88
One young William Fortt can be seen in the 1861 census at 5 Milsom Street, with his sisters Emma and Emily and cousin Sophia Fisk (head of household absent). He is a Confectioner's Assistant, aged 29, born in Bath and unmarried.

In the same census William K Fortt is at 33 Claremont Buildings, with his wife Emma and several children (one born in USA). He is a carpenter, 29 and born in Surrey.

That is enough to show that Emma's husband is certainly not the son of William and Mary and very likely is the son of John and Maria, (baptised at Southwark, Surrey in Feb 1832).

The other William seems to be living with his brother George in Islington in the 1881 and 1891 censuses, still unmarried. It looks like he never called himself William King Fortt (although there is a squiggle on the 1881 census which Ancestry have transcribed as a C, making him William C Fortt.)
(Oops, that's yet another William, perhaps son of Joseph and Amelia)

(5 Milsom Street is now part of a Waterstone's bookshop but in my youth it was Fortt's Restaurant. So it looks like it stayed in the family until the 1980s.)


According to FreeREG, the marriage to Ruth Fisk was at Ardleigh in Essex on 29 Sep 1847. She was a widow, father Thomas James (a miller). He is shown as William Forth, a widower from Bath and a confectioner. Father John Forth (a mason).

So this William is one of the fathers, the one who was married to Mary Fisk. Ruth presumably being related to Mary by marriage. It doesn't help much with sorting out the sons.

It would seem likely that William King Fortt is the one whose mother's maiden name was King and that the other William never had the middle name.


Derbyshire / Re: Heath Parish Records
« on: Friday 13 January 23 10:05 GMT (UK)  »
It's simpler than that. Ancestry have made a mistake. There are two Chesterfield registers covering that period, one in English, one in Latin. Ancestry have incorrectly assigned the Latin one to Heath. All baptisms that come up as happening at both places only happened at Chesterfield. (The English one probably is a transcription/translation of the other.)

If you go to their search page for Derbyshire registers, , and select Heath it gives you two choices: 1682-1812 and 1712-1760. Only the first is really from Heath. Image 53 gets you to the baptisms around 1750. There are usually less that 10 a year so you can soon check if your Wyatts are there.


Hi, marp.
Some of my Brocksopp ancestors lived at Park Hall/Parkhouses, and one married a Sadler, but my information doesn't seem to quite match yours. Henry Brocksopp (1654-1707) married Mary Marriott from PH in 1681. In 1683 he was the executor and residual beneficiary of a William Marriott, husbandman of PH, and presumably acquired some sort of tenancy at that point. By the time of his death in 1707 he was a yeoman and so had a long term lease, which passed to his son William. William died in 1763 and left his real estate in Pilsley and Parkhouses to his grand son William Sadler, son of his daughter Mary and John Sadler of Allestree, (subject to various payments to other relatives).

So it would seem that either there were two William Sadlers with land at PH at that time, or you've got the wrong parents for your William. As spendlove says, it's quite possible that Parkhouses referred to an area containing several land holdings, and that different Sadlers "owned" different bits of it.


Derbyshire / Re: Heath Parish Records
« on: Saturday 17 December 22 19:44 GMT (UK)  »
It's even more complicated as there are two Chesterfield register whose coverage overlaps. The one you've found assigned to Heath (in Latin) and the other (in English) correctly assigned to Chesterfield. So you can get an event reported as happening at both places.


Somerset Lookup Requests / Re: Rebecca Quail Chard Burial
« on: Saturday 03 December 22 23:57 GMT (UK)  »
It looks like FindMyPast have indexed the missing page. They don't have images but they do have entries for the missing dates, e.g. Elizabeth Woodland 20 Dec 1828. Unfortunately they still don't have Rebecca Quail.


Somerset / Re: FreeReg record. How did the transcriber know?
« on: Tuesday 08 November 22 15:21 GMT (UK)  »
The FreeREG transcription was probably done from microfiche images of the register obtained from the SHC, or digital images scanned from the fiches. The quality of such images can be quite poor but whatever was legible should be fairly accurately reported. Certainly the transcriber will not have made up witnesses that weren't there.

As Gadget reports, images are now available on Ancestry. They show the same witnesses as FreeREG in this case. This raises the question, what "actual record" are you looking at? (The BTs do often omit marriage witnesses.)


Ah, I see you've answered that. Gadget has added the correct set. (A law was brought in in 1754 that marriages had to be recorded in a separate register in a particular format. Ancestry put those registers in a different set. Generally there are no marriages after 1754 in the 1531-1812 set. (Sometimes the parson or clerk continued to enter them for a while in the general register as well as the new one.)

Devon / Re: TREASE/TRAIES continued...
« on: Sunday 30 October 22 09:16 GMT (UK)  »
The St James marriage register is on Ancestry. William Treays and ElizabethMoore, at

You may find the FreeREG site useful. It includes all surviving pre-1837 parish registers from the Bath area and, although not perfect, is usually more accurate than Ancestry. As well as the records you've found they also show a burial for a child Jane Troys in March 1805.

There is also a Mary Trais, aged 60, from St James but buried at the Workhouse in May 1809. (This one Ancestry have got right but FreeREG has "Travis".)


Somerset / Re: I'm probably being thick! FindMyPast disappointment
« on: Saturday 29 October 22 19:01 BST (UK)  »
The entry has been altered, with Simon added later. It is possible that only Mary was born on the stated date, but both children baptised. This is very likely the Simon who was born two years earlier, since he was privately baptised at the time. There is no mention of Joseph.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 88